What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Legal Rights of Praying

Should the government force a parent to use secular medicine over prayer or religious beliefs?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 5 100.0%

  • Undecided / Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    5
Q

Quath

Member
Should belief in God triumph over secular medical knowledge? Here is a reference story from The Journal News about Christian Scientists. One part of the article says:

In one such case, 2-year-old Robyn Twitchell of Boston died from a bowel obstruction when his parents, Ginger and David Twitchell, opted to treat him through Christian Science.

"He died because he was denied by his parents, who were Christian Scientists, proper medical treatment," said William Cooley, board president of Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, an Iowa-based advocacy group.

"Study of the case by physicians and also lawyers shows that he could easily have been treated for his condition and his life saved," said Cooley, a research chemist in Wyoming, Ohio, who consults with drug companies on product development.

However, looking beyond if this being a Christian Science story, imagine it extended to all of Christianity or to any religion. Should the government be able to require people to put aside religious convictions and apply secular knowledge instead?

Voting "Yes" would imply goverment could force parents to administer immunization shots. It could possibly mean that sex education should be done in a way that is against a person's religion. (Government could say that sexual health is important.)

Voting "No" would mean that children may die from lack of basic medical care.

Quath
 
Yes, because children have rights too. Just as you can't beat a child, or rape a child, you should not be able to deny them medical care.
 
Quath,

Voting "Yes" would imply goverment could force parents to administer immunization shots. It could possibly mean that sex education should be done in a way that is against a person's religion. (Government could say that sexual health is important.)

Voting "No" would mean that children may die from lack of basic medical care.
Click to expand...

I like how you use two extremes. Perhaps you should just stick with "'Yes' would mean that children may not die from lack of basic medical care." Let's be consistent.

I voted 'yes.'
 
I haven't even voted on this because I have not fully decided. Some of this issue is basic freedom. Some is rights of the child. At what level should we let the government decide what is right for us? Personally, I think it is harmful for a child not to be immunized. However, I think it is also harmful for a child not be taught that condom use decreases change of getting a disease or causing pregnancy.

It reminds me of a Babylon 5 episode where some aliens come to the space station to see the station doctor. The doctor diagnoses the patient and finds a blockage and simple surgery would save the child. However, the parents refuse because they believe if you cut open the skin, the soul leaks out. The doctor is forbidden by the Earth government of violating the alien's religious rights. However, he disobeys and performs the procedure. The parents end up killing their child because they believe it was just an empty vessel.

So it is a tough issue. At what level do we impose our values on others?

Quath
 
I would draw a line between preventative and reactive medical science. I think the government needs to respect the rights of parents to raise children as they see fit. Because of this, I don't support being able to force vaccines or condom teaching or other such activities which the parent may view as morally wrong, and which serve only to potentially improve the child's health.

OTOH, I view the right to live as the most essential right, and as such the government does need to protect those who are legally unable to make their own medical decisions. If a child is ill with any life threatening sickness or disease, then I believe it is the government's duty to intervene on behalf of the child if that child does not receive standard treatment. Once the ailment is an actuality, the child's right to life trumps the parents' religious rights.
 
If the "secular medicine" is a neccesity for life to continue, then yes, there are lines that should be crossed.

Of course, I can't think of any sane religious belief that would interfere with medicine being okay to use. Quath used a bizzare, extreme example. So, really, the religious beleif should not be a problem, only when you get "wackos".
 
Wow I couldn't have come up with a more ironic statement than that one DM. At any rate, religious beliefs cannot interfere with the well being of people who are considered dependants. It's child abuse, plain and simple. For the same reason, parents should not have to be consulted when their child is to have an abortion.
 
I think that prohibiting your child from getting the adequate medical attention is terrible neglect on the parent's part. Our faith should not negate our common sense and that is

Sickness>>>Medicine>>>Recovery
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top