does one have to be religous to w/h medical treatment from a child?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by strollingbones, Apr 1, 2009.

  1. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,559
    Thanks Received:
    15,607
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,870
    a mother witholds medication from her son. does she have the right to do this?
    many people withhold medical treatment from their kids in the name of religion, is there a difference in doing it for personal reasons or doing it for religous reasons?

    Mom Faces Charges After Boy Dies Of Cancer - Local News Story - WCVB Boston

    Investigators later learned that most of Jeremy's prescriptions went unfilled and that LaBrie had canceled at least a dozen of Jeremy’s medical appointments. Police in Salem, where LaBrie lived at the time, charged her with child endangerment.

    Father Eric Fraser said Tuesday that his son’s death was unnecessary and unfair. He blamed LaBrie for failing to administer the cancer medication to their son.

    “He doesn’t deserve any of this,” said Fraser. “He’s an innocent boy that relied on his mother.”

    LaBrie’s lawyer has not asserted any religious beliefs or alternative treatments.
     
  2. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    In my opinion, she had far too much control over such a matter. Some might complain of "state intrusion" if there were to be government intervention in such a manner to ensure that the boy received proper medical treatment, but that would be a lesser imposition of "tyranny" than her abusing the hierarchical authority of guardianship that she had to permit him to die.

    Parents in general have an excessive amount of control over the medical procedures and treatment of their children, as far as I'm concerned. It's certainly unjust to impose a standard of liability on a person whilst allowing their dependents to do whatever they please, but many underage people are effectively in a state of forced dependency through the combined impositions of compulsory schooling and child labor laws.
     
  3. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    As much as I support parent's rights and believe the government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong when it comes to our children, medical treatment is the exception. Not even a parent's religious convictions should preclude medical treatment to a child.
     
  4. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,559
    Thanks Received:
    15,607
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,870
    ahhh auditor that is the double edge sword...you can with hold life saving treatment for religous reasons....if one is allowed why not the other...
     
  5. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    The former shouldn't be allowed, but forcible government intervention shouldn't always be the standard either. As insanely radical an idea this might sound, why not consult the persons directly affected? Certainly, this particular case might have required external intervention as a result of his autism, but we too often assume that the young are incapable of making informed or rational decisions about their own medical treatment, as evidenced by a long and idiotic thread filled with grotesque clowns vilifying a Planned Parenthood nurse for attempting to help an underage person obtain an abortion without parental notification or consent.
     
  6. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218

    I disagree with parents having the right to withhold medical treatment due to religious reasons, so I'm not going to support either. What is funny is that most who support withholding of medical treatment for religious reasons are the same who are also are against abortion.

    Now, there are certain situations where I would support a parents right to withhold medical treatment from their children. That would be in the case of a child having a terminal disease where medical treatment would only proglong their lives for a very short time. I've seen how grueling and painful some of those treatments are, and going through them just to prolong someone's life by a couple of months is not worth the pain and suffering. But what we see many times is parents choosing to withhold treatment, on religious grounds, where those treatments would actually save the child's life. In many cases, it's a simple issue of just giving the child some antibiotics.

    Freedom of Religion or State-Sanctioned Child Abuse? - TIME
     

Share This Page