Parents Killing Their Children?

[Josiah]

In the USA, there is a constitutional right to practice one's religion. But of course, like all CIVIL rights, it's not necessarily absolute since at times such "rights" can conflict with the civil and/or human rights of others (the old, "Can't yell fire in a theater" point).

In the USA, there is a general sense that parents have the civil right to raise their children according to their religion. Of course, some have a religion that states that medical treatment is wrong and to be avoided. RARELY (there are only a few documented cases), a minor child dies, a child to whom medical treatment was denied by the parents in the name of freedom of religion, a child who it is claimed would have survived (or even been cured) if medical treatment had not been forbidden.

Many US States (including California) have LIMITS on this right that have survived court challenges.... although it's quite a complicated process to allow the court to intervene against the religious convictions of the parents and is rarely employed. Utah is one of the states that has no such provisions (also surviving court challenge - states are simply allowed to treat this differently). In Utah, none can intervene. There are other such states, as well.

If I understood the morning TV news today, we have a case of a little child dying in Utah, a death that medical professionals claim was preventable.... thus, the issue is back in the news. Bring up the "freedom of religion" issue again.



What do you say?




.

 

[Stravinsk]

In the USA, there is a constitutional right to practice one's religion. But of course, like all CIVIL rights, it's not necessarily absolute since at times such "rights" can conflict with the civil and/or human rights of others (the old, "Can't yell fire in a theater" point).

In the USA, there is a general sense that parents have the civil right to raise their children according to their religion. Of course, some have a religion that states that medical treatment is wrong and to be avoided. RARELY (there are only a few documented cases), a minor child dies, a child to whom medical treatment was denied by the parents in the name of freedom of religion, a child who it is claimed would have survived (or even been cured) if medical treatment had not been forbidden.

Many US States (including California) have LIMITS on this right that have survived court challenges.... although it's quite a complicated process to allow the court to intervene against the religious convictions of the parents and is rarely employed. Utah is one of the states that has no such provisions (also surviving court challenge - states are simply allowed to treat this differently). In Utah, none can intervene. There are other such states, as well.

If I understood the morning TV news today, we have a case of a little child dying in Utah, a death that medical professionals claim was preventable.... thus, the issue is back in the news. Bring up the "freedom of religion" issue again.



What do you say?




.

I don't know the case, and I'm tempted to say it should be judged on a case by case basis. What did the child die of? Is there tested, tried and true cure for whatever ailment they had? If so, the parents are negligent at best. However, if it's for something the "medical professionals" have no real cure for, only ongoing "treatments" (like for cancer, for instance) - then absolutely the default right is with the parents.

 

[Alithis]

In the USA, there is a constitutional right to practice one's religion. But of course, like all CIVIL rights, it's not necessarily absolute since at times such "rights" can conflict with the civil and/or human rights of others (the old, "Can't yell fire in a theater" point).

In the USA, there is a general sense that parents have the civil right to raise their children according to their religion. Of course, some have a religion that states that medical treatment is wrong and to be avoided. RARELY (there are only a few documented cases), a minor child dies, a child to whom medical treatment was denied by the parents in the name of freedom of religion, a child who it is claimed would have survived (or even been cured) if medical treatment had not been forbidden.

Many US States (including California) have LIMITS on this right that have survived court challenges.... although it's quite a complicated process to allow the court to intervene against the religious convictions of the parents and is rarely employed. Utah is one of the states that has no such provisions (also surviving court challenge - states are simply allowed to treat this differently). In Utah, none can intervene. There are other such states, as well.

If I understood the morning TV news today, we have a case of a little child dying in Utah, a death that medical professionals claim was preventable.... thus, the issue is back in the news. Bring up the "freedom of religion" issue again.



What do you say?




.

i say the children who have died due to alleged withholding of medical aid are FAR outnumbered by the many who have died as a direct result of medical intervention in the form of drugs .now it has been exposed that substances in some vaccines are poisoning children ..
but the parents that withhold medical aid for religious reasons are condemn and the medical authorities face no such condemnation for the death of the many -its a screwed up world and i'm so thankful the lord Jesus heals .

 

[Alithis]

I don't know the case, and I'm tempted to say it should be judged on a case by case basis. What did the child die of? Is there tested, tried and true cure for whatever ailment they had? If so, the parents are negligent at best. However, if it's for something the "medical professionals" have no real cure for, only ongoing "treatments" (like for cancer, for instance) - then absolutely the default right is with the parents.

this.. it just so happens chemo has the ability to kills cancer cells. AND the person