Welcome to Gaia! ::

The First Amendment Center recently posted an article about a couple who is being pressed with charges because of their daughter's death. You can read the full article at this link. The argument is that the parents are responsible for manslaughter and criminal mistreatment of their daughter for not administering what most consider to be proper medical care. Instead of giving their child hospitalization they chose to use faith healing. The church they belong to has a history of treating illnesses through faith healing. Recent laws have put these sorts of practice under scrutiny in no small part because of deaths.

Is refusing conventional medical treatment because you religiously prefer faith healing or alternative healing something we should be punishing by law? What do you think? Was it truly negligent for them not to use scientifically and medically canonized procedures? Where do you think the line should be drawn? Should this really be labeled manslaughter or criminal mistreatment? Is using faith as a substitute for practical treatments foolish and dangerous enough to warrant a lawsuit?

If the parents really cared about their child, it seems a bit cruel to go charge them with manslaughter to further rub in the pain and sorrow. You'd think the fact that their kid is dead is punishment enough. It may be, as is suggested by the article, that there have been other more questionable cases involving this faith healing church and they want to try and put a stop to what they consider to be negligent treatment of children. Personally I'd want more information before judging this case.

Since, at best (in a secular view of the world), the evidence for faith healing is few and far between and at worst is nonexistent; I shall tackle this from two different perspectives. First, I will assume faith healing works, secondly, I will assume it does not work.

Assuming faith healing actually works, and is not confounded by some other variable, such as a very healthy immune system; then it seems that faith healing would be very similar to regular medicinal methods. So, assuming the two to be equal, it would be advantageous to require faith healers to have a license to practice, as all other physicians and surgeons do.

Assuming faith healing does not work and is thus either confounded by some other variable (e.g. a very healthy immune system) or has no evidence in support of it; then quite simply it should be no more than an adjunct to regular medicinal practices - if the patient so desires; and assuming the patient in enough control of their own bodies to make normal, rational decisions.

*NOTE* This does not impede on one's ability to refuse medical treatment, if they are able to make normal, rational decisions.

Also note that the term 'normal, rational decision' does not imply that the patient is required to choose to go through any given medical procedure.

It may sound hard, BUT refusing medical car when you are adult and you can decide about yourself is your choice. Deciding that your child will not get the medical care in not right. I doubt the child would prefer to believe in god and die. Sorry, but those parents are stupid and deserve to be punished, because they caused the death of their own child. Every parent should want the best for his/her child and this was not the best. This was their best, not the child best.

And another thing, those who believe in Jehova really make me mad. If they decide to not to accept the transfusion for themselves fine, but when they know that if their child (example) will not get the transfusion the child will die and still say, no, we want no transfusion they are sending their child to death and they know it. So, in my opinion, this is a murder. A normal murder, because they chose faith over the life of the child. Caring parents would never do such thing.

From the article:

On the other hand, the doctors swore the will do their best and safe the lives. They have to do their best to safe the life and the person they are caring about says he/she prefers to die? Poor doctor. But I agree that there should be a line.

I agree with those who say that the parents have no right to refuse medical treatment for their child. It's one thing if they're refusing it for themselves, but while the child is still a minor and unable to decide for themself, then medical treatment should be sought.

I disagree. As parents you are the sole decision maker for your child. You are responsible for everything when it comes to them: food, clothes, medicine, morals, etc..

They are the adults, and therefore are responsible for their own decisions. People tell you all the time to do something or not to do something. You have to decide for yourself whether you do it or not. They chose not to take their child to the doctor, not the person who persuaded them. They CHOSE to take his advice. They are not helpless infants here trying to make a decision.

They should be prosecuted to the highest extent of the law for murdering their child. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know whether or someone is having a medical emergency.

That aside, I think refusing medical treatment for a child isn't allowed until they're 18. Blood transfusion refusal needs the patient's signature I believe, just like you can't make your child an organ donor. Children fall under the fullest extent of a Hippocratic oath until they are 18. Correct me if I'm wrong though. wink

Reading the article and drawing on my memory, I personally have the opinion that these parents should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; the law being just in design. There are precedents and laws in place to prevent such things. The particular case that comes to mind however has different circumstances.
The mother and father refused to seek professional medical treatment for their child as they felt in their belief that if the child was meant to live, then God would heal the child of the ailment although the child had requested to see a doctor.
If I am correct, the current United States of America federal law states basically that a child under the age of 18, if suffering, must be medically treated. The law also provides room that religious healing may be accompanied with the medical treatment. Please, if I am wrong, correct me.
I will admit now, looking through the replies under this reply box, I very much agree with Tigress Dawn, however I would like to point something out. There are cultures where youth reach adulthood at ages of eight, thirteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, and even nineteen. In these cultures, practices vary. Just because one is an adult does not mean they may make their own decisions, and in others, because you are an adult you are thrown out of the village for a year to live in the forest with no assistance. In others, the entire village is responsible for raising a child, where as in others the child is considered spoiled if it has someone to raise it.
Where do we draw this line, as a "civilized" culture, between wether or not it was negligent of them to prefer religious healing instead of modern day medical? Before one answers that question, I ask them to look at the horribly historically inaccurate Disney movie, Pocahontas.
When meeting John Smith, Pocahontas points out that he sees her people as savages and uncivilized, but her people see his as savages and uncivilized. The line from the song, Colors of the Wind even states "You think I'm ignorant savage, and you've been so many places, I guess it must be so. But still I cannot see, if the savage one is me. How can there be much you don't know. You don't know...." She then breaks off for a stanza then says "you think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you. But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger, you'll learn things you never knew you never knew"
This church is one culture, different from that of which the rest of us live our lives.
In my views, it is not my place to impose my beliefs on an entire culture, no matter the culture, just as it is the place of anyone of their culture to impose their beliefs upon my entire culture.



I apologize for that wall of text, and if you can actually read through it and grasp my points and feelings, then bonus points to you. On a totally unrelated matter: I haven't posted in here since this place was first established, almost. I was shocked to see Tigress Dawn and ChaoticPuppet.