|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Allowing one's children to die
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Christianity Today has an article entitled Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Homicide Conviction for Faith-Healing Parents , describing the Supreme Court's decision that allowing one's child to die despite appropriate medication being available is an act of homicide. The parents pleaded freedom of religion, specifically in not allowing the use of insulin, but the courts have not accepted this in the case of minors who rely on their parents care.
Unfortunately for CT, the URL link actually reads "faith-healing-parents-denied-free-exercise-of-religion-in-death-of-child", a line which might be a tad partisan in the "them-vs-us" campaign.
Fred Clark, over at Slacktivist adds this comment:
quote:
Seriously? I’m glad saner heads prevailed and changed that, but good Lord. Was that “denied free exercise of religion” claim written sincerely, indicating a deep dive into the delusion of the privileged persecution complex? Or was that headline just a cynical exercise in reflexive partisan spin? I don’t see a third option.
Does freedom of religion necessarily remove the interest of the state (i.e. the rest of us) in protecting children?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Does freedom of religion necessarily remove the interest of the state (i.e. the rest of us) in protecting children?
Nope.
I think freedom of religion includes both belief and conduct, or it's not freedom at all. But there are limits to all of our liberties. None of them are absolute.
So we are free to say what we like, but we can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We have the right of peaceable assembly, but we can't assemble in our neighbor's living room. We are free to refuse medical care even when we know that doing so will result in our death because we believe God hates medicine, but we can't refuse life-saving medical care to someone else when we know that doing so will result in their death because we believe God hates medicine.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Does freedom of religion necessarily remove the interest of the state (i.e. the rest of us) in protecting children?
No. In the extreme case, you don't get to claim "freedom of religion" and perform child sacrifice. You don't get to claim "freedom of religion" and excise your baby girl's clitoris, or take your 12-year-old niece as your fifth wife.
On the other hand, you do get to choose what clothes your child wears, what elements of popular culture he or she is exposed to, and you get to choose how he or she is educated.
There's a lot of latitude, but no absolutes here.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think the attitude of someone who would kill their child in the name of their religion has to be that their child is their property. "How dare you tell me what I can or cannot do with my own private property?" But the child is not property, s/he is a human being, and as such it is the part of the state to protect the child as it does every other of its citizens from anyone who might wish to harm him/her. Including parents if it comes to that.
This has a dangerous side. The state could decide that raising your child Jewish or Buddhist or Atheist constitutes harming your child. And that is going too far. (Of course an atheist might think the state should prevent you from raising your child Christian, but NOT prevent them from raising their child atheist. And there are too many Christians (alas) who think the same thing the other way.)
So a line has to be drawn somewhere. It will necessarily be somewhat fuzzy. But death is very clearly on the wrong side of the line, however fuzzy that line may be.
[ 07. July 2013, 00:46: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
and you get to choose how he or she is educated.
Perhaps, that might not in every case be a good thing, e.g.
this and this.
[ 07. July 2013, 00:50: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I can't understand the mindset of people like this. It just doesn't compute somehow. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am inclined to believe the judgement is right - but playing devil's advocate for a moment ...
Governments generally say they won't pay ransoms - and the state generally expects you not to go along with a kidnapper's demands to pay and not to inform the authorities.
One can take that position without viewing a person as property.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink: One can take that position without viewing a person as property.
Why not?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I did not say you could not ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
DT, if your kidnap/ransom scenario is meant to respond to what I said, I surely do not see how it relates.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink: I did not say you could not ?
Oh I'm sorry, I misread.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am inclined to believe the judgement is right - but playing devil's advocate for a moment ...
Governments generally say they won't pay ransoms - and the state generally expects you not to go along with a kidnapper's demands to pay and not to inform the authorities.
One can take that position without viewing a person as property.
States don't pay ransoms because there is a perception, however accurate, that it puts other people in danger. Not giving potentially life-saving treatment to someone under the age of consent who relies on you to make decisions in their interest is, in my opinion, no more than deliberate and calculated manslaughter.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
mousethief: quote:
I think the attitude of someone who would kill their child in the name of their religion has to be that their child is their property.
Not necessarily. If you sincerely believe that agreeing to the medical treatment in question will condemn your child to an eternity of suffering in Hell, then by refusing the treatment you (think you) are acting in your child's best interests. The rest of us who do not share your belief may think you're mad, of course...
And the question of whether it is always right to allow medical treatment is not straightforward even for those with no religious beliefs, as this very sad case demonstrates.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
The child isn't yours.
They belong to himself or herself.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
I agree with the court. A child is a gift from God. To allow that gift to suffer , by denial of medical care is just plain wrong.
And I say the parents in this case are violating their childs right to life > Oh this is not a violation of the parents religous rights . I believe the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" applies here
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Douglas: quote:
The child isn't yours.
They belong to himself or herself.
Way to miss the point.
If you had bothered to read what I actually said, at no time did I express the belief that the (hypothetical) child is the property of the (hypothetical) parent (if you have any children yourself you will know it's the other way around). However, what I did say was based on the assumption that a parent may be required in some situations to make decisions on behalf of a child; usually because children are not experienced enough to make these decisions for themselves.
I wasn't aware that any of that was controversial. What IS controversial is how far the rest of society is justified in intervening when the parent's decisions are called into question. In the case of a diabetic child who just needs regular insulin to lead a more or less normal life, it's an easy decision to make; where the child is suffering terribly and there is only a very slim chance that the medical treatment will help, it's not so easy to decide what is the right thing to do.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
mousethief: quote:
I think the attitude of someone who would kill their child in the name of their religion has to be that their child is their property.
Not necessarily. If you sincerely believe that agreeing to the medical treatment in question will condemn your child to an eternity of suffering in Hell, then by refusing the treatment you (think you) are acting in your child's best interests. ...
Or the parent may assume or believe or expect that the child, who is a good Whatever, would also make the same decision as the parents, were s/he mature enough to understand the situation.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
We had a case some years ago in Saskatchewan involving a severely disabled cerebral palsy girl. Her family had done what they could, but, eventually, the appearance of suffering was too much for her father, who killed her.
There was a long-drawn-out legal process, under which he was sentenced to a low-degree homicide penalty, but just about everyone involved or observing understood that there was a large grey area.
The most common statement was along the lines of "I'm so glad that I wasn't in that situation."
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
Interesting. Wonder if the Jehovah's Witnesses might offer to sponsor this going to the supreme court. Since now there is legal precedent (at least in Wisconsin) that letting a child die without appropriate medical care (blood transfusions, anyone?) is homicide. And they have a good record of winning with the supreme court.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
There was an episode of Kavanagh QC which was about a JW case and parallels in some ways my own experience when I was a JW.
My Mother disallowed a blood transfusion, although it was unlikely to be needed, as I was taken in for a routine appendectomy. The point is that I was also at that time fully in aggreement. I was a bright eleven year old at the time.
Should the state have intervened?
BTW one aspect of the program is not typically in my experience since if the state does intervene and force a tranfusion, no blame at all attaches to the person, and most JWs I knew we're not unhappy at this outcome. That would also have been true of me.
[ 08. July 2013, 18:06: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
There was an episode of Kavanagh QC which was about a JW case and parallels in some ways my own experience when I was a JW.
My Mother disallowed a blood transfusion, although it was unlikely to be needed, as I was taken in for a routine appendectomy. The point is that I was also at that time fully in aggreement. I was a bright eleven year old at the time.
Should the state have intervened?
Yes.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
We had a case some years ago in Saskatchewan involving a severely disabled cerebral palsy girl. Her family had done what they could, but, eventually, the appearance of suffering was too much for her father, who killed her. ...
I think it's debatable whether Tracy's family really did all they could. Killing someone whom you are allowing to suffer isn't mercy.
quote:
In the trials, both Robert and his wife Laura claimed that Tracy was experiencing constant and uncontrollable pain. If this were true then why were they allowing Tracy to suffer when her pain was medically controllable? Their testimony conflicted with the writings in Laura's own diary pertaining to the daily condition of Tracy. Laura's diary stated that Tracy was often happy and smiling, and lately she had been eating well. Tracy's teacher described her as a happy and loving person who did not show signs of extreme and uncontrolled pain, even though she had a dislocated hip. Tracy was scheduled for surgery to repair her dislocated hip which would have alleviated the pain and discomfort she was experiencing. In fact, Robert Latimer was charged with homicide on the same day that her surgery was scheduled to happen (November 4, 1993).
Many people are under the impression that the Latimers were overly burdened and lacking in support and respite service to care for Tracy. In fact, Tracy had lived in a respite home in North Battleford from July until early October, 1993. Tracy had returned home because she was scheduled for surgery. Tracy was also at school everyday. On October 12, just twelve days before Tracy was killed, Robert Latimer was offered a permanent institutional placement for Tracy in North Battleford. He rejected the placement because he said he had ‘other plans'. At this time, he had already decided to kill Tracy.
Tracy Latimer Facts
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Another very sad case:
www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/368
where the Supreme Court of NSW declared that doctors could administer blood products to a 17 year old by against both his wishes and those of his parents. Gzell J acknowledged that in a few months, the boy could himself refuse treatment, but still exercised the Court's undoubted power to permit proper medical care of a child.
[ 09. July 2013, 06:12: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You don't get to claim "freedom of religion" and excise your baby girl's clitoris...
But you *do* get to claim "freedom of religion" and get someone to cut off your baby boy's foreskin. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
This again, EM? Whilst there may be arguments against male circumcision, it is not the same. If the tip of the penis were removed as well, then it might be comparable.
[ 09. July 2013, 15:52: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
And in any case, most male circumcisions (at least in North America) are done for health reasons, not religious ones. The parents may be right or wrong, but they're not exercising their religious freedom.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"faith-healing-parents-denied-free-exercise-of-religion-in-death-of-child"
If this was intentional and meant literally, it was indeed thoroughly naff.
My suspicion (or at least the way I would have understood it) is that it was just shorthand for "faith healing parents denied 'free exercise of religion' defence in death of child", or "faith healing parents fail to get away with justifying death of child by invoking 'free exercise of religion'".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And in any case, most male circumcisions (at least in North America) are done for health reasons, not religious ones. The parents may be right or wrong, but they're not exercising their religious freedom.
I think "most" circumcisions are actually done because circumcised Dads want their boys to look like them. Health is the excuse, not the reason.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
But in either case not for religious reasons, which was the point I was making.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
and you get to choose how he or she is educated.
Not everywhere. Home schooling is illegal in Germany. I think it is because of the neo-nazi risk. Christian home schooling is one thing, this is another.
--The answer to the OP is probably pretty clear. Most states, provinces and countries have a child protection act which is designed to deal with children who've been maltreated or are at risk in some way. I would expect that right decision is for the parents to be served with notice that the child will be placed in guardianship and appropriate care provided. Period.
There was a parallel case in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan in 1999. But the decision was to apprehend the child and order treatment, with the twist that the cancer had spread too far to be treated by the time it got decided. The family wanted "alternative treatment".
[ 10. July 2013, 22:28: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And in any case, most male circumcisions (at least in North America) are done for health reasons, not religious ones. The parents may be right or wrong, but they're not exercising their religious freedom.
I think "most" circumcisions are actually done because circumcised Dads want their boys to look like them. Health is the excuse, not the reason.
Weird this. I've got two boys and I've no intention whatsoever of comparing willies.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
I was circumcised when I was 4, very definitely for health reasons. There's no way I would want either of my sons to go through that.
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
