Law & Order just had an episode of a child who died because her parents refused medical treatment due to religious reasons. The child could have lived had it reached the hospital in time. The child asked for a doctor.

Do you think the govt has the right to enforce medical treatment on children in life threatening situations? If the child asks for a doctor, should that supercede the wishes of the parents? If you think the parents should be found negligent, how long should the sentence be if the child dies?

This is THE most difficult topic I wrestle with because I see and agree with both sides. It is interference of one's religious rights, and if the child is comfortable with that then leave it be. But if the child wants to try and live then I think maybe that child should be given the chance.

Chances are that the families in such religions don't have medical insurance, anyway, so they're not likely to get cadillac care.

but since a child in a divorce case can decide which parent to live with at certain ages, should the law enforce medical treatment until that age of consent?

Most children are endoctrinated into the church of the parents. Therefore, their parents are forcing their beliefs on the child. Should the law consider the child "free of religion" until he is of age to make educated decisions?

wants2laugh wrote:

but since a child in a divorce case can decide which parent to live with at certain ages, should the law enforce medical treatment until that age of consent?

Most children are endoctrinated into the church of the parents. Therefore, their parents are forcing their beliefs on the child. Should the law consider the child "free of religion" until he is of age to make educated decisions?

I just don't know about the first question, I really don't. But as for the second question, absolutely not. Parents are within their rights to do what they feel is their obligation as parents, and religion is one of them. Although I work for the government, I cringe at increasing control from it.

It's a difficult line. On one hand, children deserve care and shouldn't be denied simple, life-saving treatment cause their parents have religious objections. On the other hand, government has a history of abusing it's power and control (and anti-religious loonies are all too happy to support abuses in this area) and would likely try to override parental religious beliefs when it comes to their child even when it doesn't come to lifesaving procedures. The last thing we need is an inefficient government micromanaging our kids and taking away parental rights. So it is indeed a blurry line. I'm of the case by case basis mindset, with a heavy lean towards only doing this if absolutely necessary.

The government steps in when parents neglect or abuse their children. Refusing medical help for a child falls into both categories. If a child dies because of neglect or abuse the parent or parents should be tried for at least manslaughter.

All children deserve the best treatment possible. Ideology should never veto kids and medicine. When they're eighteen, they can decide whether or not they wish to refuse medical treatment, but until then their parents religious views should be secondary in this scenario.

Chris wrote:

All children deserve the best treatment possible. Ideology should never veto kids and medicine. When they're eighteen, they can decide whether or not they wish to refuse medical treatment, but until then their parents religious views should be secondary in this scenario.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Religious freedom should trump any laws. So long as the parents are not inflicting physical pain or torture, they should be allowed to make what ever choices they see fit for their children. I personally hate taking 90% of the meds avaiable--eitehr OTC or scripts. I would not want someone telling me I have to take any meds because they are good for me?

For a nation that claims to believe in god (92%), so many are so quick to impose secular solutions to problems.

Chris wrote:

All children deserve the best treatment possible. Ideology should never veto kids and medicine. When they're eighteen, they can decide whether or not they wish to refuse medical treatment, but until then their parents religious views should be secondary in this scenario.

People shouldn't get away with denying their kids medical treatment because of their religious stance.

zthatzmanz28 wrote:

Religious freedom should trump any laws. So long as the parents are not inflicting physical pain or torture, they should be allowed to make what ever choices they see fit for their children. I personally hate taking 90% of the meds avaiable--eitehr OTC or scripts. I would not want someone telling me I have to take any meds because they are good for me?

For a nation that claims to believe in god (92%), so many are so quick to impose secular solutions to problems.

there is a religious group that uses rattlesnakes to test their faith in God. Does this mean that you have no problem with children handling rattlesnakes because "religious freedom should trump any laws"???