Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf1
Freedom of religion.
Combined by the inherent rights of parenthood.
|
Can you enumerate these "parental rights?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf1
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?
|
On what basis ought the parent be making the decision?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf1
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?
|
Whether or not either is ethically acceptable is part of the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf1
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.
|
Red herring.
So should that action be allowed under "freedom of religion?" Yes or no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf1
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.
|
Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf1
Why?
Private matter. They committed no crime. It shouldn't be a crime.
|
Why shouldn't it be a crime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf1
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?
|
These assume the personhood of the fetus. If the fetus is not a person, then the question is moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf1
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.
|
Harm can accrue through negligence (neglecting to take an action) as well.
Should negligence which results in harm/damage to persons or property be exempt from legal prosecution?