It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge rules hospital can perform life-saving surgery on two-month-old against parents religious obje

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
source www.courthousenews.com...

IMO this is a very tough call.

Some might argue for the parents under separation of church and state but I consider that to be a ban on the government imposing a state religion.

I'm reluctant to consider the child as personal property of the parents but they are responsible until the child is of legal age.

The ruling IMO sets a bad precedent for state powers.

Who on ATS has the wisdom to resolve it?


edit on 13-5-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by oghamxx
 


Correct decision. Parents rights end when the well being of the child is not a first priority. What if their religion required the sacrifice of the oldest child?



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Correct Decision all the way, If parents can't decide whats best for their child in a reasonable way then others must encourage the best possible treatment of that child in a effort to secure it's well-being and at the very least a chance in life



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
While I agree and it's funny that judges ruled it ok for a person to have an abortion....hypocrisy or am I just tired from working outside all day...



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
should of got an abortion right?
the hypocrisy runs rampant
let the mother decide
edit on 13-5-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The people trying to do these things are abandoning the fact that doctors are here for a reason..

One of those reasons is to save babies and people's lives when they can..

Would God want them to have faith? Certainly.. Would God want them to use the tools already provided and combine that with a little faith? I would think so..

They are using the argument that if they rely on a doctor, then they aren't showing they have any faith in God, but that is weak because they are not thinking about the whole picture..

If they really had the faith they needed to heal their baby, they would have already done it and it wouldn't have made it to a judge at all..

The judge made the right call IMO..



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Now, is this child going to have on going health problems that will cost the parents mega-bucks...is the child going to have some standard quality of life?

There's more to consider....but it should be against the law to impose your religious beliefs on an unformed mind- period.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


I'm not too sure but Jehovah's witnesses are against abortion as well, And assisted pregnancy (which probably caused the child's heart condition in the first place)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by oghamxx
 


I don't agree with letting s child die, I also don't think it's right that the government can overstep peoples personal religions.If religion has no say in government, government should have no say in religion.
Please don't waste my time with "what if's".
Like "What if their religion required the sacrifice of the oldest child?"
Because murder is illegal as it i



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoctorMobius

I don't agree with letting s child die, I also don't think it's right that the government can overstep peoples personal religions.

Hypothetically, what do you propose then, how not to overstep (deluded) peoples personal religion and not let the child die?



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DoctorMobius
 


Ok so who speaks for the child? The parents? How do you know that child doesn't want to be healed by doctors? Sorry, but your freedom of Speech, religion etc, ends at the bridge of another person's nose. I know kids are the responsibility of their parents until th e age of 18, but we prosecute parents for murder every day. IMHO, a parent refusing to treat their child of a curable/preventable illness is in the least abuse, and the worst murder. Again, in an instance like this who speaks objectively for the child? If my religion says its ok to cook and eat my children, should that be ok under SECULAR civil law?



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by oghamxx
 


The child's rights trump the parents rights as soon as they are born, infants/children are not property.
edit on 13-5-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
WHO IS PAYING FOR IT????????

That is what I want to know. With all the people that die each year because they cannot afford medical care this makes me want to vomit!



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by oghamxx
 


Correct decision. Parents rights end when the well being of the child is not a first priority. What if their religion required the sacrifice of the oldest child?


Are you paying for it? Should the parents be punished if they cannot afford it? Should the hospital pay for it? If this is about the child's rights then shouldn't the child be saddled with that bill? The interest should be pretty substantial by the time it can get a paper route if those still exist.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
There have been a few cases where children who were old enough to explain their own feelings and understanding of events to a Judge in chambers have been deemed able to refuse medical care which may be life saving. That's about the limit I'm aware of though and should be.

If the kid is too young to ever understand what is wrong, let alone any concept of care or what isn't being done, then the Parents are the ones obligated to supply life saving care, as available. If they can't, supply it. If they won't, they can lose their parental rights and their kid forever, for all I care about them after that point.

After the cases where Faith healing and similar reasoning has been used in cases of children dead from Diabetes or similarly treatable things, I just have no soft feelings at all. I think the circumstances where the State has ANY business in the raising of a child are tiny in scope, but this is the example that MAKES the rule, IMO.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Exitt
 


I don't propose anything. I don't agree with the child dying but it's not our decision to make, It not the courts decision to make either.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Autumnal
 


Heres a hint:Who pays for every welfare case on the planet?
answer: the American tax payer.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight76
 


Please refer back to my post "Please don't waste my time with "what if's".
Like "What if their religion required the sacrifice of the oldest child?"
Because murder is illegal as it is"



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by oghamxx
 


I had to make this decision for my ex-wife (who is a Jehovah's Witness) when she was in a car crash and needed blood. There were legions of Jehovah's Witness Elders and other members of the congregation who tried to talk me out of giving consent for her to have blood. Even her parents suggested legal action at the time and shortly after. Luckily however, I had it in writing that I was her next of kin (from our Will documentation) and I told the Dr's to go ahead with the required treatment.

She survived, left then divorced me and then later remarried and now she's very happy. If I were put in the same situation again, I'd make all the same decisions, because it is my belief that life is the most important gift we've been given.

Glad the Judge made the right decision.

Rev


edit on 13/5/2012 by revmoofoo because: Grammer



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoctorMobius
reply to post by Autumnal
 


Heres a hint:Who pays for every welfare case on the planet?
answer: the American tax payer.


Now this is a welfare case? Since when do people get forced to receive welfare against their religious views? How is this welfare?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join