An 11-year old girl died on Sunday after her parents chose to pray for her health rather than take her to a doctor.
This sort of thing, while by no means an every day occurrence, is frighteningly common, and frighteningly legal. 44 states have inserted an exemption clause into their neglect and abuse laws to protect the rights or parents to seek out alternative spiritual help rather than medical attention.
Now, if a child died because their parents were neglectful drug addicts, it would be criminal neglect. Their other children would likely be removed from the home and placed in protective custody. In cases like these, however, it is a matter of faith, and in most cases the parents will not be prosecuted.
Each and every one of these laws ought to be repealed immediately, and parents who let their child die because they refused medical treatment for their children for any reason ought to be in jail.
So I guess you're not a big fan of the "freedom of religion" part of the Constitution?
Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, has limits. For instance, the Constitution does not protect my right to hold a human sacrifice as part of a religious ritual. Violation of rights is never protected.
Freedom of religion is something each person exercises for themselves. It's my right to decide whether I should go to the doctor or pray. It's not my right to make this decision for another person.
Once the religious beliefs are imposed on the child, surely it's no longer "freedom"?
"We just noticed a tiredness within the past two weeks," she said Wednesday. "And then just the day before and that day (she died), it suddenly just went to a more serious situation. We stayed fast in prayer then. We believed that she would recover. We saw signs that to us, it looked like she was recovering."
So... the girl had been tired for 2 weeks... it got worse, they started praying, they thought it was getting better, and she died.
I don't understand how "property" has anything to do with this conversation, no one had even mentioned it. Also, the law generally keeps you from ACTING to harm someone, not from inaction. Your "sacrificing" analogy does not hold to anything that happened.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
"We just noticed a tiredness within the past two weeks," she said Wednesday. "And then just the day before and that day (she died), it suddenly just went to a more serious situation. We stayed fast in prayer then. We believed that she would recover. We saw signs that to us, it looked like she was recovering."
So... the girl had been tired for 2 weeks... it got worse, they started praying, they thought it was getting better, and she died.
Yes. She got worse. That is the point at which medical attention is necessary.
Also, the law generally keeps you from ACTING to harm someone, not from inaction.
Every state has neglect laws. Inaction is very much covered by the law in the case of a parent-child relationship.
Your "sacrificing" analogy does not hold to anything that happened.
That's because it wasn't an analogy. It was an example.
Ok, so "Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, has limits." No one is disputing that. Why do you think that a parent should be forced to take their child to the doctor, especially when they think she's getting better?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Why do you think that a parent should be forced to take their child to the doctor, especially when they think she's getting better?
1) Because a parent is charged with the duty of protecting their children while the children cannot protect themselves.
2) Because the parent is not in the position to decide if the child is getting better. I also doubt the parents' account that the child was getting better. The girl died of complications from diabetes; the symptoms tend not to just go away before the child dies.
And at any rate, the real purpose of this thread is to discuss the principle of the thing, not the individual case. The details of this case are not particularly relevant.
Parents should not be able to ignore obvious venues for improving the health of their child, so long as we think of it as important that children don't die.
There's no argument here, unless you want to say that you couldn't hold them to the reasonable person standard ('special reasons' requirement of rationality). But surely, the "doctor answer" would occur to anyone who doesn't live under a rock, so I don't see where that's going.
... or unless you want to change our moral principles from ones where children staying alive is always a good thing.
EDIT: Pssst, this is why Dawkins hates religion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Ok, so "Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, has limits." No one is disputing that. Why do you think that a parent should be forced to take their child to the doctor, especially when they think she's getting better?
Because they are not medical professionals and they do not know whether or not the child is actually sick. They have rights to chose what to do with their children, but I believe that they do not deserve the right to make decisions that would endanger the basic rights of the child because, as already stated, the child is not the property of the parents.
Once the religious beliefs are imposed on the child, surely it's no longer "freedom"?
As if children were free! And completely uninfluenced by their parents!
This overemphasis on individual rights is getting tiring. It should be obvious that 11-year-olds aren't in a good position to decide on their medical needs, regardless of whether a few 30-year-olds are similarly incompetent.
While a parent is placed in the position of power with respect to the child, and has the de-facto right to make decisions on behalf of the child, that doesn't mean the parent should be immune to the consequences of wrong decisions. No matter whether it was religion or stupidity that led to the wrong decision.
This overemphasis on individual rights is getting tiring. It should be obvious that 11-year-olds aren't in a good position to decide on their medical needs, regardless of whether a few 30-year-olds are similarly incompetent.
You're right. The child shouldn't decide whether or not s/he is sick. Nor should the parents. You need an unbiased medical professional to tell you if the kid is sick, and if s/he is, you chose from the responsible options given. Get a second opinion if you want, or a third or a fourth.
So I guess you're not a big fan of the "freedom of religion" part of the Constitution?
I'm more of a 'freedom FROM religion' sort of guy. But even starting with 'freedom of religion' the idea that parents have a right to kill their children based on *their* freedom of religion is pretty sick...
So if my child has a fever of 101, I need to take them to the doctor right away, because I'm in no position to judge their health, or whether they're getting better?
To DK: My parents aren't allowed to take me skydiving or bunjee-jumping because that would "endanger [my] basic rights"? Hmm, makes no sense to me.
Parents should not be able to ignore obvious venues for improving the health of their child, so long as we think of it as important that children don't die.
They weren't ignoring praying. Oh wait, this is where you were imposing your religious views on them, right?
I usually detest the man, but I'm starting to see his point.
Quote from Sutherlands »
So if my child has a fever of 101, I need to take them to the doctor right away, because I'm in no position to judge their health, or whether they're getting better?
A fever of 101 is drastically different from the symptoms this girl was likely displaying. But at any rate, it is your responsibility to treat the child with medication to break the fever and whatever else may be wrong.
This seems similar to Jehovah's witness people refusing to let thier children have operations and such when blood transfusions would be necessary. Religion is such a messy subject... anyways...
I think if the child's life or general well being is in danger parents should be forced to get them help, regardless of thier own personal beliefs. The child clearly can't get help for themselves. A parents duty is to insure the best for thier child, not neglect thier health for the sake of thier own personal beliefs.
This, to me, is a sad facet of religion. While I don't believe that you can -force- someone to undergo medical treatment (witnessess and transfusion, anyone?), I do believe that we should do everything in our power to convince people that proper medical treatment is the correct approach.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Greedy Artists make me sick.
I propose that anyone offended by their commentary about Richie ("Good riddance that he is dead", ect.) NEVER credit these artists on custom cards where their art is used.
My cards will all have ComboFTW as the artist from now on.
T2: Such as obesity, perhaps? Any reason you're not leading a crusade to throw all the parents in jail who allow their children to get fat?
Combo: I don't agree with these people, and if it were my child I would take them to the doctor. The question is whether they have the right to do it or not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Combo: I don't agree with these people, and if it were my child I would take them to the doctor. The question is whether they have the right to do it or not.
Of course they have the right to do it (I may not have made that clear enough in my post), but it is a right I would rather not see them exercise the right. EVER.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Greedy Artists make me sick.
I propose that anyone offended by their commentary about Richie ("Good riddance that he is dead", ect.) NEVER credit these artists on custom cards where their art is used.
My cards will all have ComboFTW as the artist from now on.
I recall the old story about a man who was trapped on the roof of his house by rising flood waters. Now, this man was very devout, and he prayed to God for deliverance from the flood. Shortly thereafter, some neighbors in a boat floated by and said, "Get into the boat with us!" But the man replied, "No, you go on; God will rescue me." And the flood waters continued to rise; and the man continued to pray. When the waters had nearly reached the peak of the roof, a helicopter flew overhead and dropped a rope ladder to the man. "Grab on, we'll save you!" called the people from the helicopter. But the man refused, saying, "No, God will rescue me." And the people in the helicopter could only watch in frustration as the man was finally swept away.
Of course, he drowned; and when he came before God he asked, "I prayed and prayed... why didn't you rescue me?" And God answered, "Why didn't you get on the boat or the helicopter I sent you?"
From a theological perspective, I am baffled by the density of people who believe that God's provision can only come in the form of overt miracles. (Prayer should be the first and last, but never the only, resort.) And from a legal perspective, I believe that these parents should be in some way held accountable for their daughter's death; but the line being walked here is a very fine one -- not only in regards to religious freedom, but as concerns any parents whose children die for lack of proper medical care. American does not have universal health care; some people are quite unable to afford hospital costs, and may take their children to the E.R. only as a last resort, when a condition that earlier could've been easily treated has already become terminal.
Pssst, Dawkins is not an omniscient being, and has absolutely no relevence in this discussion unless you're trying to invoke a logical fallacy.
Okay, you're right. I probably shouldn't have said anything (or at least phrased it in a different way. And not brought Dawkins into this).
But now I have to respond to PandasRPeople2, and say, perhaps not, but this one irrational act is only made possible by the existence of religion (actually theism, specifically).
Steven Weinberg wrote that "... without [religion] you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
This sort of thing, while by no means an every day occurrence, is frighteningly common, and frighteningly legal. 44 states have inserted an exemption clause into their neglect and abuse laws to protect the rights or parents to seek out alternative spiritual help rather than medical attention.
Now, if a child died because their parents were neglectful drug addicts, it would be criminal neglect. Their other children would likely be removed from the home and placed in protective custody. In cases like these, however, it is a matter of faith, and in most cases the parents will not be prosecuted.
Each and every one of these laws ought to be repealed immediately, and parents who let their child die because they refused medical treatment for their children for any reason ought to be in jail.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, has limits. For instance, the Constitution does not protect my right to hold a human sacrifice as part of a religious ritual. Violation of rights is never protected.
Once the religious beliefs are imposed on the child, surely it's no longer "freedom"?
So... the girl had been tired for 2 weeks... it got worse, they started praying, they thought it was getting better, and she died.
I don't understand how "property" has anything to do with this conversation, no one had even mentioned it. Also, the law generally keeps you from ACTING to harm someone, not from inaction. Your "sacrificing" analogy does not hold to anything that happened.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Yes. She got worse. That is the point at which medical attention is necessary.
Every state has neglect laws. Inaction is very much covered by the law in the case of a parent-child relationship.
That's because it wasn't an analogy. It was an example.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
1) Because a parent is charged with the duty of protecting their children while the children cannot protect themselves.
2) Because the parent is not in the position to decide if the child is getting better. I also doubt the parents' account that the child was getting better. The girl died of complications from diabetes; the symptoms tend not to just go away before the child dies.
And at any rate, the real purpose of this thread is to discuss the principle of the thing, not the individual case. The details of this case are not particularly relevant.
There's no argument here, unless you want to say that you couldn't hold them to the reasonable person standard ('special reasons' requirement of rationality). But surely, the "doctor answer" would occur to anyone who doesn't live under a rock, so I don't see where that's going.
... or unless you want to change our moral principles from ones where children staying alive is always a good thing.
EDIT: Pssst, this is why Dawkins hates religion.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Because they are not medical professionals and they do not know whether or not the child is actually sick. They have rights to chose what to do with their children, but I believe that they do not deserve the right to make decisions that would endanger the basic rights of the child because, as already stated, the child is not the property of the parents.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
As if children were free! And completely uninfluenced by their parents!
This overemphasis on individual rights is getting tiring. It should be obvious that 11-year-olds aren't in a good position to decide on their medical needs, regardless of whether a few 30-year-olds are similarly incompetent.
You're right. The child shouldn't decide whether or not s/he is sick. Nor should the parents. You need an unbiased medical professional to tell you if the kid is sick, and if s/he is, you chose from the responsible options given. Get a second opinion if you want, or a third or a fourth.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
I'm more of a 'freedom FROM religion' sort of guy. But even starting with 'freedom of religion' the idea that parents have a right to kill their children based on *their* freedom of religion is pretty sick...
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
To DK: My parents aren't allowed to take me skydiving or bunjee-jumping because that would "endanger [my] basic rights"? Hmm, makes no sense to me.
They weren't ignoring praying. Oh wait, this is where you were imposing your religious views on them, right?
Pssst, Dawkins is not an omniscient being, and has absolutely no relevence in this discussion unless you're trying to invoke a logical fallacy.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Thank God we have clauses about what a reasonable man would think in our laws.
(no pun intended about the God thing)
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
Well, the law passed, so I'm not sure how you think the "reasonable person" thing goes to prove your point.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I usually detest the man, but I'm starting to see his point.
A fever of 101 is drastically different from the symptoms this girl was likely displaying. But at any rate, it is your responsibility to treat the child with medication to break the fever and whatever else may be wrong.
I think if the child's life or general well being is in danger parents should be forced to get them help, regardless of thier own personal beliefs. The child clearly can't get help for themselves. A parents duty is to insure the best for thier child, not neglect thier health for the sake of thier own personal beliefs.
also: What 6 states don't have such laws?
I propose that anyone offended by their commentary about Richie ("Good riddance that he is dead", ect.) NEVER credit these artists on custom cards where their art is used.
My cards will all have ComboFTW as the artist from now on.
Combo: I don't agree with these people, and if it were my child I would take them to the doctor. The question is whether they have the right to do it or not.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Of course they have the right to do it (I may not have made that clear enough in my post), but it is a right I would rather not see them exercise the right. EVER.
I propose that anyone offended by their commentary about Richie ("Good riddance that he is dead", ect.) NEVER credit these artists on custom cards where their art is used.
My cards will all have ComboFTW as the artist from now on.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
Of course, he drowned; and when he came before God he asked, "I prayed and prayed... why didn't you rescue me?" And God answered, "Why didn't you get on the boat or the helicopter I sent you?"
From a theological perspective, I am baffled by the density of people who believe that God's provision can only come in the form of overt miracles. (Prayer should be the first and last, but never the only, resort.) And from a legal perspective, I believe that these parents should be in some way held accountable for their daughter's death; but the line being walked here is a very fine one -- not only in regards to religious freedom, but as concerns any parents whose children die for lack of proper medical care. American does not have universal health care; some people are quite unable to afford hospital costs, and may take their children to the E.R. only as a last resort, when a condition that earlier could've been easily treated has already become terminal.
Because, of course, religion is uniformly so irrational.
Okay, you're right. I probably shouldn't have said anything (or at least phrased it in a different way. And not brought Dawkins into this).
But now I have to respond to PandasRPeople2, and say, perhaps not, but this one irrational act is only made possible by the existence of religion (actually theism, specifically).
Steven Weinberg wrote that "... without [religion] you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].