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.

 

Do Parents Have the Right To Refuse Medical Treatment for Faith Healing?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I have a realtive that will not get any help from doctors at all other than over the counter medicine. He believes that if he is meant to live he will, if he's meant to die then same. Says if it comes down to it he would never have any surgery whatsoever because he believes that god wouldn't want that, he believes it's wrong to try to undo the path that was given to you. I do not agree but since he is an adult that choice is his and his only.

These kids didn't have a choice and they should have.




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
While I understand the moral quandary but what about the freedoms and rights to determine your own destiny? It is a sad thing that these people are so blinded by religion but it is their freedom to do so. Will their lineage continue? evidently not

freedom is a dangerous thing ..... for the stupid!

but should we take away everyone else's freedom because of morons? I think not .....



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


The slow walk into fascism ends with goose stepping ...... we are way down that road if you look .... if 20 years ago you would have said the airport police will fondle your "what evers" to get on a plane ... I would have called you crazy .....



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.


it IS wrong, and it IS the government place, when that religious belief causes harm to others...and that is the exact reason why any religion should be tightly monitored and controlled. enough with this 14th century mindset of mythical beings having power over someone


If you are willing to allow the government to tell you how to raise and take care of your child then you should have no problem with the government controlling every aspect of your life.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by buster2010
It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.


I agree to an extent; however, is it the parents place to choose a religion for their children? That is what it comes down to really. The parents are fully withing their rights, as legal adults, to deny medical care on their own behalf due to religious beliefs. But that is where their constitutionally protected "freedom of religion" ends; at their own person. No one has a right to choose another person's religious preferences; even if that other person is your child.


I have no problem with parents choosing a religion for their child. In some families it helps with the family unit. Besides the child isn't going to stay a child forever they grow up and some of them question their faiths some lose it some don't. I know I did. But I respect a persons right to be true to their faith.

You seem to think it's ok to put limits on our rights is Freedom of Religion the only right you want taken away? How about Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Speech? When you let one get taken away it only gets easier for the rest to be taken away.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 





Sorry your honor, instead of putting pressure on the wound I thought the best thing would be to pray? Sorry your honor, I didn't call the ambulance, because it's against my religion?


What I am talking about is not only Freedom of Religion but that of personal liberty as well. It is a persons right to do with their life as they choose. And that right also extends to those that are in their charge as well until that person is capable of asking for treatment by themselves at that time the parents rights ends and that persons rights begins.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by buster2010
Yes parents have that right to make that decision. As sad as it may be it is the parents right to do what is best for that child and if prayer is their choice then that's final. It isn't the governments place to tell someone their religion is wrong.


But what about the rights of the child? Don't we as a society need to protect all children? We remove them from abusive situations, would this not qualify?

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion, I'm just having a discussion.


If people gave two squirts of goat piss about the "rights of the child" abortion would he outlawed..

Let's be real for a second here.


the fetus is part of, and inside the womans body, a distinction you are unable or incapable of grasping, exactly the reason that any religion should be tightly monitored and controlled.



Ahhhh I see the light now.

The baby doesn't have rights until the second the cord is cut then? Then all of a sudden we have to move heaven and earth to protect them? Like one second they are a fetus and their fate is at the whim of the mother and a millisecond later when the cord is cut they are the responsibility of us all to protect them and afford them all rights?

Thank you, makes perfect sense now.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ObservingTheWorld
 


You, and others, may find my point of view barbaric, but I'm not going to apologize for it. It's a natural and time tested phenomenon called "survival of the fittest".

What if doing what one considers necessary for your physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual well being is suddenly deemed illegal or criminal?

How are these things any less "barbaric"? We may put a different face on it, but they "let the weak die" by not allowing the perpetuation of the family line,

People make conscious decisions every day that equate to that same sentiment, and most of the time we call those decisions "honorable", and some of them acceptable. We call it barbaric when it is uncomfortable, or touches us on an physical or emotional level. The child didn't have a choice, but it had parents who made choices for them just as you and I had parents that made decisions that ensured our survival and ability to perpetuate.

When we are born, we do not have the skills necessary to choose, but these choices are made for us by design. Whether you believe in a form of divinity, or believe in the natural process, one can not contest that the design exists. Either way, the design has worked, and humanity's (alleged) superiority is evidence of that.

We are faced with the same three decisions every single day:

1. To do what is necessary
2. To do nothing
3. To do what is unnecessary

Put whatever spin you want on it. Everything that we do, every choice we make every single day from the day we are born boils down to the three choices above.

I think that the majority would agree that the larger part of the time we choose to do what is necessary to attain our desires, reach our goals and to survive. Until we reach a certain level a maturity, a certain level of experience with how the mechanisms of our survival work, we are guided by that which has been designed for us.

Because we might not have made that same choice we have right or the duty to label them criminal? Why? Because we deem ourselves stronger, more intelligent, or more spiritual? Doesn't that effectively dismantle the design which is responsible for our existence?

If decisions of the parent promote the survival of the species the species becomes stronger, and knowledge is gained and passed down.

It seems that as long as someone is making the same choices you would make, those that "society" or the government deems appropriate and necessary, it's OK, but otherwise they should be considered criminal because they don't share the same practice or belief?

Would you say the same thing if the parents had sought an herbal treatment?
What if they did, and the child died?

How is that any different than the choice that these parents made?

Would you say the same thing about the couple that has a child that has no way to provide for other it than your tax money? People seem to be ready to call them criminals too.

What is the difference?

Guess what? There isn't one.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Damn you always pick up on the most interesting topics, These types of conversations are why I cannot stop coming here here no matter how busy I get.

My take on it would be that the government in whatever form has to take a neutral stance on religion and prayer. I wouldn't think that these parents would have been charged with anything if they had also taken some other measures to heal their child. No religion that I'm aware of would suggest that prayer alone will be enough to heal the sick. There has to be physical effort, preparation, research, support from family and friends, some education and of course a little faith before one can approach the acts of healing. Nowhere have I ever heard that just anyone can take on the role of healer without at least addressing some of these aspects.

If these parents took no other action then here in America that would have to be the same as doing nothing. It's our way and it's better than most.

I would not think that it's anyone else's right to decide for the parents exactly what kind of treatment is best for their children. We all know that our health care system has it's faults. That said. You can't rely on faith alone, it's akin to walking blindly across a busy street. One has to take measures to stay healthy and keep one self and one's children in good physical well being.

All that said, these parents are never ever going to recuperate from this. Their punishment will last until the day that they die themselves. Who's right is it to decide what more punishment to heap on top of that? Whoever takes it upon themselves to dish out any such punishment is going to be doing it out of self righteousness and should not be in their position.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
No, they don't. They don't own their children and have no right to put another individuals life in danger.

Children are people. By denying them medical treatment the parents should be brought up on negligent manslaughter charges if they die.


edit on 25-4-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 




If you are willing to allow the government to tell you how to raise and take care of your child then you should have no problem with the government controlling every aspect of your life.


Nope. We aren't talking about how to raise a child. We are talking life and death decisions. Children are individuals and should not be allowed to suffer and die because their parents believe in hocus pocus.

You would be charged with a crime if you let your child bleed to death because you didn't feel like calling 911 or driving to the hospital. It should be the same exact way if you fail to call 911 because you feel God could heal them.

Weird how people are willing to deny children the ability to live because of some "big brother" argument.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I cant believe some of you think that parents should have this right.. what you advocate is legalised manslaughter and child abuse of the worst kind. Sick!


I hope they will make an example out of those two child killers.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 





It is a persons right to do with their life as they choose. And that right also extends to those that are in their charge as well until that person is capable of asking for treatment by themselves at that time the parents rights ends and that persons rights begins.


No, it doesnt. Personal rights are called personal because they only apply to one person. Children are not property. Parenting is obligations first, rights second.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Is kiddie fiddling also a parental right? If not, why should this be, considering that lack of medical care can lead to more suffering and damage for the child than molestation, even death.
edit on 25/4/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 

Had a discussion with my GF recently about this. While we both think they are wrong she didnt get my point.

Do you think these people live in a house? Why wouldnt they just pray that God will create a bubble of nice weather around them?

Do they have jobs? or just pray that God will provide for them?

If their water heater breaks do the call a plumber or pray???

I think they only pray when it doesnt affect them....not saying their childrens death doesnt affect them



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Dear smyleegrl,



So...two children died because their parents chose prayer over medical treatment (although, to be fair, we have to assume that treatment would have worked). My question is....do parents have a right to refuse treatment in favor of faith healing? How do we draw a line for parental rights?


I disagree with something you said. You said "to be fair". To be fair we should assume the treatment would have failed because that is what is at issue. Who should decide what treatment is appropriate for children, the parents or the state? Either one you choose will still result in mistakes and wrongs. I have seen bad situations arising from both. I took in an ex-foster child, the state had cared for him till he turned 18 and then put him on the streets with no help. His foster experience was lovely, he was beat, abused in every way you can imagine and then left homeless. I have also know kids that grew up with real A holes for parents, they used to come to my house to spend the night with my kids and us, many wanted to stay because their parents did not care for them.

If the state decided that they should make the decisions for parents then it should take the responsibility for the consequences and they are unwilling to do so. In Texas, kids were put in juvenile detention facilities and the judges were getting kickbacks from the private companies for every child they sent into detention. If the medical profession gets paid for giving treatments then they will fight strongly to take away parents rights to decide what is best for their children. Don't fall for the propaganda. This is about money to the state and the leaches that bill it.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Withholding medication under any circumstance from a child that needs it is CHILD ABUSE. i hope that these "Christians" get life in jail or the death penalty for what they have done.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by curlygirl
Withholding medication under any circumstance from a child that needs it is CHILD ABUSE. i hope that these "Christians" get life in jail or the death penalty for what they have done.


Dear curlygirl,

Clearly you have never had to make these type of serious decisions. "Any circumstances" is what you said. Treatments have costs, does cost not matter. Treatments are not guarentees. I have taken care of a 94 year old woman and two people on hospice. Heck, the government puts a price on life as does the insurance agencies. Deny ignorance, give it a try. Avoid overly emotional, knee jerk reactions to hypotheticals and even to real life. Try understanding all sides rather than speaking from your life experience alone.

When my father, who I cared for, went through chemo, he was given pills that cost a lot of money, so that he could keep his food down. He couldn't smoke week and would not have, nope, buy the pills. Even with private insurance and Medicare they wanted over a thousand dollars for less than a weeks worth of pills. When I went to pick up the first set of pills, I was stunned. I managed to bring down the price by working with his doctor; but, I was stunned. I thought about the elderly on Social Security that had to buy the pills and choose between eating or giving the pills to their spouse. Tell me again about "under any circumstances". I find your comments both heartless and ignorant.

The medical profession is just that, a business. The pharmaceutical companies are much worse, they are worse than the mafia. Yet, because you hate religion, you will assume that the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies have our best interests at heart rather than seeking to make a profit and using such stories to tell others why they should decide what is best for our children, not their children, they can afford to do whatever they want. Now tell me again about "under any situation".



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by buster2010
 




If you are willing to allow the government to tell you how to raise and take care of your child then you should have no problem with the government controlling every aspect of your life.


Nope. We aren't talking about how to raise a child. We are talking life and death decisions. Children are individuals and should not be allowed to suffer and die because their parents believe in hocus pocus.

You would be charged with a crime if you let your child bleed to death because you didn't feel like calling 911 or driving to the hospital. It should be the same exact way if you fail to call 911 because you feel God could heal them.

Weird how people are willing to deny children the ability to live because of some "big brother" argument.


Yes you are talking about how to raise a person's child. By denying them the right to raise their child by the way their religion says.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by buster2010
 





It is a persons right to do with their life as they choose. And that right also extends to those that are in their charge as well until that person is capable of asking for treatment by themselves at that time the parents rights ends and that persons rights begins.


No, it doesnt. Personal rights are called personal because they only apply to one person. Children are not property. Parenting is obligations first, rights second.


And what is a parents obligation? To raise their child in the way they think is best.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join