Personal Liberties and Parental Rights

 The whole religious thing really boggles my  mind.  I honestly don't know what I think.  Generally, Americans are against circumcision of females, but we routinely circumsize our male children.  What about the 17 year old who wanted to choose his own cancer treatment?  Isn't that old enough to decide for himself?  I have no idea where to draw that line.  There's that photographer that takes the pics of the infants as flowers, fruit, etc.  Some of them are naked, is that wrong?  Should it be banned?  It's not sexual and they're pretty pictures.  But then, as the child ages, it starts to get alot more fuzzy.  Blood transfusions for, what, I'm drawing a blank here, the religion that bars it.  Is it okay for the government to force our beliefs onto them?  Then you've got the extreme of the polygamists and the marriage of 12 year olds.  It's tough.

There are many cases of parents refusing medical care for their children that has nothing to do with religion at all. Immunization is one that comes to mind. There is also a case in Ontario right now where a father refused to continue chemo for his 12 yr old son. His reason was that the treatment made the child extremely ill. The court ordered the child to be treated and gave custody to the Children's Aid.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080513/Parental_rights_090513?s_name=&no_ads=

I believe the freedom of religion only applies if is does not run counter to the laws of the land or 'reasonable accommodation' can be applied. That is my impression at any rate. 

sillysally

I'm Christian and if a bunch of Christians refuse to get their kids medical care I'd have just as much of an issue with it.  It has nothing to do with the religion in question, it has to do with the best interests of the child, which IMHO are to be alive and as healthy as possible.

But as strong and sure as you are in your beliefs, Christian Scientists are just as strong and sure in their beliefs. Where you believe that the child's best interest is to be alive and healthy as possible, they believe that the child's best interest is to be healed by prayer, faith and God. To be healed as Jesus healed. To truly allow God's will. It's totally understandable that your beliefs are right for your children, but shouldn't they also be allowed that their beliefs are right for theirs? Why should they have to take up Christian beliefs when they are not Christians?

 All good arguments on both sides, and one reason why we have courts, eh? 

(Really, it's safer under the desk.)
 

 I find myself looking at this problem less as parents rights versus governments, and more as what rights a child should have as a human being.  Does a parent have the right to tell a kid no they aren't getting a life saving blood transfusion even though the kid themselves might be for it?  Does a parent have the right to marry off a kid to someone they don't want simply on the principle of religion? 

I guess it all comes down to when kids are viewed as mature enough to make their own decisions.  This is actually one of the things I find very troubling about the U.S.  For instance a 12 year old is not old enough legally to choose to drink, drive a  car, or see a pg-13 movie on their own.  But they are old enough to be charged as an adult in the court of law.  Guess you can say I am seeing major discrepancies, though perhaps that is a whole other topic.

spiritdogs

Well, on with the debate (*crawls back under desk*) 

One of these icons would be appropriate here.

sillysally

If someone claims that their faith allows them to beat their children (spare the rod, spoil the child) is that fine then?

As a side not, many people believe that this is commonly misunderstood due to poor translation.  "Rod" in this context is supposed to mean like a shepherds crook.  A shepherd does not beat his lambs with his crook, but he DOES use it to guide them.  Rather like CM and his "extension of his arm".  And just like CM, the Bible is really just advocating the parent setting rules, boundaries and limitations for their child.....  Or so it's thought.

Back to topic, I have no problem with people expressing themselves and adhering to their religion as they see fit *providing it hurts no one*.  When others are hamed - even if that is the person's own children - then yes, they should be protected, IMO.  That does not constitute a loss of my own freedoms, as I do not plan on doing anything that will hurt anyone, least of all my children.
 

ETA - I am fine with parents refusing blood transfusions for their children if there is an alternative treatment available, which I do believe there is.... I will see if I can look it up.

FourIsCompany

sillysally

I'm Christian and if a bunch of Christians refuse to get their kids medical care I'd have just as much of an issue with it.  It has nothing to do with the religion in question, it has to do with the best interests of the child, which IMHO are to be alive and as healthy as possible.

 

But as strong and sure as you are in your beliefs, Christian Scientists are just as strong and sure in their beliefs. Where you believe that the child's best interest is to be alive and healthy as possible, they believe that the child's best interest is to be healed by prayer, faith and God. To be healed as Jesus healed. To truly allow God's will. It's totally understandable that your beliefs are right for your children, but shouldn't they also be allowed that their beliefs are right for theirs? Why should they have to take up Christian beliefs when they are not Christians?

My beliefs that children should not be refused medical care have nothing to do with Christianity.  Even before i considered myself a Christian I believed this way.  Again, this has nothing to do with the validity of a particular religion. 

Children are *not* the property of their parents.  Some day they will be their own adults, and their parents rights to religious freedom do not, IMHO, trump the child's rights to life and liberty.  In our society your rights end where someone else's begin.  When you are causing injury to someone who cannot make such decisions for themselves through neglect, then I believe that you are overstepping your rights and violating the other person's.    

FourIsCompany

But as strong and sure as you are in your beliefs, Christian Scientists are just as strong and sure in their beliefs. Where you believe that the child's best interest is to be alive and healthy as possible, they believe that the child's best interest is to be healed by prayer, faith and God. To be healed as Jesus healed. To truly allow God's will. It's totally understandable that your beliefs are right for your children, but shouldn't they also be allowed that their beliefs are right for theirs? Why should they have to take up Christian beliefs when they are not Christians?

The idea that no one should be allowed to cause the death or injury of another person (by any means other than legal execution) is a fundamental belief of the vast majority of our society, so I don't consider it merely a "Christian belief".  Withholding life saving treatment is considered to be a means of causing death.

Causing death by withholding medical treatment (whatever the reason) gets into the slippery slope area of euthanasia.  If parents can euthanize their children claiming religious freedom, why can't children with medical power of attorney euthanize (by withholding treatment) their comatose parent ostensively for the same reason?  Should it matter whether or not the parent is a member of that same religious faith or how long the children have belonged to this faith?

It is much too easy to use religion as a mask for simply getting rid of a child or parent for selfish reasons.  Think life insurance or inheritance.  Our society has a responsibility to protect its citizens from those who kill for money or convenience.

Aside:  My personal belief is that if God decides to heal a child or adult, he/she can do so regardless of what treatment is being given. 

euthanasia - the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.

janet_rose

Aside:  My personal belief is that if God decides to heal a child or adult, he/she can do so regardless of what treatment is being given. 

Excellent point.  An arrogance to believe otherwise, IMO.  If you truly believe there is an Almighty God and that He is a God of Love, then do you really think He'd hold back his hand from helping a child just because a doctor tried to help as well??  I don't understand that argument at all!  I am not personally a Christian and I don't wish to go into the "is there a God" question here.  Some of my family ARE Christians though, and witholding medical treatment on those grounds goes against the very grain of Christian beliefs in my mind. 

Here's a thought - maybe God already stretched his hand to help that kid by PUTTING the doctor there?  Who is to know or presume to know? 

Chuffy

If you truly believe there is an Almighty God and that He is a God of Love, then do you really think He'd hold back his hand from helping a child just because a doctor tried to help as well??

Chuffy

Some of my family ARE Christians though, and witholding medical treatment on those grounds goes against the very grain of Christian beliefs in my mind.

Chuffy

Here's a thought - maybe God already stretched his hand to help that kid by PUTTING the doctor there?  Who is to know or presume to know? 

(I don't agree with Christian Scientists OR Christians. In fact, I'm atheist. I just believe in the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion and if you read about Christian Scientists and their beliefs, you'll learn how refusing conventional medical treatment and relying on prayer and healing - as Jesus did - is sometimes a very integral part of their religion. You might understand more where they're coming from. Not saying you'll agree, but you might understand.)  

Chuffy

Here's a thought - maybe God already stretched his hand to help that kid by PUTTING the doctor there?  Who is to know or presume to know? 

Reminds me of this old joke.

A guy's in his house when horrendous rains come
up. The water starts rising, and before you know
it, we're talking major flood. Roads are covered.
Nothing's moving. Pretty soon, a boat comes along.
Guy in the boat yells, 'Come on - we're here to
save you. Get in the boat.'

Guy in the house says, 'No...I've got faith that
God will save me.'

The boat leaves. The water keeps rising. The guy
is forced up the second floor of his house by the
flood waters. Another boat comes along. The guy in
the boat yells, 'Come on! It's getting worse. If
you don't get in the boat, you're going to drown.'

From the second floor window the guy says,
'No...I'll be ok. I've got faith in God that he'll
save me.'

The boat leaves. Water's rising. The
guy's on the roof. A helicopter hovers overhead
and the pilot shouts out, 'This is your last
chance. Climb up the ladder. If you don't come
now you're going to drown.'

The guy says from the roof, 'No, thanks. God will
save me.'

The pilot shrugs his shoulders and splits. The
water rises. The guy drowns. Ascends to the pearly
gates. He asks St. Peter, 'What happened? I've
been devoted to God and had absolute faith that he
would save me. Why did he let me down?'

And St. Peter tells him, 'What the heck do you
want? God sent ya two boats and a helicopter!?'

FourIsCompany

Chuffy

Some of my family ARE Christians though, and witholding medical treatment on those grounds goes against the very grain of Christian beliefs in my mind.

That's not surprising, as Christian Scientists are NOT Christians.

They don't have any of the beliefs that Christians do about God, His wishes etc etc.?  My how confusing.  They ought to change their name.

I don't give a monkeys WHAT they call themselves to be honest, I cannot recall ANYWHERE in the Bible where it states that the 2 are incompatible.  Rhetorical question (directed at any Christian Scientists lurking here-abouts) - would Jesus have refused to help someone on those grounds?  If the Bible is to be believed, many times he didn't even ask what other treatment, if any, his "patients" received.  He saw someone needed help and he gave it.  To my mind, if a person is claiming to be Christian ANYTHING, then THAT is what holds credence for me; not whether they go to church or exactly what branch or type of Christianity they might practise. 

Mind you, having said that I know that members of my family would refuse a blood transfusion.  Not only that, but when blood transfusions first started being done, it was a wise course to "be a nutty religious type" and refuse them, because blood transfusions weren't safe.  Now however, we think they are, so that's Ok... isn't it?  Mind you, I am sure they thought they were safe back then too.....  SO yes I will agree taht where religion is concerned, it's a difficult question and very much a grey area....
 

Chuffy

FourIsCompany

Chuffy

Some of my family ARE Christians though, and witholding medical treatment on those grounds goes against the very grain of Christian beliefs in my mind.

That's not surprising, as Christian Scientists are NOT Christians.

 

They don't have any of the beliefs that Christians do about God, His wishes etc etc.?  My how confusing.  They ought to change their name.

 Yeah, and if they reject modern medicine in favor of prayer they're not so big on science either.
 

FourIsCompany

Chuffy

If you truly believe there is an Almighty God and that He is a God of Love, then do you really think He'd hold back his hand from helping a child just because a doctor tried to help as well??

It doesn't matter what I believe or any of us here believes. What matters is what the Christian Scientists believe. And they believe that the 2 styles of healing are incompatible. One is a spiritual healing (as Jesus did) and one is a physical healing. You can read about their beliefs here. And for those who are outraged that they would "let" one of theirs die, remember the numbers of people who die even though they're receiving medical care.

Chuffy

Some of my family ARE Christians though, and witholding medical treatment on those grounds goes against the very grain of Christian beliefs in my mind.

That's not surprising, as Christian Scientists are NOT Christians.

Although this is neither here nor there, they are, IMHO, a form of Christianity.  Not a mainstream form, but part of the overall nonetheless.  Maybe I just have a broad definition of Christianity.