Does faith healing infringe on fundamental liberties?

[Meleagar]

I'm asking if you support the current system where a dependent turns into an individual at age 18. You claim that the government cannot legislate parenting and yet this is the most extreme legislation of parenting.

I have never claimed that the government cannot legislate parenting in some ways.

If you support it I would like to know why.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You had expressed earlier in this thread that legislation restricting or directing parenting is fascist.

No, I've made the case that any step towards greater government control and intrusions in our lives, especially in areas where the constitution has flatly stated the government "shall make no law", is a step towards fascism, which is basically (IMO) a perspective that the state (government) should run our lives and be basically our "religion".

We are currently punishing the period of time leading up to the inevitable harm when we punish faith healing negligence

No, we aren't. There is no law against faith healing whatsoever, nor does any law or statute consider it a criminal offense in any way whatsoever.

I want to know why we cannot intervene earlier in that period of time to proactively avoid the inevitable harm.

Because nobody's rights (who have such rights) have been violated up to that point.

If a hemophiliac child is bleeding and instead of stopping the bleeding the parents opt to pray the path to harm is inevitable.

Because you believe it to be inevitable doesn't mean it is actually inevitable.

Should a police officer standing nearby wait until the child dies to avoid infringing on the parents liberty to parent as they see fit or should the officer proactively intervene? At what point in the timeline should intervention occur?

We all must judge our own responsibilities individually in such cases. I think that in cases of hemophiliacs, the state isn't going to know about it until it is too late, if the child dies.

Would it infringe on the parents' rights if the government required all parents of hemophiliac children to take courses regarding the disease? Or perhaps sign a contract stating they will seek standard practice medical aid or suffer the full punishment of the law?

Because there are just so many cases where hemophiliac children of parents who believe in faith healing die due to lack of standard medical treatment?

I think that in order to preserve individual liberty as much as possible, creating a precedent where parents are forced by the state to be submit to state-controlled education on a subject, and then forced to sign some kind of contract of behavior or else have their child taken away (which I presume would be the penalty for not signing the contract or submitting to the educational media), we can tolerate the deaths of a few hemophiliac children who happened to be born to parents who believe in faith healing and refuse standard medical care.

[Meleagar]

I

I think that in order to preserve individual liberty as much as possible, creating a precedent where parents are forced by the state to be submit to state-controlled education on a subject, and then forced to sign some kind of contract of behavior or else have their child taken away (which I presume would be the penalty for not signing the contract or submitting to the educational media), we can tolerate the deaths of a few hemophiliac children who happened to be born to parents who believe in faith healing and refuse standard medical care.

I meant that creating such a precedent would be a step in the wrong direction, even if it would save a life here and there, and that we will just have to tolerate those deaths and charge the parents later, probably after the hemophiliac child has died.

[minorwork]

I meant that creating such a precedent would be a step in the wrong direction, even if it would save a life here and there, and that we will just have to tolerate those deaths and charge the parents later, probably after the hemophiliac child has died.

Likely the diagnosis would occur at the autopsy. Do the Amish allow autopsies? Does Jewish tradition demand a quick burial? Would the religious mandates regarding the treatment of the deceased be immune from government decrees since there is no risk for further damage to a person? In other words what would be the use of an autopsy for a child undiagnosed by modern medicine? The state would have even less interest if a family does not lodge charges would it not?

[Muckraker]

I have never claimed that the government cannot legislate parenting in some ways.

I cannot find any statement you have made that supports any form of proactive legislation. All I've seen is regarding punishment for people that cause bodily harm.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm talking about the age 18. The government has determined that your child is completely free from your parenting immediately upon turning 18. The most important decision of parenting is made by law - and it is made in the most aggressive way possible. Do you support the law or not?

No, I've made the case that any step towards greater government control and intrusions in our lives, especially in areas where the constitution has flatly stated the government "shall make no law", is a step towards fascism,

So pretty much what I said. You would not support proactive laws regarding parenting because they do exactly this.

No, we aren't. There is no law against faith healing whatsoever, nor does any law or statute consider it a criminal offense in any way whatsoever.

I didn't claim faith healing was illegal. I asked what CRIME are we punishing when a dependent dies due to a parent's extended denial of standard medical practices. We are not punishing for the death because there is no crime in dying. We are punishing those responsible for the cause of death - and in the example of extended denial of medication the cause of death IS the extended denial of medication. We are currently punishing day two of the denial just as much as day twelve. So we can punish in reaction to the exact same thing we cannot prevent through even minor intervention.

Because nobody's rights (who have such rights) have been violated up to that point.

Which is the point of this debate. The government grants individuals the liberty to grant or deny liberty, removes its own ability to legislate how the individual grants or denies liberty, and then assigns an arbitrary age for complete nullification of the individual's liberty to grant or deny liberty.

Does this sound logical to you?

Because you believe it to be inevitable doesn't mean it is actually inevitable.

Belief has nothing to do with it. Scientifically, statistically, and medically speaking, there is essentially no chance a diabetic denied insulin could or would survive. But since the liberty to ignorantly and irresponsibly care for dependents is constitutionally protected we are unable to do anything until the dependent dies.

An individual cannot apply this same ignorance and irresponsibility - no matter how minor - to any instance affecting or potentially affecting other individuals, but they can do it - and much worse - to their own dependents.

You will be arrested for yelling "fire" in a theater simply because it has the potential to cause harm to other individuals and yet deny vaccinations, medication, and education to your dependents even when harm is inevitable.

(And since you will probably repeat your statement about belief in inevitability I will point out that this legal impotence holds true even in hypothetical situations where harm is 100% absolutely inevitable.)

We all must judge our own responsibilities individually in such cases. I think that in cases of hemophiliacs, the state isn't going to know about it until it is too late, if the child dies.

Individuals that refuse effective standard practices and push practices that are statistically ineffective on dependents are ignorant and incapable of being responsible.

Because there are just so many cases where hemophiliac children of parents who believe in faith healing die due to lack of standard medical treatment?

...

I think that in order to preserve individual liberty as much as possible, creating a precedent where parents are forced by the state to be submit to state-controlled education on a subject, and then forced to sign some kind of contract of behavior or else have their child taken away (which I presume would be the penalty for not signing the contract or submitting to the educational media), we can tolerate the deaths of a few hemophiliac children who happened to be born to parents who believe in faith healing and refuse standard medical care.

So your position is exactly what I said it was. You support reactive laws but do not support proactive parenting legislation - no matter how minor - because it sets a fascist precedent and is therefor fascist.

You would rather require doctors stand and watch the dependent of an individual that believes in faith healing bleed out until it reaches your vague and incalculable line where "harm" has occurred than require that all current and potential parents become educated - no matter how minor and inobtrusive it may be - on standard parenting practices.

But if that individual turns 18 in the middle of bleeding out he can flip off his parents and do whatever he wants and you have no problem with that - because it's the law? Wait, why don't you have a problem with that again?

And then I'm sure you support proactive laws requiring that individuals in positions that can affect other individuals be trained/licensed, use proven standard practices, and act responsibly - regardless of personal belief.

I'm sure you would support the punishment of a nurse that believes in faith healing and subsequently does not apply standard practice medication all the time - regardless of whether anyone suffered "harm" caused by her actions. It's perfectly acceptable for the nurse to watch her dependent bleed out - and force others to watch it too - but illegal to apply her belief where it is statistically unlikely to cause even minor inconvenience for other individuals. She would be punished for even the most insignificant deviation from standard practice if there was the remotest chance it could negatively affect another individual.

Your position is fundamentally contradicting itself in multiple areas:
1. You do not support proactive legislation of parenting but you do support the government's proactive severance of dependent status at the arbitrary age of 18.
2. You support the legally protected application of major irresponsible beliefs on helpless dependents at the same time you want proactive laws preventing even minor deviation from standard practice that affects others.
3. You do not support required education for people in positions of power over dependents but you do support required education for people in positions of power over individuals.
4. A caregiver's right to act irresponsibly is more important than a the dependent's right to receive responsible care.
5. You want government-supported standardized liberty for everyone at the same time you want the government to support an individual's right to deny someone standardized liberty.

[Meleagar]

Muckraker: you assume way, way to much, and bring up things that haven't even been addressed, like what should happen if a child under 18 wants regular treatment, and whether or not older children are obligated to do whatever their parents dictate.

If the child wants regular treatment, and the parents forbid it, that's a whole different scenario than the one I was arguing about. I was arguing about the parent's rights to make decisions for children too young or incapacitated to make their own wishes known, or were in agreement with the faith healing attempt.

[RationalThought]

So in a nutshell his argument is: a parent should have the right to forgo modern medicine, which we all know is effective in a majority of the mentioned cases, in favor of faith healing, which offers no creditable supportive data. By doing anything, we would infringe on a parents liberties. Only when the child suffers harm (possibly going blind or dies) should something be done.

We all know that if we deal with the issue preemptively, we run the risk of growing tiny mustaches and shouting “sieg heil.”

[notthecheatr]

Only when the child suffers harm (possibly going blind or dies) should something be done.

It's worse than that. Even if the child suffers harm, the actions of the parents are morally acceptable because they did not intend to harm their child.

[brendand]

we can tolerate the deaths of a few hemophiliac children who happened to be born to parents who believe in faith healing and refuse standard medical care.

Well that's awfully militant.

Funny how the religious keep saying it's legal, not child abuse and there is no problem with faith healing "per se", yet there are numerous cases of parents being found guilty of killing their children for withholding standard medical care.

Besides, only 31 states have religious exemptions for parents who choose to...do nothing when their child is sick...

[RationalThought]

It's worse than that. Even if the child suffers harm, the actions of the parents are morally acceptable because they did not intend to harm their child.

Yes, sorry forgot to add that part. Intent must be proved also.

[Muckraker]

Muckraker: you assume way, way to much, and bring up things that haven't even been addressed,

Which is why I am bringing up bullet points that I would love for you to clarify and expand upon. I have to infer your responses to bullet points because you rarely respond to specifics.

Feel free to address them as they are all relevant to this thread and what you have said in this thread thus far.

like what should happen if a child under 18 wants regular treatment, and whether or not older children are obligated to do whatever their parents dictate.

And how is this supposed to happen when you feel that the government-mandated viewing of a 15-minute video on standard parenting practices is unconstitutional? (Which is a specific case you did address)

If the child wants regular treatment, and the parents forbid it, that's a whole different scenario than the one I was arguing about. I was arguing about the parent's rights to make decisions for children too young or incapacitated to make their own wishes known, or were in agreement with the faith healing attempt.

When brainwashing occurs from birth it is unlikely that a ten-year-old is going to stand up to his parents - especially when there is a good chance that punishment for doing so is going to be particularly unpleasant.

If, from birth, I hammer option A into my kids' heads at the same time I am promising negative retribution for even thinking about option B - and the kids know that if they choose option B they would still have to live with their parent-assigned liberty and punishment for another eight years - how can we say the "older children" even have a choice to make?

The whole point of proactive legislation regarding parenting is to institute checks and balances on the untouchable dictatorship of parenting and to let dependents have some idea of how "non-standard" their lives may really be.

[Meleagar]

And how is this supposed to happen when you feel that the government-mandated viewing of a 15-minute video on standard parenting practices is unconstitutional? (Which is a specific case you did address)

I said that if the parents must view the video and sign a contract of some sort upon penalty of the removal of their child, without the child ever having been harmed, is a step towards fascism. You can't paraphrase ethically when you leave out important aspects of what was said.

When brainwashing occurs from birth it is unlikely that a ten-year-old is going to stand up to his parents - especially when there is a good chance that punishment for doing so is going to be particularly unpleasant.

Such "brainwashing" is not only legal, it is protected by the constitution.

If, from birth, I hammer option A into my kids' heads at the same time I am promising negative retribution for even thinking about option B - and the kids know that if they choose option B they would still have to live with their parent-assigned liberty and punishment for another eight years - how can we say the "older children" even have a choice to make?

Because the government, and law, doesn't see people as programmed machines. The law assumes (and must assume) that the older a child becomes (depending on the individual), the more they are capable of expressing their free will.

The whole point of proactive legislation regarding parenting is to institute checks and balances on the untouchable dictatorship of parenting and to let dependents have some idea of how "non-standard" their lives may really be.

It may be "the whole point" in your opinion, but I doubt you could refer me to any state or federal guideline that expresses that sentiment as "the whole point" for such laws.

Funny how the religious keep saying it's legal, not child abuse and there is no problem with faith healing "per se", yet there are numerous cases of parents being found guilty of killing their children for withholding standard medical care.

People withhold standard medical care for lots of reasons other than "faith healing", and not all faith healers (IMO, few of them) require that one eschew normal medical care. While the two might be occasionally associated in a few cases, they are not necessarily conncted or causative.

[brendand]

People withhold standard medical care for lots of reasons other than "faith healing", and not all faith healers (IMO, few of them) require that one eschew normal medical care. While the two might be occasionally associated in a few cases, they are not necessarily conncted or causative.

Well that's not much of a rebuttal. I was not referring to "lots of reasons", I was referring to cases specifically linking the death or injury of a child to faith healing; like the most recent one.

People withhold medical care for a lot of reasons, sure, but faith healing (ie. doing nothing) is no better or worse in effect than withholding medical care as a torture/murder mechanism. The consequences are identical to medical neglect, and I am frankly not interested in tolerating "the deaths of a few hemophiliac children" for you to withhold that right to a degree that allows legalized infanticide...but hey, that's just my opinion.