Parental Responsibility With Regards to Healthcare

[Irishman]

I would like to discuss parental freedom when it comes to raising children, and the medical choices they take.

I am sure we are all aware of the various religions out there which limit medical treatment, Jahova's witnesses and refusal of blood transfusions, Christian scientists and, well, everything.

Is the "Its my religion" a valid reason to withhold medical treatment from a child? Is it acceptable to not allow a child to go to a doctor for fear of their soul, but at the expense of their lives?

I am strongly opposed to parents imposing these harmful religious views on children. For instance, I consider it child abuse if parents do not vaccinate their children. It really disturbs me when I see people say "oh, we're not vaccinating". They treat it like its their choice, yet the only life at risk is the child's.

What do you think? Should parents be able to refuse non-necessary (but often life saving treatments) like vaccinations, cold medicine etc, or should they be able to refuse all treatments, including necessary surgery, antibiotics, etc?

[Ummagumma]

Is the "Its my religion" a valid reason to withhold medical treatment from a child? Is it acceptable to not allow a child to go to a doctor for fear of their soul, but at the expense of their lives?

Though it does seem ridiculous to many of us, I guess they think, due to their system of belief, that they are keeping their child's immortal soul pure, or some such. After all, when has reason ever got in the way of a belief?
I would, however, disagree on principle with any forced measures to vaccinate, give transfusions or any similar activity. We should be free to choose (or the parent should be free to choose til the child is of a legally responsible age). The best that can and should be done is educate them, not that I can see it having any results in these cases.

[Irishman]

I would, however, disagree on principle with any forced measures to vaccinate, give transfusions or any similar activity. We should be free to choose (or the parent should be free to choose til the child is of a legally responsible age). The best that can and should be done is educate them, not that I can see it having any results in these cases.

But children are taken away all the time for neglect. A child was even taken away from a parents home because he was morbidly obese (in the UK).

The problem is, we shouldn't let stupid people make stupid choices for their children. When it comes to things like vaccinations and the sort, I dont think that we should let just any nut off the street decide what is appropriate medical treatment.

Most countries already step in when children are given dangerous diets (uneducated vegan families not nurishing their children) why not dangerous healthcare?

I dont see why a person's religion justifies neglect.

Also, if it is as you say, wouldn't it be better to appoint a guardian ad litem to the child BECAUSE these parents are not educated in medical matters. Informed consent is laughable in medical terms these days, no non-doctor can understand most of the complex proceedures, yet these families intentionally do not educate themselves.

[Gwendylyn]

If a parent refuses to allow his or her child to have appropriate medical attention, then it is equivalent to child abuse. It's causing a child unnecessary harm.

If a child dies and his parents could have saved him, then they should be brought up with charges of neglect and even manslaughter should the case warrant it.

[LoZz]

well i dont agree with you about the vaccinations. parents are not giving there children MMR vaccinations because of autism fears. then consider the fact the government then refuses to test the vaccination to see if it does (hardly winning over confidence) and then consider that blair himself did not get his youngest child the MMR vaccination does leave doubts in the minds of parents, i would think twice in the same situation.

i remeber a story in the bbc news websites when this little girl died because her parents wouldnt give permission for a blood transplant (Jahovas), it would of saved her life but they wouldnt allow it so she died. it made me so angry, i dont know how they can live with themselves.


sadly though what can we do? there has to be a line that the state can not cross in regard to raiseing children.

if we ban or remove parental concent needed for things like blood transfusions, where does it end? circumcision for example is quite the rareity now in the uk. if we ban parents from inforceing penis mutilation on there children whats to stop them going to some dodgey back street doctor and getting it done? someone who could really harm the child! its the same logic that applies to abortions. if you ban it, it just goes underground and people start dieing.

jahovas wont bring there children to hospitals once they get ill, they will depend on private jahovas doctors who may not have the expertise needed to save the childs life. but they wouldnt bring the kid in out of fear they may have there relgious belifs damaged.

where does one draw the line? because i sure as hell dont agree with it but i will be damned if i know of a fair system that would work.

[Gaidin]

well i dont agree with you about the vaccinations. parents are not giving there children MMR vaccinations because of autism fears. then consider the fact the government then refuses to test the vaccination to see if it does (hardly winning over confidence) and then consider that blair himself did not get his youngest child the MMR vaccination does leave doubts in the minds of parents, i would think twice in the same situation.

The government hardly needs to do any studies on the vaccination. Redundancy is only worth so much, and the medical community is better at it anyway.

[LoZz]

The government hardly needs to do any studies on the vaccination. Redundancy is only worth so much, and the medical community is better at it anyway.

but have the parents been shown that wiki page? no.

the government refused point blank to do one of there own, that causes doubt!! these are peoples children we are talking about.

id rather and proberly will give any child of mine the 3 seperate mmr jabs instead. my brother had it like that.

[Gaidin]

but have the parents been shown that wiki page? no.

the government refused point blank to do one of there own, that causes doubt!! these are peoples children we are talking about.

Exactly. These are peoples children we're talking about! If they can't be bothered to look into a few of these things on their own when their child's safety may be at stake they shouldn't be a friggin' parent anyway, government actions be damned.

The government isn't there to babysit them. And even if it were, access to that kind of resource full time is not an assumption a parent should make when it comes to their children.

[LoZz]

Exactly. These are peoples children we're talking about! If they can't be bothered to look into a few of these things on their own when their child's safety may be at stake they shouldn't be a friggin' parent anyway, government actions be damned.

The government isn't there to babysit them. And even if it were, access to that kind of resource full time is not an assumption a parent should make when it comes to their children.

so you suggest they should put the safty of there child based on what the internet says?! alot of people dont trust the internet. they wanted the government to do reaserch into it, the government refused. thus causing doubt.

[Lord Condormanius]

Is the "Its my religion" a valid reason to withhold medical treatment from a child? Is it acceptable to not allow a child to go to a doctor for fear of their soul, but at the expense of their lives?

No, it is not a valid excuse. In fact there have been several cases in which parents have been jailed and lost custody of their children as a result of neglect on the grounds of religion. The reasoning from the courts was that the child is too young to make an informed of decision about religion, and the parents are legally responsible for the safety and well-being of the child until he/she reaches the age of majority, 18.

Come to think of it, I recently saw something on 60 Minutes about some parents who were sentenced to some pretty hefty jail time after one of their very young children died of malnutrition as a result of a strict vegan diet.

[Irishman]

well i dont agree with you about the vaccinations. parents are not giving there children MMR vaccinations because of autism fears. then consider the fact the government then refuses to test the vaccination to see if it does (hardly winning over confidence) and then consider that blair himself did not get his youngest child the MMR vaccination does leave doubts in the minds of parents, i would think twice in the same situation.

The problem is, most of these "fears" stem from ignorance (as Gaidin has shown) which increases the responsibility of the parents.

sadly though what can we do? there has to be a line that the state can not cross in regard to raiseing children.

It can and does VERY often when a child is at risk, shouldn't these views be seen as what they are: Child endangerment.

circumcision for example is quite the rareity now in the uk. if we ban parents from inforceing penis mutilation on there children whats to stop them going to some dodgey back street doctor and getting it done?

Well, seeing as how circumcision helps prevent the transmission of HIV (I can try to find the study if anyone is interested) I dont see why you wouldn't have it done.

someone who could really harm the child! its the same logic that applies to abortions. if you ban it, it just goes underground and people start dieing.

So people are going to go underground to NOT get shots? Doesn't make much sense.

jahovas wont bring there children to hospitals once they get ill, they will depend on private jahovas doctors who may not have the expertise needed to save the childs life.

They already do this.

where does one draw the line? because i sure as hell dont agree with it but i will be damned if i know of a fair system that would work.

Because a medical ethics board could define what constitutes child endangerment. The case of BANNING specific actions like abortion of circumcision is a different issue alltogether. We are talking about mandating medical necessities.

alot of people dont trust the internet. they wanted the government to do reaserch into it, the government refused. thus causing doubt.

Ignorance is not a defense. There are hundreds of respected websites, books etc. Hell, they could even go to the doctor and ask!

[LoZz]

The problem is, most of these "fears" stem from ignorance (as Gaidin has shown) which increases the responsibility of the parents.

ignorance or not, its still a problem. and the parents do it because they think they are doing whats best for the child, of course they dont want to see them ill but they dont want them autistic ether. thats my point, not giving them a vaccinations isnt child abuse, they are doing what they think is best, how can you punish people for that? even if it is misinformed.

It can and does VERY often when a child is at risk, shouldn't these views be seen as what they are: Child endangerment.

as my above post points out, these acts are not always done with the intent to harm, but to protect. of course there is no defence for these religious nutters who dont allow there kids to have blood transfusion. but any law change will be difficult. and will have to take into consideration each cirumstance.

Well, seeing as how circumcision helps prevent the transmission of HIV (I can try to find the study if anyone is interested) I dont see why you wouldn't have it done.

i know it does, if you have HIV it has a benifit. it doesnt cut your risks of getting it ether its worth pointing out. i have no problem with the practice of circumcision, i do have a problem with the fact it done without the persons concent before they are even able to make that choice. the point is its not the parents body part. its the childs. but we allow them to make that choice. just like how currently a parent can refuse a blood transfusion for there child. in both situations the parents see it as the right thing to do. and the law allows both. both situations are mostly done from a religious stand point. morally you could argue against both. how do we remove parent concent of some things and not others? those are just 2 examples of parent concent, proberly alot more but not being a parent i am not sure how much a doctor can do without concent, how do we sort out the responsibilities they can have and those they can not?

So people are going to go underground to NOT get shots? Doesn't make much sense.

no if you ban parental concent for things like blood transplant the parents will take there child to same crappy backstreet doctor and thus put the child at even greater risk! parents wont even run the risk of going to a hospital incase there is a chance there child might need a transfusion, some of them are real nutters remember, i mean you would have to be to allow your child to do for your stupid belifs, but these are the kind of people we talking about and i dont think forceing them underground will have the best intrest of the child at heart. i think it would cause more deaths then save.

They already do this.

and such a move will make it worse, i dont care about the stupid parents belif, i am on your side, it is wrong! but going about it this way would proberly put more children at risk.

Because a medical ethics board could define what constitutes child endangerment. The case of BANNING specific actions like abortion of circumcision is a different issue alltogether. We are talking about mandating medical necessities.

hmm i dont know if you hered of this story http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle2610704.ece

but whats your view on that? i would like to see the medical ethics board deal with that one!

Ignorance is not a defense. There are hundreds of respected websites, books etc. Hell, they could even go to the doctor and ask!

you and I are not parents, but even i know that a parents fear for the safty of there child can cause some damn irrational fears!!

[Balikedes]

Survival of the fittest...I think tends to fall into play here.

If these people don't vaccinate their children and they die, then there's one less adult teaching their child this rubbish.

There's already too much expected of parents these days, to have yet another government run organization looking over your shoulder telling you what to do sounds like a terrible idea to me.

[Irishman]

If these people don't vaccinate their children and they die, then there's one less adult teaching their child this rubbish.

Its not the stupid parents that are dying.

There's already too much expected of parents these days, to have yet another government run organization looking over your shoulder telling you what to do sounds like a terrible idea to me.

Too much? They are expected to keep their children safe and healthy, this is simply an extension of this responsibility.

[Balikedes]

Too much? They are expected to keep their children safe and healthy, this is simply an extension of this responsibility.

Please believe me when I say, "I see your point", but...

They're doing exactly what they think is going to keep their children safe and healthy.

Who am I, or you to tell them what they believe is a bunch of garbage? Human beings are ignorant on a grand scale and cannot all be expected to adhere to the same belief system, including medicinal beliefs.

Just 6 months ago we were all expected to give our children a decongestant when they have a cold, those have been pulled off the shelf due to children dying. A recent batch of 3:1 mumps/measle vac was recalled due to unclean conditions at the factory.

If the gov starts mandating even basic medical needs (they do already in that your child needs to be vaccinated to attend a public school) you will end up with another gov organization chasing people down and arresting them for not vaccinating their child. Their child...not the governments.

[Irishman]

thats my point, not giving them a vaccinations isnt child abuse, they are doing what they think is best, how can you punish people for that? even if it is misinformed.

Whether they think they are doing the best thing or not makes no difference.

There are cases of parents killing their kids in an attempt to cure them of deamons, is this ok? Parents have a responsibility to know what is best, and the government should step in to protect children from idiots and whackjobs.

these acts are not always done with the intent to harm, but to protect

Endangering a child is endangerment, no matter the intent behind it. Granted I dont think that this is as bad as beating a child, but it is still endangerment.

know it does, if you have HIV it has a benifit. it doesnt cut your risks of getting it ether its worth pointing out.

I think it does. It protects aids being passed either way during sex.

no if you ban parental concent for things like blood transplant the parents will take there child to same crappy backstreet doctor and thus put the child at even greater risk!

Which will be punishable by law. If the parents actions or beliefs risk harm to the child, the parents should be punished.

hmm i dont know if you hered of this story http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle2610704.ece

but whats your view on that? i would like to see the medical ethics board deal with that one!

Obviously there are elective proceedures which are going to push the line. This is not an issue of MANDATED treatment, but of an elective proceedure.

Mandating vaccines has nothing to do with this extreme situation of elective surgery.

you and I are not parents, but even i know that a parents fear for the safty of there child can cause some damn irrational fears!!

And parents MUST be responsible for those fears. Parents have the resources to do what is best, and if they refuse to do what is best for the child, the state should protect the kid.

[eventhorizen]

Why stop at religion and healthcare? Why not jail people for not volunteering overseas? For buying a plasma T.V instead of donating to charity?

And hell, why don't we just invade the U.S.A out of principle?

You do indeed make a good point, but you do not seem to have the slightest grasp on reality.

People don't care about consequences to others when the issue deals directly with their own views and desires. It is not just religion, it is life.

And here is another reality check for you, any direct attempt by any legal system or government to interfere in any form of religion only reinforces the isolation, zealotry and fundamentalism of the doctrine and its adherants, especially such faiths as Jehovas Witnesses. The day this country forces a Jehovas Witness to undergo a blood transfusion is the day Jehovas Witnesses stop going to hospitals, is the day Jehovas Witnesses start treating their children at home.

The only way to successfully deal with these kinds of very valid concerns is to work closely with these kinds of faiths and look for compatible solutions, work arounds and maybe manage to manipulate the theologians working on the next batch of doctrine to insert some kind of pass the buck punishment clause into their belief system.

Or you can just pour petrol on the fire, and watch as the child you "saved" through enforced transfusion is completely shunned by all of their friends and family and all members of the faith; and you can watch as story after story of young individuals born into Witness families and subsequently dying in their beds after long, treatable illnesses comes rolling off the T.V screen and daily newspapers.

The world does not share the same outlook on life, and it is not up to you to enforce a single outlook. It is up to you to accomodate others, and if you don't then you right there are the real problem at this point in time.

[Lord Condormanius]

Why stop at religion and healthcare? Why not jail people for not volunteering overseas? For buying a plasma T.V instead of donating to charity?

You are comparing apples and oranges.

And hell, why don't we just invade the U.S.A out of principle?

That would be a pretty gruesome principle...at least the results would be pretty gruesome.

You do indeed make a good point, but you do not seem to have the slightest grasp on reality.

The reality is, that if you cause neglect to a child in the United States, for religious reasons or otherwise, you may find yourself in jail. If that neglect leads to the death of a child, you should not expect to get out anytime soon.

People don't care about consequences to others when the issue deals directly with their own views and desires. It is not just religion, it is life.

That is irrelevant. We live in a society of law.

And here is another reality check for you, any direct attempt by any legal system or government to interfere in any form of religion only reinforces the isolation, zealotry and fundamentalism of the doctrine and its adherants, especially such faiths as Jehovas Witnesses. The day this country forces a Jehovas Witness to undergo a blood transfusion is the day Jehovas Witnesses stop going to hospitals, is the day Jehovas Witnesses start treating their children at home.

In that case we would expect to see an increase of Jehova's Witnesses in the prison population.

The only way to successfully deal with these kinds of very valid concerns is to work closely with these kinds of faiths and look for compatible solutions, work arounds and maybe manage to manipulate the theologians working on the next batch of doctrine to insert some kind of pass the buck punishment clause into their belief system.

Or you can just pour petrol on the fire, and watch as the child you "saved" through enforced transfusion is completely shunned by all of their friends and family and all members of the faith; and you can watch as story after story of young individuals born into Witness families and subsequently dying in their beds after long, treatable illnesses comes rolling off the T.V screen and daily newspapers.

The government has a responsibility to the public welfare. Denying a child necessary medical attention is against the law. It is as simple as that. If you put a child at risk because of your religious beliefs, or for any other reason, you are guilty of a crime.

The world does not share the same outlook on life, and it is not up to you to enforce a single outlook. It is up to you to accomodate others, and if you don't then you right there are the real problem at this point in time.

I could not disagree more. Accommodating others does not include allowing children to die due to lack of medical attention.

[Gaidin]

Well hey...as a fun observatioin...the stupid religions would wipe themselves out.

[Irishman]

The world does not share the same outlook on life, and it is not up to you to enforce a single outlook. It is up to you to accomodate others, and if you don't then you right there are the real problem at this point in time.

LC did a good job with your post, so I wont repeat what he said, but you have to understand, the Governments in most western countries already have child endangerment laws, and not vaccinating a child is clearly putting them in danger, so why should it not be illegal?