Should a parent be allowed to withhold medical treatment for religious purposes?

Simple question. Should a parent be allowed to withhold, deny, or disregard medical advice from a doctor in favor of a religious solution?


For example. My child comes home with a broken leg. I choose not to take the child to the doctor. I know how to set the bone myself, and I do so. The child is in a lot of pain obviously, but I do not want my child to ever take a pain killer because I believe that is religiously wrong. The child will be fine, but will suffer some pain that they wouldnt have to if they were allowed the use of pain killers.

Should the parent be allowed to do this?


Lets take it a step further. My child has a form of very treatable cancer, but left untreated, will kill the child. Since I do not believe in using doctors, I refuse to take take her to the doctor. I also refuse any form of treatment. Instead. I will take my child home, and pray to my god for her to be cured.

Again. As a parent. Do I have the right to do this?

 

You would be a very horrible human being for not allowing your child to get treatment for cancer. Considering a lot of Cancer cases are curable nowadays.

Just ask the child if he or she wants to die. If no, take them away from mommy and daddy and treat them. Gawd (*)(*)(*)(*) what kind of person would deny life saving treatment to their own child?

 

There is also the possibility of epidemic if a misdiagnosis leads to belief that Ebola is something else.

 

I dont disagree with you.

But at the same time, this can easily dip into religious freedom, and parental rights to decide whats best for your child.

 

You have the right to life. Does that right not extend to children?

 

Of course you mean BORN children, right? We know babies in the womb have no rights in this country.

 

I think a child's right to life trumps a parents right to religious freedom.

 

Yeah the theoretical right to life of the unborn doesn't trump the mothers right to expel a parasite if they so desire.

 

You don't even know where I stand on abortion, do you? Don't assume you know what I feel about abortion issues. I don't even think I have posted anything of relevance on the abortion segment of this forum.

If you must know, I believe the right to life is universal and ought to extend to the unborn in the womb.

 

I know it does.

One individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin.

 

And if we could all agree what everones rights were it would all be hunky dorey wouldn't it?

 

My post wasn't directed to you personally... generally, the unborn have no rights in this country. Someone here wears this quote on their signature. How true it is, huh?

''I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.''
—Ronald Reagan, The New York Times, September 22, 1980

 

Au contraire the unborn have too many rights in this country, a woman must continue the pregnancy in almost all circumstances.

If you've been raped, by your father and the baby is missing half it's head you are still to carry the baby to term, because a ball of cells that has no independent future has more rights than the woman who carries it

 

Well, they have rights. Just not as many rights as the mother who is bearing said fetus.

IMO. the rights of the mother ALWAYS trump the rights of a fetus.

But that is getting off argument here.

 

Must be a terrible country to live in... you should move.

 

I think that parents should have a very high degree of latitude in deciding medical care for their children but I do feel that there should be a procedure where by doctors/hospitals can petition a judge to act contrary to parental wishes but in the child's best interests.

 

I thought the widdle baby had a "right to life"? That's what you want isn't it? For the unborn to have rights?

Some of it I hate some of it I love, the love outweighs the hate most of the time, besides I am a rather stubborn person who thinks that eventually we will vanquish the moral majority, A girl can dream.

 

I voted in your poll... however, I think it would be wrong to force people to, for example, take their children in for a check up if they don't believe in doctors. But even after saying that, all children have to have certain vaccines to attend public school, so I guess we force them to do that, huh? A broken leg or life-threatening disease is another story. No child should should be allowed to suffer... even at the hands of their parents.

 

What religion preaches that it is a sin to adequately medically treat your own child? And if such a religion exists, what person could possibly reason that some Bronze Age philosopher knows more about medical treatment than a 21st century trained physician?

Lunacy!

 

Screw the parents and their idiot religion. Take the kid to a doctor and accept the treatment given. If they don't, lock them up for child abuse. If the child dies because they were denied medication, the parents should be charged with murder and thrown in a cell and fed nothing but bread and water for the least of their miserable lives.

 

Na. You can forgo the vaccines. You just have to home school them at that point.

 

All of this.

 

IMO the safety of a child should trump the freedom of Religion. But in reality my opinion means nothing. It all depends on U.S. and or State law.

 

Nor should they.

 

And yet you lefties entire platform is pro parasite and society's duty to take care of them...you people really need to make up your minds.