Medical Treatment for Children

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Should the government be able force parents to seek medical attention for their children even if it is against their beliefs? If a child dies as a result of the lack of treatment, should the parents be in trouble?

[Sph2015]

I say no to the first and yes to the second. They can't force them unless there is a specific situation, but if they die as a result then it's technically child abuse. At the same time, it depends on what you mean by "beliefs". Because sometimes a belief (for instance, I live in Indiana Amish country) limits access to modern medicine. At the same time, I do know of people who have sought modern remidies in serious situations. So, I guess it depends on the situation. But I would say in almost all situations they should get in trouble.

[Gigablue]

Yes. Parents should have to provide medical treatment for children, and if the don't, the state should intervene. If a child dies as a result of the parents refusing treatment, the parents should be prosecuted.

[Jess]

Definitely yes. Stories about how parents let their kids die because they thought only praying would work and refused to use medicine (this is just an example) disgust me. They should definitely be in trouble if they let their child die.

[FreeFall]

A parental obligation, and in biology itself, is to ensure the safety and well-being and survival of your child.

How's denying them treatment ensuring them safety, well-being and good health? All because of faith. You may be a huge believer, but what right is there to enforce your child with something like that and give them a losing edge?

Should I think they be forced, I'm a bit on the fence. Sometimes some treatments only prolong pain, increase suffering and give the child a miserable few more months of life. But, if it can be helped, I feel it should be. But personally I don't believe in taking away rights from a parent. If the child's not in danger, aside from the parents denying treatment due to faith, the government hasn't much of a place sepping into mom and dad's shoes and making that call.

I'm sort of torn. Yes, because I feel the child deserves help where help is due. But no because I'm thinking of Grandparent Rights, and how children were forcibly taken to spend time with people who were not their parents, let alone grandparents. Sometimes they were family friends, no relation or importance at all to the child. That little lawsuit showed the world how dangerous it can be when the government intervenes in parenting decisions, like keeping kids away from grandparents and giving them the right to sue for visitation. I'm all for saving kids, love kids, but how far is too far is what I'm worried about. Give the government an inch and they'll take a mile, which makes it the re more frustrating because it's the child's health in question.

[Sugaree]

Love how some of you are being total statists in wanting the government to seize the children if they don't get medical care. Only if the child dies as a result of no medical care should the state intervene. The state has no right to take the children from the parents unless it is reported to them. If the government gets involved in something like this, parents might as well kiss their rights as parents goodbye. You have the possibility of strict regulations coming into play that don't need to be there.

On the second question, yes, the parents should be arrested for child neglect IF AND ONLY IF the child dies or is sent to a hospital by the state after due reports.

[Hypers]

Yes. parents should be responsible to their children just like they are responsible to society. if stealing is wrong, then not giving medical attention is wrong. the government should help the children get medical attention.

[Mortal Coil]

Uhm, yes and yes. Denying your children medical care is a form of abuse. Your right to religious freedom ends when someone's life is at stake. If the parents really think God doesn't like medicine, blood transfusions or whatever the hell it is that they object to, they can pray for forgiveness and wear hair shirts and say Hail Marys (or whatever they do for penance these days.) Making someone die because of your beliefs is absolutely horrible.

[project_icarus]

Well, define 'child.' If a child is incompetent (and/or unable to afford the expenses therein) to go to a hospital and get medical attention themselves, then yes. Under sixteen, yes. And if said child dies as a result of their negligence, then I'd say that they should be punished by the law.

If the parents need to consent to a life-saving (or otherwise critical) operation/treatment, I think that the child should be the one to consent if they are competent to do so.

And needless to say, repeating what Alex said, keeping your child from accessing medical attention is abuse.

[Cicero]

that's the thing with Obama that a lot of Americans dont like, is he's trying to force everyone to get health insurance, and forcing a family to get health insurance is unconstitutional. Forcing anyone medical attention in a way is unconstitutional, yet I also believe that it can be child abuse. Now im not talking about forcing a child medical attention if its something as minor as a cold or flu. I'm talking about life threatening conditions. The states say that it's considered child abuse if a parent doesn't supply a child with medical help for life threatening illnesses. Whether its physical, like STDs or cancer, or its mental like suicide and depression. I dont know of one single belief that would say that a family cannot get medical attention.

[CharlieFinley]

No. I believe every parent should, regardless of religious beliefs, provide his or her child medical care in serious matters, but I do not believe there is a practical and constitutional way to enforce that in a positive manner. Now, I'm sure we can negatively reinforce the behavior, which is why my answer to the second question is yes.

[MaximumR]

I do believe that is child neglect. This reminds of an episode of Family Guy where this Christian family's kid got cancer but it was easily treatable but they refused to let him get the medicine

[FreeFall]

I dont know of one single belief that would say that a family cannot get medical attention.
The Christian Scientists.
Here's 1 case (http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical1a.htm)of a father pissed his child died because his mother and step-father refused treatment for him. There's also more info on the faith on that site.
Here'sa story (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm) about them and their beliefs and how the children suffer.
Here's where a baby (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/06/us/in-child-deaths-a-test-for-christian-science.html), one that relies on their parents, was killed by an obstructed bowel as they prayed for his health.

This groups is pretty odd. It's like any other religion, you have the ones who harass those that don't follow their faith and the good ones that just keep to themselves. But it seems, when they're upset, they flock to each other in a sort of community and sort of recuperate there. They don't seem to lash out and rile up, it's odd to me since that's not the norm of what I typically read about. There's the part that feels medicine isn't for them, then the half that feels it should be done away with. Just, you know the typical religion.

There's Jehovah Witnesses (http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical2.htm) too. They seem to keep to themselves the most, save for the old couple that knocks on my door every Saturday. They haven't spoken out as some other religions have it seems, but I sort of felt the need to include them since I got on a roll of religions that deny medicine.

[Cicero]

The Christian Scientists.
Here's 1 case (http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical1a.htm)of a father pissed his child died because his mother and step-father refused treatment for him. There's also more info on the faith on that site.
Here'sa story (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm) about them and their beliefs and how the children suffer.
Here's where a baby (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/06/us/in-child-deaths-a-test-for-christian-science.html), one that relies on their parents, was killed by an obstructed bowel as they prayed for his health.

This groups is pretty odd. It's like any other religion, you have the ones who harass those that don't follow their faith and the good ones that just keep to themselves. But it seems, when they're upset, they flock to each other in a sort of community and sort of recuperate there. They don't seem to lash out and rile up, it's odd to me since that's not the norm of what I typically read about. There's the part that feels medicine isn't for them, then the half that feels it should be done away with. Just, you know the typical religion.

There's Jehovah Witnesses (http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical2.htm) too. They seem to keep to themselves the most, save for the old couple that knocks on my door every Saturday. They haven't spoken out as some other religions have it seems, but I sort of felt the need to include them since I got on a roll of religions that deny medicine.

those are just the extreme christians, most of them wouldn't just pray.

[FreeFall]

those are just the extreme christians, most of them wouldn't just pray.
No, not extremist Christians. The Christians Science. That's like saying the Catholics and Orthodox are the same. They're different from typical Christian belief, though they're similar, they aren't to be lumped with them. They're their own group, they are not just Christians.
That is why they are Christian Scientists. They make a few exceptions in regards of health yes. They allow dental work, and the repairment of broken limbs. But they really just huddle over their ill and pray. Everyone prays. They only pray.
No treatment, no medicince. Those that do, are seen as having turned their back on the faith and denying themselves of being a good Christian Scientist.