Should these parents be charged?

[Kizzume]

- Google News

There's a whole bunch of stories about some parents who let their daughter die of diabetes because they believed that God is the one that heals, not doctors. The question that goes through my head is, should these parents be charged?

I think they should be charged the same way anyone else who simply refused to help their kids would be charged. I don't think they should be able to use a religious clause to get them out of it.

[JaneDoe321]

I believe they should.

I remember something my 9th grade civics teacher said. "Your rights are not absolute. They only reach out until they bump into somebody else's rights."

I think that applies to religion. And if parents want to *try* faith healing on their kids, that's ok but if it's obviously not working then I think the line needs to be drawn. If they want to pray for a cure for their *OWN* health condition, well... knock yourself out.

[Derach]

Yes, I believe the appropriate charge would be criminally negligent homocide with depraved indifference.

[Zhavric]

They were negligent and should be charged, but not as heinously as parents who just outright ignore their children to death. A common misconception about the legal system is that it doesn't care about intent. That's absolutely untrue. Intent, in the case of a dead human being, is what can differ between self defense, manslaughter, and pre-meditation.

They should be charged for a manslaughter-esque crime. Not pre-meditated murder.

Overall, this is just another example of why the world needs to cast off the intellectual shackles of religion. With the medicine we have available to us, no human being deserves to die of something so treatable as diabetes.

[HelioPrime]

Neglect of a child sounds about right.

I'm sure this will be waved around as an example of why religion is the root of all evil or some other nonsense.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Zhavric Overall, this is just another example of why the world needs to cast off the intellectual shackles of religion. With the medicine we have available to us, no human being deserves to die of something so treatable as diabetes.

The first sentence there is a complete non-sequitur with the second.

This case has nothing to do with the teachings of religion. What it has to do with is a gross misinterpretation of religion.

Quite simply, this argument is tainted by your well-known hatred of religion - if someone read the laws of heat transfer and combustibility and interpreted them to mean that they could survive lighting themselves on fire, and then died doing so, you wouldn't come here and say we need to "cast off the intellectual shackles of Chemistry" - you'd see it for what it is: Some nutjob doing the wrong thing.

The story instantly made me think of a parable that comes to my mind whenever I hear about "Christians" (or any religious people) thinking that they need to refuse the wonders of science and human achievement to be right with god(s)...

A man is watching the news when it starts to rain. The news says his town is flooding. The man begins to pray for the Lord to save him from the floods. He goes outside into the rain just as a police officer shows up in a patrol car. The policeman says "Hey, we're evacuating the town, get in, I'll give you a ride." The man says, "No, thank you, God will save me."

The waters rise higher. The man climbs out onto his porch roof as a boat comes by. The fisherman in the boat says, "Hey fella, there's plenty of room in my boat - I'm making the rounds to make sure everyone is out and then we're going to my campsite on the high ground to get warm and dry - hop in." The man says, "No, thank you, God will save me."

A few hours later, the man is clutching to his roof. The National Guard comes in a helicopter and lowers a basket. On the loudspeaker, the man hears them say "Get in the basket. We will fly you to safety. This is your last chance for rescue." "No, thank you, God will save me," the man says.

The waters rise higher, and the man is swept away and drowns. When he gets to the gates of heaven, he jumps the line and demands to see St. Peter. Peter turns to him and says, "What's wrong?" The man says, "I lived my whole life thinking the Lord would save me from trouble, and when I needed him he didn't help. Why?"

Peter checks his notes. "Died in that flood, right? Well, we sent a police car, a boat and a helicopter. What else did you want?"

Quote by: HelioPrime I'm sure this will be waved around as an example of why religion is the root of all evil or some other nonsense.

Uh, did you read the post above yours? LOL

[Jack]

It's an excellent example of the dangers involved in allowing irrational superstitions to outweigh common sense.

I'm also concerned by this;

The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said. “They are still in the home,” Vergin said. “There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see.”

No signs?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Uh, did you read the post above yours? LOL

I placed Zhav on ignore a while ago

Broken records get old after a while.

I liked the story btw!

[Kite]

This is another case of organized religion out of control. Faith healing is nothing but a mental placebo, maybe spiritual motivation for the ill to continue fighting whatever disease they have. People who think that it is a legitimate substitute for medicine should not be allowed to have children.

If this was a perfect world then there would be some kind of law or safegaurd to prevent massive ignorance from causing the death of children. Unfortunately negligence like this most likely happens much more often than we know. All we can do is hope that some divine lightning bolt will strike the parents and perhaps put some sense into them, or at least kill them so that foster care can get the child some medical attention.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Kite This is another case of organized religion out of control. Faith healing is nothing but a mental placebo, maybe spiritual motivation for the ill to continue fighting whatever disease they have.

Unless they're getting really out of line on the streets, I'd just leave "Christian Scientists" alone.
They're delusional, illustrating how the power of the mind is not without fault. The most legitimate way to approach the issue is to talk some sense into them. If they're not hearing it, it's not necessarily your problem.

Grandpa h.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tivodan1116 The first sentence there is a ...

The depths of intellectual dishonesty theists will sink to astounds me. You guys never fail to take credit for any positive behavior stemming from religion, but are never willing to take responsibility for negative behavior.

[Kite]

Quote by: grandpa Unless they're getting really out of line on the streets, I'd just leave "Christian Scientists" alone. They're delusional, illustrating how the power of the mind is not without fault. The most legitimate way to approach the issue is to talk some sense into them. If they're not hearing it, it's not necessarily your problem. Grandpa h.

You're right, however when it becomes the child's problem, then thats when the line is crossed.

[leegao]

Your belief is your belief, however if it results in the endangerment of another then the law should act responsibly, in this case to incarcerate the couple.

[Kizzume]

Quote by: Isherwood It's an excellent example of the dangers involved in allowing irrational superstitions to outweigh common sense. I'm also concerned by this; No signs?

And me as well. If no criminal charges are put on the parents that throw them in jail, then they should at least be under a close watch for their remaining children.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Zhavric The depths of intellectual dishonesty theists will sink to astounds me. You guys never fail to take credit for any positive behavior stemming from religion, but are never willing to take responsibility for negative behavior.

Well if that is the case, your position is precisely the opposite and equally as intellectually dishonest... you never fail to place responsibility for any negative behavior on religion and refuse to give any credit for positive effects.

I'll take the thinly veiled personal attack as proof that, as usual, you have nothing to respond to the substance of my post.

[Muckraker]

I'll hop in on the other side even though I don't support it and can't win it.

1. Parents make choices on behalf of children.
2. Children are not considered legal entities separate from their parents until they are 18 years old or file for "divorce" from their parents.
3. Parents can make the choice to actively end the life of an unborn child, up until birth, for any reason.
4. The first amendment protects against infringement on the free exercise of religion.
5. The relationship between child and parent is closer to the relationship between pet dog and owner than it is between adult citizen and adult citizen.
6. Religion is not the only choice that parents make that could cause, or further, a medical, or mental, issue in a child. It is just the most inflammatory one and the easiest to attack.

The government changing its position on any of the points above would open a big can of worms and result in them overstepping their bounds in many ways.

If children are full legal entities, separate from their parents, then the parent cannot legally make any choices on behalf of the child. If the child doesn't want to go to piano lessons, and the parent physically puts him/her in the car and goes anyhow, then that would be kidnapping and possibly assault. Think of all the things parents do on a daily basis that they cannot legally do to another adult.

We don't set a very good precedent in our country for the medical decisions of minors when a parent could very well kill their unborn child out of convenience and, once the child is born, force unecessary surgical procedures on them that would scar them for life (circumcision). Granting kids legal adult rights means that the government could decide, and enforce, what is "best for them," when the child is not capable of making a decision on their own. This means no more abortion, circumcision, or the mother choosing to use formula instead of breast feeding.

The first amendment explicitly protects the right to exercise religious belief. It does not specify which beliefs or religions are ok and which ones are not. If a religious belief is to not use medical treatments, and your child is of your religion, then your child would not receive medical treatments. The government overstepping its bounds here would be dangerous because it is a slippery slope that would start with medical treatment to save lives and gradually devolve into medical treatment that is "best for the child." The end result would be medical treatment that is "best for the mental health and development of the child," and that is a stones throw away from simply banning religion.

If we start prosecuting parents that make questionable medical decisions due to religious belief then our next step is to start prosecuting parents that make other decisions that affect the livelihood of their kids. And two steps behind that are parental decisions that aren't life threatening but that still do damage to the child.

Examples:
-----Parents decide to live "Thoreau-style" out in the woods, miles away from any complicated civilization. Their child needs immediate medical attention. The parents' decision to not live near medical support causes the death of the child.
-----Parents are poor and do not have a phone or transportation. Child needs immediate medical attention. Child dies before they can get help.

[BugsBunny07]

If they want to live in the 9th century there really isnt much you can do about it but put them in jail, and that makes YOU the asshole.

I think they should be left alone, even though they are looney.

[Morality Games]

Quite simply, this argument is tainted by your well-known hatred of religion - if someone read the laws of heat transfer and combustibility and interpreted them to mean that they could survive lighting themselves on fire, and then died doing so, you wouldn't come here and say we need to "cast off the intellectual shackles of Chemistry" - you'd see it for what it is: Some nutjob doing the wrong thing.

This isn't a bad analogy, but it doesn't quite compare. Statistical analysis of history indicates the potentiality that some nutjob would interpret that from a scientific text is very small, whereas the potentiality some nutjob would interpret something equally destructive that from religion is very large.

Moreover, "some nutjob" does not appear from absolutely nowhere -- the potentiality that "some nutjob" will be produced in a religious-minded enviroment is much higher than in a science-minded enviroment.

If we start prosecuting parents that make questionable medical decisions due to religious belief then our next step is to start prosecuting parents that make other decisions that affect the livelihood of their kids. And two steps behind that are parental decisions that aren't life threatening but that still do damage to the child.

I think the collective practicality of society will head that off.

If they want to live in the 9th century there really isnt much you can do about it but put them in jail, and that makes YOU the asshole. I think they should be left alone, even though they are looney.

That's looney.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Kite You're right, however when it becomes the child's problem, then thats when the line is crossed.

I agree that, to an extent, Christian scientists want to abandon both their offspring and their responsibilities. But, at the same time, if it's not harming me and my neighbors the only legitimate courses of action are to either be uninvolved, or to discuss the matter with the parents and/or the child. It would not be right to impose a decision. To me, that would also cross a line.

Grandpa h.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Morality Games I think the collective practicality of society will head that off.

Really? In my county I can legally smoke an entire pack of cigarettes at one time while eating five cheeseburgers while talking on a cell phone, drinking coffee, weighing in at 600 pounds, and riding a motorcycle in the rain without wearing a helmet - all at the same time.

But, I can't back my car into the street without wearing a seatbelt. The police set up seatbelt "checkpoints" sometimes during morning rush hour on the only major east-west highway in the area. Drivers have to idle through the checkpoint and, if they are stupid enough to not have put on a seatbelt by the time they get up there, they are pulled off to the shoulder and ticketed.

Do we really want to depend on the "practicality" of society determining what is best for our kids?