Well then that state made its decision and I can live with that.
And no, I don't know that exact number.


In Indiana, right now, there is a case in which my some class-mates of my future sister in law had been taking some substances and got into a car crash. The driver in this case was 16, he's in a coma now, out of the four people in his car and the two people in the other car, he's is only one out of two survivors. Now if he dies the prosecutor in this case has stated he's planning on pressing charges on the boy's mother.

Also I'm pretty sure in Michigan if a minor commits a crime at the discretion of the proper legal authority can be brought against the parent.

So am I ignorant?


True enough.

A point of this thread is what the law ought to be in regard to proxy medical decisions where denying medical care supposedly based on the proxy decision maker's religious beliefs is the given reason for denial.

Why should someone's allleged religious beliefs have any legal standing whatsoever in regard to making a proxy decision in medical matters for someone else?

I use the word "ignorant" in the proper definition. As in, "not knowing".

I readily admit I am ignorant on many, many things.

So don't take it as an insult.

The case you stated...there is liability on behalf of the parent for doing something like giving the kid access to drugs, etc. Maybe it is giving the kid the car when you know they are under the influence. No different than a bar getting charged for keeping alcohol flowing to patrons who then drive drunk.

But in the first situation about the brick...there is nothing that Tom did wrong. Unless he gave the brick to Suri and told her to go do the damage, which would make him an accomplice, he did nothign wrong.

BIG difference there.

(oh, in the future, it might help your argument if it didn't rely on the classmates of a cousin's friend who is going to be related to me by marriage possibly. You ever play the telephone game? A bunch of people sit side by side and the person on the left whispers something to the person on their right, who then whispers it to the person on their right, etc. When it finally gets to the end the original statement is drastically changed?)
------
Why?

First amendment.
Combined with Parental Rights.

Between the freedom of religion, and parental rights (which override the rights of strangers on raising a child), it pretty much allows that decision to be made.

And I think that is the way it should be. Yes, there are those rare situations which death results. Tragic and horrible. I wouldn't make that decision. Yet that parent still has the right to determine the matters of their child more than I do.

If you start saying "society" has more power than parents, you open pandora's box, allowing such things as the courts to determine whether a grounding is appropriate, at what point, etc.

Once you get to that point, why should any parent be involved in being a "parent"?

If I can't parent my child without government looking in over every little thing, then why not just save me the time, effort, and aggravation and turn the child over to the government?

After that, I wouldn't have to worry about things like the cost of raising the child. Let the government worry about it. Cause if there is something everyone knows...the government is the most efficient and logical solution to any problem...(sarcasm...heavy sarcasm).

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.

I could dismiss this under any of multiple logical fallacies, but I will give you an opportunity to clarify this.

Necessarily, if one becomes a parent, then one gains duties with regard to one's children. What "parental rights" did you have in mind?

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?

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?

In such a case, why shouldn't the person who denied the medical treatment which could have saved that life be held legally responsible?

Slippery slope.

Why might a government have an interest in how parenting is happening?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?
------
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.

Can you enumerate these "parental rights?"

On what basis ought the parent be making the decision?

Whether or not either is ethically acceptable is part of the question.

Red herring.

So should that action be allowed under "freedom of religion?" Yes or no?

Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

Why shouldn't it be a crime?

These assume the personhood of the fetus. If the fetus is not a person, then the question is moot.

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?

LOL.

And below you dare to use "red herring" to me?

You ask for enumerated rights...those rights that are actually expressed in the Amendments?

However, you are smart enough to know that most rights are unenumerated rights...rights that are inherent, even though they are not expressed.

Nice try, but try again.

Um, on being a "parent".

As a parent, they are the caretakers. They make the decisions a kid can not make on their own based on immaturity.

Ethically acceptable?

Whose ethics? What makes you such an elitist that thinks your view is so enlightened that it pre-empts the views of anyone else?

Ethics change. So why does today's values somehow override all history and suddenly put the rights of a family, of a parent, subservient to you?

Talk about arrogance.


Not a red herring at all.

If people want to discuss murder, they better have some inkling as to what constitutes a crime. Intent is a part of it. A large part of it. An overt action is also a part of it. Without them, many crimes are not crimes at all.

Should a person be allowed to refuse treatment, be it life saving or not, based on religion? Absolutely.

Nor does it make it wrong.

But this topic is about the legality of the issue, is it not?

It isn't about morally ethical duties, or responsibilities, or anything else.

But again, who determines "right"? Since you want to go down that avenue, who decides?

And before you put society up there, I will use your quote against you...

Just because it is "popular" doesn't make it right. So come up with something better.

Again see the comments above regarding intent and overt act.

They are not "acting". Their intent isn't do cause harm. Their intent is actually done out of love, however misplaced we may view that feeling.

And I don't think society is in a position today where we can second guess everyone's intent and then start saying what classifies "love" or not.

Viability removes your view.

And once again, we are discussing the effects on a LIVE person. Those mothers created an inherently dangerous condition knowing the effects it would have on a LIVE person.

If they were to abort said person (prior to viability), then the question is moot. But since it went to term, should not the parent be charged with a crime of negligence?

Current laws create liability to people who create a dangerous condition, knowing that someone will become harmed at a future date. Why not extend it to all those FAS kids, kids with ADD and such because mom liked to booze it up?

Such as?

Do you mean "negligence"?

Do you know the elements to support a claim of negligence?

I suggest looking up "negligent homicide" and see what links get brought up. Read the requirements at it. Cause negligence in these crimes is about a historical pattern, not a single incident.

For example, kid falls down a well. Parent walks away. Homicide? No. Crime? No.

Look at the thread title. Incidentally, there is no good reason for a parent to refuse medical treatment for their child: religious or secular.

As a parent, I disagree.

There are many things a parent needs to consider when faced with medical treatment.

What is the success rate of the treatment?

What is the level of pain associated with that treatment?

What is the quality of life the child will have thereafter?

and yes, even though I don't agree with the result, what are the beliefs associated with such treatment.

As a hypo...say the chance of survival of the treatment is under 5%. The treatment will only extend the life of the child for, at most, 2 years. However, the treatment is incredibly painful...

According to you, those would not be good reasons to deny treatment?

(And I know the title of the thread. However, as pointed out, if it is okay to deny treatment for any reason, or no reason at all, why say those are okay but not for religious reasons?)