For my Libertarian friends

^ I think they mean that indoctrination could be seen as abuse, not the right to attempt to teach a child a moral framework and to question what you teach them.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Whether it's through religious belief, custom or personal conviction, people's choice to refuse medical treatment for themselves and their dependants should be respected, even if that results in the loss of life. The only time when any authority should step in is in the case of neglect. That's not to say that sane people shouldn't try and educate these lunatics that blood was created by their god as something that is holy and good, so blood transfusions are holy, good and righteous so anyone who dies after refusing the freely-given gift of life from another human is impure and unworthy of sharing the presence of their god so will be damned for all eternity. Or something like that, since the rational - hey, blood is just stuff and contains no spiritual impurites argument is never going to get anywhere.   (sorry Rob, but the Ice-picks and 30 days fastings are not relevant - refusing treatment is not part of a ritual or custom - people don't deliberately get sick so they can refuse treatment as a test of faith.  damn, forgot about snake-handlers)   Corporal punishment is never justified as far as I am concerned, beating a child is child abuse regardless of whether it's to teach the little buggers a lesson or for fun and profit. You wouldn't allow your employer to smack you for doing something wrong, nor would you allow a cop to lump you over the head with his nightstick for speeding in a school zone. Age and blood-relationship has no bearing here - it's an authority-figure physically punishing another person, that's abuse of authority and abuse of a person. We can't pass ask people to change their religious beliefs about medical treatment, but you can ask them to change it when it comes to spanking? Why is that? You wouldn't allow a police officer to stop you from eating dinner or taking a vitamin, so why would it then apply to parents?

Because the two examples are unrelated - unless smacking child is some form of religious ritual or custom - which I don't think anyone is saying here, because the example given was "corporal punishment", which is not the same thing as "forcing" a child to follow your religious customs and all that entails.

Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Whether it's through religious belief, custom or personal conviction, people's choice to refuse medical treatment for themselves and their dependants should be respected, even if that results in the loss of life. The only time when any authority should step in is in the case of neglect. That's not to say that sane people shouldn't try and educate these lunatics that blood was created by their god as something that is holy and good, so blood transfusions are holy, good and righteous so anyone who dies after refusing the freely-given gift of life from another human is impure and unworthy of sharing the presence of their god so will be damned for all eternity. Or something like that, since the rational - hey, blood is just stuff and contains no spiritual impurites argument is never going to get anywhere.   (sorry Rob, but the Ice-picks and 30 days fastings are not relevant - refusing treatment is not part of a ritual or custom - people don't deliberately get sick so they can refuse treatment as a test of faith.  damn, forgot about snake-handlers)   Corporal punishment is never justified as far as I am concerned, beating a child is child abuse regardless of whether it's to teach the little buggers a lesson or for fun and profit. You wouldn't allow your employer to smack you for doing something wrong, nor would you allow a cop to lump you over the head with his nightstick for speeding in a school zone. Age and blood-relationship has no bearing here - it's an authority-figure physically punishing another person, that's abuse of authority and abuse of a person. We can't pass ask people to change their religious beliefs about medical treatment, but you can ask them to change it when it comes to spanking? Why is that? You wouldn't allow a police officer to stop you from eating dinner or taking a vitamin, so why would it then apply to parents? Because the two examples are unrelated - unless smacking child is some form of religious ritual or custom - which I don't think anyone is saying here, because the example given was "corporal punishment", which is not the same thing as "forcing" a child to follow your religious customs and all that entails.   People do not refuse medical treatment on religious grounds - they happily take vitamins, aspirin and other medication and will have wounds dressed and bones fixed - they refuse blood transfusion and organ transplants - as a consequence they refuse all medical procedures that would result in transfusions, which rules out all invasive surgical operations (I expect they would accept gall-stone removal by ultrasonics rather than by surgery for example). They would not be in a hospital or doctor's surgery to refuse the specific treatment if they didn't accept some level of medical diagnosis+treatment in the first place.   This isn't the same thing as people refusing MMR vacine through fear and ignorance of the possible side effects - and few here would accept forced immunisation.

What does it matter if it's religious custom or not? It is still either right or wrong. You are saying religious beliefs shouldn't be questions. Why is that? Why can you question my policy of discipline, but not my religion. What if my religion teaches that children should be taught obedience from corporal punishment?

Sorry, but a blood transfusion is a medical treatment.  So yes they do refuse medical treatment on religious grounds.

You really missed the point of my post or just chose not to address any issue I questioned.

Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Whether it's through religious belief, custom or personal conviction, people's choice to refuse medical treatment for themselves and their dependants should be respected, even if that results in the loss of life. The only time when any authority should step in is in the case of neglect. That's not to say that sane people shouldn't try and educate these lunatics that blood was created by their god as something that is holy and good, so blood transfusions are holy, good and righteous so anyone who dies after refusing the freely-given gift of life from another human is impure and unworthy of sharing the presence of their god so will be damned for all eternity. Or something like that, since the rational - hey, blood is just stuff and contains no spiritual impurites argument is never going to get anywhere.   (sorry Rob, but the Ice-picks and 30 days fastings are not relevant - refusing treatment is not part of a ritual or custom - people don't deliberately get sick so they can refuse treatment as a test of faith.  damn, forgot about snake-handlers)   Corporal punishment is never justified as far as I am concerned, beating a child is child abuse regardless of whether it's to teach the little buggers a lesson or for fun and profit. You wouldn't allow your employer to smack you for doing something wrong, nor would you allow a cop to lump you over the head with his nightstick for speeding in a school zone. Age and blood-relationship has no bearing here - it's an authority-figure physically punishing another person, that's abuse of authority and abuse of a person. We can't pass ask people to change their religious beliefs about medical treatment, but you can ask them to change it when it comes to spanking? Why is that? You wouldn't allow a police officer to stop you from eating dinner or taking a vitamin, so why would it then apply to parents? Because the two examples are unrelated - unless smacking child is some form of religious ritual or custom - which I don't think anyone is saying here, because the example given was "corporal punishment", which is not the same thing as "forcing" a child to follow your religious customs and all that entails.   People do not refuse medical treatment on religious grounds - they happily take vitamins, aspirin and other medication and will have wounds dressed and bones fixed - they refuse blood transfusion and organ transplants - as a consequence they refuse all medical procedures that would result in transfusions, which rules out all invasive surgical operations (I expect they would accept gall-stone removal by ultrasonics rather than by surgery for example). They would not be in a hospital or doctor's surgery to refuse the specific treatment if they didn't accept some level of medical diagnosis+treatment in the first place.   This isn't the same thing as people refusing MMR vacine through fear and ignorance of the possible side effects - and few here would accept forced immunisation.

Hobart Freeman (Faith Assembly) taught this very thing: No medical care whatsoever.

"To claim healing for the body and then to continue to take medicine is not following our faith with corresponding action ... When genuine faith is present, it alone will be sufficient for it will take the place of medicines and other aids."

As a result, you had diabetics in his congregation not taking their insulin and pregnant women not receiving prenatal or postnatal care. 

"They are laying dead babies and live babies next to each other on the altars and praying over them to get the live babies to bring life back to the dead ones," she continued. "There was one woman in our county praying over a baby for four days before the funeral home got hold of it."

On a less extreme case, there are Christian Science folk, some of whom also deny medical care (and have lost children because of it).

I don't see how these people believe the way they do, honestly, given this:

And Jesus answered and said to them, "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. (Luke 5:31)

Or 2 Samuel 12, where David prayed and fasted for his children to not die, but when his child died, he washed, got dressed, and ate.


Edited by Epignosis - October 15 2010 at 08:59

Epignosis wrote: Hobart Freeman (Faith Assembly) taught this very thing: No medical care whatsoever. "To claim healing for the body and then to continue to take medicine is not following our faith with corresponding action ... When genuine faith is present, it alone will be sufficient for it will take the place of medicines and other aids." As a result, you had diabetics in his congregation not taking their insulin and pregnant women not receiving prenatal or postnatal care.  "They are laying dead babies and live babies next to each other on the altars and praying over them to get the live babies to bring life back to the dead ones," she continued. "There was one woman in our county praying over a baby for four days before the funeral home got hold of it." On a less extreme case, there are Christian Science folk, some of whom also deny medical care (and have lost children because of it). I don't see how these people believe the way they do, honestly, given this: And Jesus answered and said to them, "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. (Luke 5:31)

Okay - you win. Those examples are just wrong on all levels. I withdraw my support for all religious exemptions to medical treatment.

It really is so tough.  The arguments that chemo is toxic and has its own dangers, that it can and does poison the body well after treatment stops, are compelling, and could be labeled "harm" in their own right.  Harm for someone's profit.  State required support of the medical establishment without parental consent. 

On the other hand, the "natural remedy" industry has their own profit motive, and the Internet fueled "I can cure  myself" movement may sound enticing, but what is the percentage of people it actually cures?  Not much I'd imagine.

At the end of the day, the question is....do you have the right to refuse the state's will?   even if you die sooner because of it? 

Do you have the right to refuse childhood shots that the schools require?   Some parents insist the shots are poisonous as well.  Other parents don't want non-immunized kids getting preventable diseases which could spread to their own child and cause illness or death.

Finnforest wrote: It really is so tough.  The arguments that chemo is toxic and has its own dangers, that it can and does poison the body well after treatment stops, are compelling, and could be labeled "harm" in their own right.  Harm for someone's profit.  State required support of the medical establishment without parental consent.  On the other hand, the "natural remedy" industry has their own profit motive, and the Internet fueled "I can cure  myself" movement may sound enticing, but what is the percentage of people it actually cures?  Not much I'd imagine. At the end of the day, the question is....do you have the right to refuse the state's will?   even if you die sooner because of it?  Do you have the right to refuse childhood shots that the schools require?   Some parents insist the shots are poisonous as well.  Other parents don't want non-immunized kids getting preventable diseases which could spread to their own child and cause illness or death.

(Assuming they are deemed compos mentis by a sufficient number of trained psychiatric professionals):
this would still leave the problem of deciding if an individual has sufficient maturity to make the decision to refuse state medication of their own volition. Assuming such criteria were satisfied, I can't think of any reason we could justify force in attempting to prolong someone's life.
Perhaps the state's only obligation is to present the dangers and benefits of such treatment to the extent that at least the individual is then making an informed choice?


Edited by ExittheLemming - October 15 2010 at 09:38

Finnforest wrote: ^ sounds pretty reasonable to me.  but what is the age of consent or refusal.  18?  12? somewhere in between?

There's the rub...demarcating the ability to make rational informed choices is a slippery critter. (some 12 year old are considerably more mature than some 18 year olds etc) Ideally every case would be examined on its own merits (but we probably just don't have the resources for that, which is why the legislators are forced to arrive at age limits re criminal responsibility etc)

Finnforest wrote: It really is so tough.  The arguments that chemo is toxic and has its own dangers, that it can and does poison the body well after treatment stops, are compelling, and could be labeled "harm" in their own right.  Harm for someone's profit.  State required support of the medical establishment without parental consent.  On the other hand, the "natural remedy" industry has their own profit motive, and the Internet fueled "I can cure  myself" movement may sound enticing, but what is the percentage of people it actually cures?  Not much I'd imagine. At the end of the day, the question is....do you have the right to refuse the state's will?   even if you die sooner because of it?  Do you have the right to refuse childhood shots that the schools require?   Some parents insist the shots are poisonous as well.  Other parents don't want non-immunized kids getting preventable diseases which could spread to their own child and cause illness or death.

Of course you have a right to refuse the state's will.

Your second question is trickier, but I would say absolutely yes.

The T wrote: Interesting debate that I read but didn't comment.  Whomsoever beliefs that a child's parents can refuse him life-saving treatment is basically saying parents have a right to decide on the fate of the child (in a way). I guess you would ok with abortion then?  You know there are places where girls are mutilated when they're born. And even later. Tolerate that due to religious freedom? What about the freedom of the girls to be a complete person and decide by themselves whether they want a mutilated clitoris or not?  In this case I have no doubt. f**k religious freedom if that means putting a child in danger because of the lunacy of their parents.  Of course, setting thresholds is another matter. But I hope another debate will solve it (and not here in PA of course )

The situation isn't the same as abortion. One is a negative action and the other is a positive action.