GOPer Says It's Fine For Kids to Die in the Name of God

[Terrie]

An adult has every right to refuse medical care for any darn reason they want, even if it's just "because." A child can not make such decisions for themselves and deserve the protection of the state, because they have not yet accepted their parents' beliefs in more than a parroting way. When they are adults, they can chose to die by lack of health care if they so choose.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I give chicken soup to kids with a sore throat. Does that count as chicken sacrifice?

Yes the ultimate question is whether parents or state have the final authority. Saying you are for the child to have rights doesn't address the issue because children are too young to make informed decisions and need someone to do it. Some children will resist medical care without understanding the consequences.

There will be a gray area. Most children are best served by supporting their right to have those closest to them, their parents, make decisions but the state has an interest in protecting them from serious harm when parents fail.

[VelociRapture]

I see the problem here as being exactly Church vs. State. Mind you, as a nurse, I would wish for all humans of any age to have access to adequate and excellent health care. HOWEVER. Whose kid is it? Parents'? or State's? If church and state are truly separated, I do not think State should have the right to dictate what health care the child receives, IF it TRULY is affected by their religious beliefs. Therefore, as much as I would hate it, (for instance) a child of a group who do not allow their child, hit by a car, to receive blood products, might die. The child, if he received blood products, might still die, and his parents would be plagued by the horrible thought that they had not only allowed their child to play in traffic, but then had compounded the sin by going against their beliefs. OR he might live, but be in some way, according to their lights, "tainted" and unable to reach heaven. I don't know why they can't receive blood, but it has come up in the trauma realm over the years, and this is a true scenario. WHO DECIDES?

And, once having decided "who decides", what ELSE will you allow? If your child is mentally retarded/exceptionalized/intellectually challenged, (sorry I have a headache and can't remember the APPROPRIATE thing to say here) will you allow the government to automatically drug him so he can't sire children, or remove her ovaries so she can't have children? If he were autistic and sometimes lashed out, would you allow an automatic lobotomy because it was SOP?

This is a hellishly slippery slope for both sides of the equation. Children will and do die daily because of their parents' bona fide religious beliefs, in countries where war allows children to be part of the army.

Children do and will die daily in places where animals are held to be more important than some people, again, a bona fide religious belief. Washing in the same river where excrement from animals and people floats brings disease to children, but it's JUST a fact of their life.

Children do and will die daily in places where they are placed at risk because religious beliefs, where they are held accountable for jobs beyond their ability, where they have little understanding of safety, and less support for same.

Everyone in the US does not believe in the same thing. It is an unfortunate fact that some children die because of this. I, myself, would never sacrifice a chicken in order to cure my child's sore throat. Someone else would.

First, I hope you feel better! Headaches are no fun!

Second, I see your point. I think, for me personally, the deciding factor is whether or not a child is capable of informed consent. To me, because of the ongoing development of their brains, I would say they are not capable of doing so before reaching the age of maturity - 18 in the states. Of course, everyone is different and some people are more mature than others are. I think there are studies that show teens of younger ages are actually capable of making informed medical decisions for themselves - however, they are barred from doing so by law in most areas.

What this boils down to, in my opinion, is the following: does a parents' right to religion trump a child's right to adequate medical care? I agree with you, it is a slippery slope. . . but I don't see children as mere extensions of their parents. I see children as unique individuals with their own experiences, opinions, and thoughts. I don't think it's right for parents' to use their religious beliefs to deny their children appropriate medical care on those grounds.

To sum up, if they aren't considered old enough to formally accept the parents' faith as their own then I don't think those beliefs should deny them medical attention. And since they legally are barred from making their own medical decisions before reaching 18, I think that the State does have some responsibility to step in when needed - just as they have a responsibility to step in during situations of child abuse.

(Side note: I'm glad that you posted - it made me think about the topic more than I might have originally)

[VelociRapture]

Therefore, as much as I would hate it, (for instance) a child of a group who do not allow their child, hit by a car, to receive blood products, might die. The child, if he received blood products, might still die, and his parents would be plagued by the horrible thought that they had not only allowed their child to play in traffic, but then had compounded the sin by going against their beliefs. OR he might live, but be in some way, according to their lights, "tainted" and unable to reach heaven. I don't know why they can't receive blood, but it has come up in the trauma realm over the years, and this is a true scenario.

I think you're thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses. There may be other groups who refuse blood transfusions, but I believe they are the only Christian sect that encourages members to get medical care, while also telling them not to accept blood transfusions. It has to do with a part of the Bible (probably Old Testament) that they interpreted differently - most Christians and Jews interpret it in terms of diet.