When religion is harmful to children...

[Mae13]

Thought I'd toss this issue out to folks her to get some wider opinions on it...I know there's quite a few people here that like to discuss/debate religion, politics, ethics...this kinda ties them altogether, I'd say.

The whole thing came up when a couple coworkers and I were talking about some of the memorable patients we'd had over our times in the healthcare field....there was this one precious girl, 16 years old, with Sickle Cell Anemia. She would have frequent sickle crises. For those of you who don't know what that means, without a lot of droll detail, is a point where too many of their red blood cells break down, usually causing a very painful episode, and can be life-threatening. Where the religion part of all this comes in is the fact that her parents were Jehova's Witnesses. Due to their belief and doctorine, they refused to allow their daughter to receive blood transfusions (one of the ways to avert/end crises). This chronically ill 16-year old girl was trying desperately to get pregnant so she could be emancipated by the state and then have the right to receive blood transfusions which she desired.

These are the kind of cases that just make you clench your teeth and want to say "fuck it" to 'parental rights'. Or at least, that's what it makes me feel like. I know parents are responsible for their children, I know they make the decisions until the age of emancipation. On the other hand, our Constitution provides for freedom of and FROM religion. It just seems this should apply for children like her. If someone had a personal religious belief that included the violent thrashing of a child, there's no way it would be upheld by law, regardless of that parent's right to believe as they wanted to. It seems harmful passivity would be just as bad.

I've had to watch deathly ill kids taken out of good care because their parents wouldn't allow it due to religious restrictions. Now, I believe in the power of prayer and things of that nature to help heal people. The mind is a very powerful thing. I have no problem with any form of prayer being done for the health of a person. But to see healthy kids suffer and die from simple diseases because they were refused medical care by their parents...that just rips me up.

I don't know how they would enforce it, I don't know how to make sure the lines would be drawn carefully to continue to uphold personal religious freedoms...I just know I don't think kids going through things like this is right.

Anyway....opinions? I'd be interested to hear from other health care folks and the legal types too...are these issues being challenged in courts still? Who is winning? It sure doesn't seem like the kids are winning in these situations...

mae

 

[april-wine]

I know exactly how you feel Mae, I to have seen this on too many occasions....Religious parents making decisions that ultimately will kill their children....All you can do is grit your teeth and bear it....It sucks when our hands like this, when intelligent kids wishes are totally ignored....

The frustration is unbelieveable, but what can we do, but make these children comfortable....

 

[Tyrael]

Prolly the parents think their child is going to heaven so it's ok if the child dies.

 

[Mae13]

I'm certainly no expert on religion, especially ones I have never belonged to...but I think the basic tenant behind some of their beliefs is that if God wanted them to be well, they would get well through prayer and God's will alone, without the help of 'outsiders' like doctors, etc...especially medical people who are not of the same faith. If they do die from their illness, then it was God's will. I think they probably do believe the child will go to heaven....I just abhor the thought of them experiencing needless hell on Earth in order to get there

 

[patient1]

No doubt, this situation sucks.


I'm way too tired for this, but I only want to take you up on the constitutional question . As I believe the supreme court justices have said " Freedom of religion is not Freedom from religion".

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from objectionable speech, does it?

It's freedom of choice. The state isn't allowed to establish a religion. It doesn't mean it's a religion-free country.


this is me going to bed...If I can remeber I'll find this thread tomorrow.

 

[Tyrael]

Aint' it nice tho. Parents making their children into martyrs for their beliefs.

Reinforces the idea I have that some people never need to have any kind of power over any kind of life.

 

[Black_Bird]

Again, Mae, this is on the dogma side of religion. Dogma isn't necessary... in fact, belief is the one thing that kills faith the fastest. Faith is a trust in something bigger then yourself to know better then you; belief is the claim that you know something that nobody else does. How can one give himself up to something bigger when he is so concerned about being right?

This country needs to re-evaluate what "religion" means. Its no small task when everybody is so trapped in their preconceptions.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Feel Free to ignore or whatever

http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_02.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_03.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_04.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_05.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_06.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_07.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_08.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_09.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_10.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_11.gif

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_12.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_13.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_14.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_15.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_16.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_17.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_18.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_19.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_20.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_21.gif

 

[Black_Bird]

Sorry, Todd. That's a Chick Track. I can't respect that. That man is as bigotred as Hitler ever ever was... That, and he bashes D&D.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_22.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages31873/0026/0026_23.gif

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Sorry, Todd. That's a Chick Track. I can't respect that. That man was bigotred as Hitler ever ever was... That, and he bashes D&D.

I agree Jack chick is a bigoted man along the line of Falwell and I don't agree with everything he has to say maybe 60% but i don't let that 60% get in the way of the good.

If I allowed bibogtry and biased ness to dictate what i read, watched, listened too, I would have to look myself up in a sound proof box because there is nothing that isn't in form bigoted and biased

 

[Unclebill]

While this is an extremely sad state of affairs, where does one bring the state into the arena of dictating personal choices? Like you, I find it heinous that a parent would see their child suffer and die because of their irrational beliefs.

But worse, I think, is permitting government, an instrument of force, to intrude and begin to coerce the proper behavior on private citizens. If it is to be permitted in a situation such as this then someone will justify government intervention in just one more situation until government is deciding everything.

It is because of these types of irrational situations that I oppose religion; the irrational, needless suffering and misery imposed on the innocent.

This is why I advocate an intellect based morality rather than a mysticism based morality. A parent who ascribes to Objectivism would never permit their child to suffer and die from a disease like this that is treatable and potentially curable.

Originally posted by patient1
As I believe the supreme court justices have said " Freedom of religion is not Freedom from religion".

I'm not familiar with any position expressed by the Supreme Court on this point either. However, from Amendment I;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

It seems clear to me that this provides freedom from religion as well in that the state is prohibited from prescribing a religion. Freedom FROM religion merely means that one may not be coerced into any religion, not that none will exist nor that one will be free of exposure thereunto.

Originally posted by Black_Bird
Again, Mae, this is on the dogma side of religion. Dogma isn't necessary... in fact, belief is the one thing that kills faith the fastest. Faith is a trust in something bigger then yourself to know better then you; belief is the claim that you know something that nobody else does. How can one give himself up to something bigger when he is so concerned about being right?

This country needs to re-evaluate what "religion" means. Its no small task when everybody is so trapped in their preconceptions.

As I read your post, I really wonder where you get your definitions. My dictionary equates religion and dogma (refer to this thread for the definition of faith which addresses this idea): http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=73784&pagenumber=2
Specifically, see definition 5 which defines faith as the The body of dogma of a religion implicitly making dogma and religion inseparable.

And how can you possibly offer the idea that belief is the one thing that kills faith the fastest? Belief is that faith. You're stating a blatant contradiction as either fact or belief, I'm not sure which.

Likewise, belief simply means to accept something as valid, true or accurate. It does not imply exclusivity of some body of knowledge one claims or has.

 

[freescorfr]

.

But worse, I think, is permitting government, an instrument of force, to intrude and begin to coerce the proper behavior on private citizens. If it is to be permitted in a situation such as this then someone will justify government intervention in just one more situation until government is deciding everything.

Well, I see an analogy with bandaging up little girls feet in China or female cirumcision in E. Africa.

 

[LarzMachine]

I just find it fascinating that in an age when we've nearly got the very foundations of the universe figured out, people still cling to outdated mythological explanations for things.

We're on the verge of extending the human lifespan to unheard-of ages through cloned replacement parts, but the religious Luddites claim it's evil because it goes against their mythology and cause so many problems for elected officials they effectively have it crippled.

Priests are raping children, and the government stands idly by while they "solve" the problem by transferring the pedophiles to greener pastures.

Xians are allowed to harass, threaten, intimidate and cause to be fired members of non-xian faiths, all while hiding behind the "religious harassment" policies they themselves are in violation of.

September 11th. No further comment necessary.

I have friends who have been scarred for life because their parents justified every possible act of abuse and degradation through their religion.

Separation of church and state is a myth, and will be as long as the elected officials cling to outdated religious sytems. The one thing the Soviets had right was attempting to keep their government free of religion.

I have yet to find any other source of this much pain, suffering, hatred and destruction in the world. A thousand years ago, religion served a purpose, allowing ignorant peasants to have some measure of security in a hostile world. Now, it's outlived it's purpose and needs to be abolished. I also find it fascinating that the xians, who have entrenched themselves as the "Great Moral Authority" in this once-great nation are the cause of more hypocrisy, torture, hatred and suffering than any of the faiths they seek to have outlawed.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

If a condition is life-threatening I'm pretty sure that it's illegal for a parent to refuse that treatment be given to their child, (the phrase "life-threatening" being very difficult to define).