Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What should happen to parents when they withhold medical treatment for their children based on religious beliefs and the children die? Do parents have a right to withhold medical treatment due to religious beliefs?
Quote:
CRESWELL, Ore. -- On Friday, Lane County Sheriff's Office deputies arrested the parents of 16-year-old Austin Sprout who died in December.
Deputies said Brandi and Russel Bellew didn't take Sprout to a doctor because of their faith. They face manslaughter charges. The arrests come after a seven-week investigation by the Lane County Sheriff's Office.
"The investigation has determined that medical professionals believe that the illness he suffered was treatable if he had been provided medical care," said Capt. Byron Trapp from Lane County Sheriff's Office. "That is what the arrests are based on, is the withholding of medical care in this case that allowed Austin to die." Authorities would not say what Sprout died of, but they said his medical condition was highly treatable.
There is a line to be determined. On one hand, I should not be required to get my daughter a gardisil shot....but on the other hand, refusing to get her treated for appendicitis (or whatever other life-threatening ailment she has) should get me in trouble with the law. I think if you're going to prosecute for it, you need to draw a clear and distinct line between the 2.
There is a line to be determined. On one hand, I should not be required to get my daughter a gardisil shot....but on the other hand, refusing to get her treated for appendicitis (or whatever other life-threatening ailment she has) should get me in trouble with the law. I think if you're going to prosecute for it, you need to draw a clear and distinct line between the 2.
Slippery slope, very slippery slope, IMO.
There is no clear line other than abiding by our US Constitution. This is something for states and the people to decide. It does not belong at the federal level. The arguement for government to intervene in a religious/medical treatment situation is taking away parental decision rights. It would seem that the parents should have known their religious/medical wishes were against the law in Oregon (per the state law cited in the article) and should have moved out of Oregon in order to practice their religion freely.
Does religious freedom over-ride "child endangerment" when it comes to such cases? Maybe. Take this a bit further and can the government force abortions upon women or force a woman to undergo surgery to the fetus she carries in utero in order to save its life based on HHS rules?
Under Obamacare the government owns us all so I doubt HHS rules will allow parents much say over treatments for their children to have or not to have in the very near future. The statists wanted the government to own us from cradle to grave and they are getting their way.
Devil's advocate arguement:
At the age of 16 the "child" had attained the age of emancipation had he so chosen. If a "child" is able to obtain an abortion without parental consent than certainly this 16 yr. old could have sought medical treatment without parental consent as well. If the 16 yr. old held the same faith as his parents was that not also his right to choose non-treatment based upon his religion?
Yes, the parents should go to jail or be executed in case the child dies because of their religious fanaticism. Or be put in jail cells with some hardcore criminals who will do that job for them.
Yes, the parents should go to jail or be executed in case the child dies because of their religious fanaticism. Or be put in jail cells with some hardcore criminals who will do that job for them.
Being a parent, religious outlook or not. If the situation of the child or baby is life or death, and the parents know this. And accept to not get this child the medical attention needed to live, or to get better then yes.
Religion or not, sorry this is where the life of my child, would become more important.
The thing about this that irks me is that these folks aren't "depending on god" for everything. They are living in a modern society and enjoying ALL the benefits that come from that and usually just pick and choose how to demonstrate their so-called faith by giving up on this or that...often medical care...because they see other people doing it and think it's somehow making them special. They want to look good in the eyes of others!! I'm sure they drive, go to the store, buy food and cloting, etc. when they should really just be sitting naked in an empty field and praying for god to do pull their strings.
There have been a number of cases of very young children dying (one a slightly premature baby who would have survived if he had been taken to the hospital) in Oregon because of the parents' religious beliefs.
Quote:
The Hickmans were convicted of second-degree manslaughter in September for failing to seek medical care for their son David, who was born two months prematurely and lived less than nine hours. An autopsy found he had staph pneumonia and underdeveloped lungs.
Pediatric experts testified that the baby almost certainly would have survived if he had been taken to a hospital. The Hickmans sought no medical intervention even as the baby turned gray and struggled to breathe.
A jury convicted the Wylands of first-degree criminal mistreatment earlier this month. The couple's daughter Alayna, now 18 months old, has an abnormal growth of blood vessels, known as a hemangioma. Shortly after birth, the hemangioma grew and engulfed her left eye.
There was the case of a 16-year-old boy who died of easily treatable urinary problems. Could he have gone to a doctor himself? Perhaps, but he had never BEEN to a doctor and was obviously indoctrinated in the belief that he could be healed by prayer:
Quote:
Neil Beagley had never been to a doctor, did not know the severity of his condition and could not make an informed decision, according to prosecutors.
And what was doubly sad is that prior to the sixteen-year-old's death, his older sister and her husband let their daughter (his niece) die:
Quote:
The Worthingtons are charged with manslaughter and criminal mistreatment. Ava Worthington died in March 2008 from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection, conditions that could have been treated with antibiotics.
The Worthingtons declined for religious reasons to seek medical attention for their daughter and attempted to cure her with what the church calls spiritual healing.
What should happen to parents when they withhold medical treatment for their children based on religious beliefs and the children die? Do parents have a right to withhold medical treatment due to religious beliefs?
they should be tied to an alter and someone of unshakable faith in the lord like themselves should raise a knife over them , if it be gods will for them to live , the holder of the knife will be unable to follow through
sauce for the goose
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
