Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
I could dismiss this under any of multiple logical fallacies, but I will give you an opportunity to clarify this.
|
Freedom of religion.
Combined by the inherent rights of parenthood.
Those combined give a parent more "say" in the treatment of a child than others.
As it stands, a parent can refuse treatment for a child. Barring a court order, that is their "right". They get that ability since the child is not of age.
So since they can refuse treatment for no-reason at all, why not for a religous reason?
My child goes in and has some complication. I state she is not to be revived. Why? Cause my kid just pisses me off some times.
Legal? Absolutely. 100% legal.
So why is that legal and me saying that she can't be revived, or receive treatment, because I believe it is against the will of God, or snoopy, or just my current whim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
Some people believe that it is their religious duty to kill non-believers (aka infidels). Should they be legally free to pursue this under "freedom of religion?" Why or why not?
|
Idiotic question.
Once again, in 1 situation you have a person making a decision to refuse treatment that "may" save a life.
In the other, we have a situation where a person is actively doing the killing.
Check your murder statutes, and if you can't figure out the difference there, I suggest you contact an attorney to have them explain it to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
Also, it seems no one has picked up on this, but the phrasing of the question allows for the possiblity that the reason for denial (aka "the given reason") may not be the real reason. (People are capable of lying.)
This is assuming the parents are making the decision. What "parental rights" did you have in mind here? What if it is either the children deciding or someone else (i.e., not the parents) deciding?
|
Well, kids can't speak for parents, unless the parent is unable to speak for themselves.
In that case, the children CAN and DO speak on behalf of their parents barring some written indication of the will of the adult patient.
All perfectly legal and proper. And children can make those decisions about a parent for religious grounds, or no grounds at all. It is a "private" matter, not a "public" one. As such, government should be barred from being involved, and that means the next door neighbor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
In such a case, why shouldn't the person who denied the medical treatment which could have saved that life be held legally responsible?
|
Why?
Private matter. They committed no crime. It shouldn't be a crime.
Should a person be held liable for not giving aid if needed? A "good samaritan law" a la Seinfeld?
Cause that violates a persons rights as well. A person should not be forced to get involved in any situation they don't want.
Let me ask you a question...
Mother is pregnant. Mother smokes. Should she not be charged with abuse of her child for the harm done in utero? Studies prove a connection between such things as COPD and smoking mothers.
What about drinking alcohol? A pregnant woman...should she not be held both criminally and civilly liable for fetal alcohol sydrome?
In both situations, those are actions directly taken. They actively did something to cause harm. That is a lot closer to what is needed for a "crime" than a situation where no action was taken by a person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike
Why might a government have an interest in how parenting is happening?
|
Government has an "interest" in parenting...to the extent that it is to ensure a parent isn't abusing a child. Abuse would require an ACTION taken that causes harm.
That is a big difference than not acting.
And I don't see the role of government taking on the role of big brother, or big daddy and mommy, forcing every little aspect of a parents life to be lived under scrutiny.
Before you go after those extremely rare situations where a parent denies, for whatever reason, treatment, how about going after all those poor, or all those parents who decide to have 20 kids from 25 different daddies?
Best interest of the child, right?
Nobody will say that having 20 kids from 25 different daddies, living in poverty, is good for a child.
Why not advocate for mandatory sterilization?
------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic
You know, we're talking life and death here. A principled stance on parental rights and non-intrusive government is all well and good, but if such things result in children not getting life-saving medical care, then they've clearly gone to far. There comes a point when you have to set aside your ideology and look at reality.
|
So take religion out of it.
A parent can refuse treatment of any type to a child. Could be because it was a Tuesday. Could be because the Flames just contracted with Bertuzzi and somehow that bust is to make them a "tougher" team, even after losing Godard. Could be because the stars weren't in alignment, or whatever.
I don't see any mention of whether it should be okay for a parent to refuse treatment for these reasons.
Just for "religious" reasons.
I think there may be an agenda...and looking at your avatar, it is very clear.