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.
Let me make it clear I am not a religious fanatic, but I thought that question was a good one. I am not saying kill the child because the parents do not believe. I am simply saying, that the question was a valid one. Why does it SEEM some beliefs have more rights than others, regardless of age, race or creed.
I think the parents should decide... chemo may have a 90% chance of survival... but it can come back right after that. Besides, no one should tell you how to raise your children. My father was on chemo and it actually made him SICKER. He was allergic to something in the chemo and it almost killed him. The first round did shrink his tumor, but every session after that almost killed him and destroyed his ability to fight off basic infections. Thus he quite chemo, and now is happily cancer free for a year now.
This boy's family has his best interest at heart. Why is it that a Jehovah's Witness can refuse a blood transfusion, and scientologists can refuse all medical treatments, but this family, believing in Native American practices can't have the same say and right?
I don't blame her for running.
Maybe because their "religion" is not well-know or accepted? Who knows for sure why the government chooses to get involved here and not "there."
All I know is that the family DID win and a big "hahahhahahah" in the court's face!
Parent's/kid's/family's choice FIRST! Stay the he** out of our lives and the decisions we make for our families!
No the kid is 2 or so, but the point is why go to a court to see if you can potty train? and the court allows this? can a parent not decide when to do this with out a courts approval? same applies here I suppose.
I don't think it would have mattered what faith they were practicing, that was the point. Whether they were scientologists or Jehovah's witness the outcome would have been the same. The only way it wouldn't be the same is if they never took him to the Dr. or hospital to begin with. Then no one would have known he was sick until he died. If that were the case I would still think they should be prosecuted for neglect causing death.
Thank you!!!
And Scientologists DO NOT deny ALL medical treatment. They only deny specific forms of treatment. A few months ago, the death of John Travolta's son was controversial due to the parents requesting a specific hospital for him to go to based on their beliefs. They did indeed seek medical treatment but they also have rules in place about the form the treatment takes.
This is also a 13yr old. A minor.
And the courts in the US have every right to step in when the welfare of a CHILD is question & SUFFICIENT TRUE EVIDENCE shows that the child's welfare is indeed in question.
If the patient was 31, they can deny the treatment.
But, the patient is not over the age of 18.
If this family was so true to their "religion", why they even sought traditional medical help in the first place is questionable, and probably one of the reasons the judge ruled against them.
Didn't Charles Mason kill people b/c of his "religion", so why isn't he free if he claimed religion told him to do the acts?
Jim Jones & the People's Temple claimed all sorts of things. Well, he also convinced them to drink cyanide & die but it was done for "religious reasons", so if he lived, he should be free according to some people's train of thought.
Freedom of religion does not mean go ahead and do whatever the heck you please according to your beliefs. There are regulations to it. And these parents were proven in a court of law to not be allowed to use freedom of religion as a defense based on overwhelming evidence contradicting it.
No the kid is 2 or so, but the point is why go to a court to see if you can potty train? and the court allows this? can a parent not decide when to do this with out a courts approval? same applies here I suppose.
B/c the mother is accusing the father of abuse & neglect. That is why she does not want him potty training the child.
Court ruled against her.
The child can urinate & poop at his father's house when he so inclines to do so.
And Scientologists DO NOT deny ALL medical treatment. They only deny specific forms of treatment. A few months ago, the death of John Travolta's son was controversial due to the parents requesting a specific hospital for him to go to based on their beliefs. They did indeed seek medical treatment but they also have rules in place about the form the treatment takes.
This is also a 13yr old. A minor.
And the courts in the US have every right to step in when the welfare of a CHILD is question & SUFFICIENT TRUE EVIDENCE shows that the child's welfare is indeed in question.
If the patient was 31, they can deny the treatment.
But, the patient is not over the age of 18.
If this family was so true to their "religion", why they even sought traditional medical help in the first place is questionable, and probably one of the reasons the judge ruled against them.
Didn't Charles Mason kill people b/c of his "religion", so why isn't he free if he claimed religion told him to do the acts?
Jim Jones & the People's Temple claimed all sorts of things. Well, he also convinced them to drink cyanide & die but it was done for "religious reasons", so if he lived, he should be free according to some people's train of thought.
Freedom of religion does not mean go ahead and do whatever the heck you please according to your beliefs. There are regulations to it. And these parents were proven in a court of law to not be allowed to use freedom of religion as a defense based on overwhelming evidence contradicting it.
I honestly think that both sides have extremely valid points. I still stand my ground however.
I wonder though, if an ADULT (over the age of 18) can make the decision to NOT get treatment even if it could harm him or her and at the same time a parent is basically the "voice" of the kid and takes the place of the child's "word" why can't the parent refuse treatment on the child's behalf??????
If the parent cannot refuse the treatment for the child then NO adult can refuse the treatment for him/herself.
I honestly think that both sides have extremely valid points. I still stand my ground however.
I wonder though, if an ADULT (over the age of 18) can make the decision to NOT get treatment even if it could harm him or her and at the same time a parent is basically the "voice" of the kid and takes the place of the child's "word" why can't the parent refuse treatment on the child's behalf??????
If the parent cannot refuse the treatment for the child then NO adult can refuse the treatment for him/herself.
Another good point
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.
