spinoff: re: girl who's parents chose prayer - over medical treatment

boyohboyohboy wrote: I was thinking about this post last night, and regardless of how you feel about this little girls parents decision to seek prayer not medical help....
would you want the government to step in and take charge of this kind of case.
so if you decided you didnt want to treat your kids for some certain aliment would it be ok for the government to step in and say you had too?
and what would be the cut off, where would you draw the line, could they make you vaccinate? or could they decide what was worth treating?
I think that regardless of what you feel is "ok" if you start saying that you felt this was child abuse and the law should have stepped in you are taking away their rights to raise their children they way they see fit..and this could open the doors to all kinds of intrusive behaviour on the governments part.
Most of the people who posted felt that parents were wrong, so it just made me think, does that mean you want the law to take charge?

playing devils advocate here...and being brave, so be kind

PrairieMom replied: I have been thinking about that too. Its been spinning in my mind all day, and i don't know what the right answer would be. I have seen families on both ends of the spectrum, from those that choose not to treat things to those that IMO over treat things, mainly in the elderly population, not so often with children, but ultimately, I think it still needs to be a personal decision for each individual. Once you get the government in there messed up stuff starts happening.

boyohboyohboy replied:
I totally agree with you. I think a lot of my own beliefs stem from first my religion then second my experience in health care. seeing first hand both sides....
and then seeing how things usually get messed up once you let the government in.
I just thought so many people got upset about this families decisions, but the alternative would be for a government agency to handle these things..how is that any better?

Crystalina replied: I think if it's a life threatening disease (as apparently hers was) then yes, the gov. should step in if you aren't taking care of your child. Vacs and things along that line are different I think. IMO that is different then knowing your child has a disease and then just decide to pray instead. Now if there is time and the child is comfortable by all means pray away but 30 days? That's a bit much. At that point yes, I think someone needs to step in. There are many other countries you can go to if you want to put your child off to the side and pray and pray that that is enough. I think in this country there is enough help that at some point you need to put the prayer aside and make sure your child lives.

Good question.

Jesus healed in person. He layed his hand on a person and made it all better. Nowadays we have doctors to do that. I doubt Jesus would object.

redchief replied: If someone was going to shoot you with a gun, and there was a police officer standing next to the shooter, able to remove the gun from the shooter's hand, does the officer have to wait until the shooter fires a shot to disarm the shooter?

boyohboyohboy replied:
in all honesty, though, I am not sure why it was "suffering" I have had diabetes, while preg. very uncontrolled diabetes, my sugars were very high, and when it was high, it didnt hurt, as her were high, I wasnt suffering, I was tired. i was confused.....but not hurt.

and i dont feel vax. are different, they are about life threatening illnesses...

or heres another example, my son is not usually on the weight scale..what i mean is, he isnt where the government agency has determined is healthy for his weight...so what if they say, ok you must not be feeding him right, and take him away? some kids just never reach that "perfect weight", but if they take away the parents rights to say what is ok for their kids, its going to be more and more rights, not just a situation here and there...

boyohboyohboy replied:
the shooter has criminal intent. the police officer is there to protect us..
the parents didnt have criminal intent..the government would be taking away the rights of the parents by stepping in when it was their "opinion" that something was wrong...I would rather live in a country where it was my RIGHT to take care of my own family the way I wanted to.
now if the parent was pointing a gun at the child, i would want the law to step in as that is abuse.....

redchief replied: My question went unanswered, but I'll carry on anyway. So do I understand that the argument is that the government should not have responsibility to protect children when they are in the care of their parents? Should I further gather that there is no difference between social responsibility and Orwellian Society?

ETA: Spoke too soon... my question was answered.

boyohboyohboy replied:
ok you are kinda talking above my head...

to answer your question, yes, i would want the police officer to take the gun from the person who was about to shoot me.

no government shouldnt protect the children the parents should....

boyohboyohboy replied:
are you talking about social responsibility or socialism?

redchief replied:
Orwellian Society isn't socialism... That's Marxism.

Orwellian Society is the Big Brother effect where the government oversees and controls all that it's populace does. Sorry about causing confusion.

boyohboyohboy replied:
no its me! I might be taking on a topic thats to big for me! but it was on my mind..
and as a mom of sick kids, well it made me think, some of the things we have done, might be seen as unconventional by other moms, and what if a dr told me what to do...i wouldnt have listened...
it just made me think about these parents...and other types of medical issues.

I think what i was trying to say was, if we let the government into our home over medical issues of our kids, its going to turn into big brother very fast and very easily..it wont be just about one type of illness it will become someone else interpertation of what is right and wrong, and it shouldnt be up to the government to determine what is right and wrong in a religion.

Crystalina replied:
Oh no, I never said she was suffering. I've never had diabetes so I don't know how she felt. The thing is that they knew she had this. It wasn't a surprise. And for people that didn't like doctors I just find it odd that they had HMO cards.

As far as your example about weight. I think that would be way too much to have the gov. intrude on that. Every child develops different. Now if you are like the woman who recently had her child taken away because he was 4 yrs old and dramatically underweight then yes, that would be abuse. (I can't find a link to that story.)

I would not want the gov. sticking their nose into all of our business but I think in some cases someone has to do something. Too many average people don't want to "intrude".

boyohboyohboy replied:
but who is going to decide what is "to much"...?
what are the boundries?

redchief replied: I think we often forget that we are the government. We become so angry at the power and, often, overreaching power, that we forget that our governments exist because we wish them to. We should remember that, and this will get me in trouble with my more liberal fellow debaters - we should remember that although the government makes the laws that make it possible for child protective services and police departments to exist. We give them the power; we put the lawmakers into office. I think we often feel we are too small a fish in a large pond to make our feelings known to our government representatives. This goes both toward social control and against, causing a net effect of balance as seen by the group as a whole. Does the government make mistakes in overreaching their control over individual rights? Yes, they do, but corrections usually soon follow such folly. So that leaves us back to us, really, doesn't it?

Do we have the social responsibility to step in and save a child's life when a parent is obviously allowing a child to die simply for the sake of religion? Do we have further responsibility to ensure that those we live among know that this type of blind faith is not tolerable by the society in which they live? The State of Oregon thinks so... as do quite a few others.

PrairieMom replied:
not attacking... just wondering...

so what are the boundries?

should parents be forced to "pull the plug" on their child who has been in a coma for 5 years because keeping her on life support will "prolong suffering"? or should a parent be Forced to place a child on life support even tho they believe that it will prolong suffering? but the government feels that it is the "right" thing to do?

Maddie&EthansMom replied: Tara you brought up an interesting point and something I've personally been faced with in the past few weeks. Not on a child, but an elder parent. I think every case should be handled accordingly. There are a million different scenarios here. In the case of this little girl, I feel that yes, the govt should have stepped in. I believe she was abused and had unnecessary suffering. It breaks my heart. Her parents played God and took her life from her. She had a full life and could have had a longer life with the assistance of meds. Child protective services should have stepped in and seen to it that she was given the care she needed. Her parents are mentally ill. No faith would require you to do such a thing, unless it was a cult, which I highly suspect.

Pulling the plug on a child who has been ill or in a coma for an extended period of time is different, IMO. You are using medical advances to keep them alive, when in most cases their bodies would have shut down on their own. There is no quality of life left. This is where I think that medicine can be a little too much for our own good.

redchief replied: Would you live in a society that believes it has the right to tell you what to do without limits?

boyohboyohboy replied: ok, so what if we went to a system where the government makes sure health care is provided for everyone, and that same government is allowed to decide what they do want to pay for and what they dont, that also allows them to decide who is in more dire need of that same health care....
what if its your kid? and also what about the tags that get put on these same people? what about if the government says, ok we are not going to spend money on you if you smoke? or if you drink? or if you are what they say is obese? they dont want to waste the money..

and if there are people in the "government" who do bad things, make wrong choices, do you want your child to be the one to suffer the costs, until they do something about that person taking advantage of their power?

just listening to the debates that have gone on about the deligates here on the boards, do we really have that much say? all this talk of electoral votes????

PrairieMom replied:
I don't really see a difference between denying a child life support and denying a child insulin. The end result is the same. Same as a parent that denies antibiotics, or asthma medications. Any illness can progress to the point of death if left long enough, under the right circumstances.
I don't really know how I feel about the parents in this exact case. I don't know enough about their situation to pass a personal judgment on them.

Maddie&EthansMom replied:

okay.

PrairieMom replied:
well, obviously there is a difference, but the end result is the same if a child is denied either.

:.Mrs_Mommy.: replied: I personally would not want a gov't that could tell me what I could or could not do with my child. It is bad enough as is. So many lawmakers want to "protect" but all they cause is more "criminals". It is not the gov't place to tell me how to live my life or how to raise my children. I am perfectly capable of doing that all by myself, thank you.

There are degenerates out there who do need supervision and I do understand the need for laws and protection but it is getting a bit far.

Right now in my state there is a huge debate going on about the abortion ban. (Not trying to start another debate just making a point) I am capable of making the choice of whether I want an abortion or not. It should not be anyone's responsibility to make that choice for me.

Back to the original point....

I don't think the gov't or anyone else has any rights to make personal, medical, financial decisions for me or my children. If I decide to not put my child on life support or to not take her to the doctor to get insulin for whatever reason...that is still my choice. When would it stop if we gave someone else that power??

boyohboyohboy replied: this might be off topic some...but if you think its ok for the government to step in and make medical decisions for your kids in certain circumstances how about this...
what if the government decided that you shouldnt home school? what if they said, no, kids have to have a public education, taught what we want them taught, not what the parents want taught?

I just am making the point that there wouldnt be boundries the government could be in all aspects of your childs life....

Crystalina replied:
No. I don't agree that that should be handled by the gov. I'm speaking of abuse to a child. Like the example I gave of the woman who had a handicap 4 yr old that was only I think 18 lbs and he spent most of this time in bed while she lived her life just fine. I'm talking about people that let their daughter die even though they obviously have been to doctors themselves. If that family had never been to a doctor I would understand a bit about their religion. They would just be "feeling" for what's to come next because they had no guidance. This family knew what was wrong with their child. I'm talking about mothers who go out and leave their children unattended while they hit the bars.

Things like keeping your child alive on a ventilator...that is not abuse. How do we know they are in pain? I think it's even been proven that they are not in pain. Plus there are stories of people waking up after several years. I don't put that type of thing in the same category. I'm just talking about flat out abuse to a child.

PrairieMom replied:
I was just using it as an example, but FWIW, people in many different states can be on life support, and sometimes they CAN be in pain.

Crystalina replied:
I agree that it should be your choice but if your child may die because you do not get the insulin...don't you think that's child abuse? How is that any different then putting a plastic bag over their head? Anyone who did that to a child would be considered someone who should be locked up. What kind of parent would choose not to give their child the meds they need to survive? That person should not be a parent. The gov. should not have to step in to teach someone to be a parent but sadly there are those who need it.

I just re-read my post and I don't mean it to come across as angry. I'm just making a point but in type it looks bad.

Crystalina replied:
Speaking as a mother I would not want my child to lay in pain but, again speaking as a mother, I would have a greedy side that would want my child to come back to me and I would probably hold out for awhile to see if it happened. I'm not sure about years but I would say months. It all depends on how they got in that position and what the prognosis is. But I don't think the gov. has the right to decide that for you just as they don't have the right to say whether we could have our children in the first place.

TrulyBlessed replied: I've been reading both posts in regards to this and I have not commented on it yet. I still don't know how I feel. One part of me understands where the parents were coming from because I am a strong believer in the power of prayer. Yet, I see the other side that God provides us with doctors to be His hands to perform those miracles. Someone in the other post said it bothered them that now the parents think they did not have enough faith for God to answer their prayers and that makes me sad too.

As for the original post, No I do not want the government to step in and tell me what I am to do for my child medically. I choose not to take birth control because I don't want that in my system. I choose not to have the girls vaccinated against cervical cancer.

This family really believed they were doing what was best for their daughter whether anyone else agrees with that or would have chosen that route, so who am I to judge. Neglect and abuse in done intentionally and I do not think they intentionally ment to hurt their daughter or to lose her. The quesiton that has been rolling around in my head is why didn't God answer their prayers?

A lot of times things are all about perspective. My mom once told me after 9/11 that the terrorists on the plane BELIEVED they were serving God and doing God's will, so who am I to say God sent them to hell, just because my beliefs tell me different. I still ponder that at times. (sorry, off topic)

PrairieMom replied:
maybe he did, sometimes the answer you get isn't the one you were looking for.

:.Mrs_Mommy.: replied:


I believe not giving your child insulin is different because when you put a bag over your childs head you are intentionally trying to hurt that child but by not giving her the insulin they are trying to protect her so her soul will go to heaven.

This is all JMHO by the way.

jcc64 replied:

Hasn't this always been your argument, Ed? I thought you were a libertarian- am I not understanding your views? Remember the smoking in the car with kids debate? Some might suggest that habitual, chronic exposure to cigarette smoke in a tightly enclosed space is life threatening over the long haul- yet you had very strong feelings about gov't intrusion into private lives. I argued strenuously in that case that the child's right to health and well being superceded the parents' right to smoke wherever they choose. Can you clarify for me- maybe I'm just not getting your point. (did wayyy too much homework tonight, my head hurts)

And by the way, I claim no responsibility for this gov't. I didn't put them in office.

TrulyBlessed replied:
Very true. He knows the bigger picture and His ways are above our ways, so we just have to continue to trust in Him. Thank you!

stella6979 replied:
I couldn't agree more Crystal. I can't even imagine my child being sick and being able to prevent it, but not doing so. Sure, we as Parents have the right to raise our children the way we choose, but what about the child's rights? Don't all children deserve the right to live? If this was some untreatable disease, I'm sure I would be more understanding, but this is something that could've been treated and they as Parents should've been able to put aside everything else for the sake of their child's life. That's JMO.

:.Mrs_Mommy.: replied:
I understand what you are saying but what is the point of saving their physical body if you cannot save to soul?

I'm sure that the parents believe that their child may have the next few years-decades with the insulin but their daughter's very soul was damned in the process of "saving" her.

How could anyone make that choice?

ETA:fixed typo

My2Beauties replied:
She did suffer? If diabetes goes untreated, the effects are detrimental and can be painful and one can suffer. They even said in the article that she suffered.

boyohboyohboy replied: if left untreated yes, diabetes can cause loss of eye site and loss of limbs, kidney damage..ect...
but the point was do you still think the government has the right to tell you what you can practice as religion and what you cant.
what you can believe and what you cant...
letting them step in opens way to many doors.
I do pray that little girl is in a better place..but as a religious person myself, I have to believe that they will be held accountable one day for their decisions, and whether that was a bad one or not is not up to me.
I also dont know for sure but do not believe that if you dont attend a "church" per say, that you are in a cult..going to church doesnt mean you are a christian.
i just wanted to mention that someone said that they seemed like a cult because they didnt attend a church...

Boo&BugsMom replied: The only thing I have to add is this...diabetes runs in my family. My father, grandfather, and great grandfather had/have it. A friend of mine also has it. Before he was diagnosed he went A LONG time with it untreated. Reason being he was waiting for his health insurance to kick in. If found out sooner he would not have the complications he has today, including a heart condition. Yes, he suffered...a great deal. He had lost an extreme amount of weight, had chest pains, stomach cramps, migraines, and almost had a heart attack...at the age of 26. So...I would be willing to bet this child suffered at least to some extent.

To answer the original question...no I don't think they have any right to step in. Although, I think it's a pretty thin line to cross when you are talking about a simple and very treatable condition like diabetes. But I'd still have to say no. Like you said Stacy, it open way too many doors.

I also do not believe that they were necessarily in a cult, I just think they didn't have the proper guidance about Scripture. Perhaps they were new believers who needed more guidance? Many new believers, and older as well, take things in the Bible VERY literally sometimes and do not study the HISTORY of the times when doing studies (which is VERY important). There is so much symbolism in the Bible that some people take too literally.

Ok, I'm done.

My2Beauties replied:
I believe to save a child in light of their parent's ignorance....then yes the gov't should step in. Some people have no clue when it comes to raising children! They need help, whether it be the gov't or someone else, they desperately need help. These people did, I hope they lock 'em up and throw away the key, pure ignorance! As Jeannie was saying about the smoking deal.....sometimes they have to step in to save us from ourselves.

Maddie&EthansMom replied:
I hope you weren't referring to me and you may not have been, but that's not what I said. I have no idea if these people were attending "church" there are a lot of religions and denominations that practice cult like behavior. Which is beside the point here anyway. The point is they plain and simple let their child suffer and die in front of their eyes. They should have just handed her a loaded gun to play with, let her shoot herself and not call for help "because it was her time to go."

Some people really don't need children! What makes any of this right??? Faith or no faith. It's simply not.right. If you have faith, you have morals. Even people with NO faith have morals. I'm just in awe of those who defend this!! Flabbergasted.

Crystalina replied:
I also agree that children should be saved from ignorant parents. I don't get all this "saving her soul" talk. So does that mean a mother who decides to drown her children (because the world is evil) or poison her kids because God told her to do so are right? How do we know God didn't tell her to? Who are we to judge her? She could attend any one of our churches. She's not in a cult. What makes her actions wrong? They are her kids. She should do with them as she pleases?

Yikes. That's scary. I would hope someone would step in before it came to that.

coasterqueen replied:
So are you saying that Jehovah Witnesses are a cult? They don't allow several medical procedures that could be life threatening. I'm just playing devils advocate here because I would never let my child suffer like that, BUT it's not because of any faith reasons.

What I find interesting in the two threads about this is those that speak about their GOD don't realize that their GOD might not be someone else's GOD. Does that make them wrong and you right? (you generally to the entire board)

Maddie&EthansMom replied:

No. I certainly don't think I'm right and anyone else is wrong for what they practice or what God they worship. Ignorant for a choice such as this, yes. But that is something they have to live with. It was asked if our govt should step in and I believe that according to our ammendments and justice system that, yes, they should.

coasterqueen replied:
Interesting. I hope there are no Jehovah witnesses on this board. Although I know we did have one member that was one. I don't think she regularly posts on here anymore. I guess anyone could say any religion is a cult, though

Quite frankly I think my MIL is looney in a lot of ways and some things of the JW culture seems a bit "cultish" but only in regards to money which I feel the same about any organized religion. I do not, however, think JW is a cult. I think if you got to know people of that religion well enough you'd see them in a different light as well. Yes, going door-to-door seems a bit odd, but they do some pretty wonderful stuff that really takes the spotlight off of some of the odd things they do.

As far as your last comment, I am unaware that our ammendments and justice system allows us to deny someone to practice their religion. There is such a thing as seperation of church and state and I they'd have to let a JW do as they wish about certain life threatening medical practices, so why would this case be any different? I don't think we have enough facts on this situation to determine that, personally.

Again, I personally think what they did was wrong and there would be no way I'd let a religion step in and dictate what I do to save my child's life BUT I do also think we have to respect others religions just as we ask them to respect ours

Crystalina replied:
Off Topic:

Just throwing my opinion in...

I believe there is only one God. Before languages everyone knew one God and I believe that it's only because of the languages people refer to God differently. When you boil off all the little idiosyncrasies I believe you will have the same God.

That's excluding, of course, the cult type religions. And I can't name them off. I mean people that follow a tangible person rather then a God.

Maddie&EthansMom replied:
Whether there is or isn't, this is my belief. I didn't elaborate and I won't, but plain and simple, this is what my faith teaches. I'm not stupid enough to think that people don't disrespect my religion or disagree that it's the "right" way. It's my way, it's what I choose to believe. No one knows what is the right way, not until our judgement day. But, I have a bible that I read and a God that I pray to and I'm comfortable with what I believe, regardless what anyone else thinks of it or how they question it. I have friends of all different faiths. I've never minced words or had any qualms about what my beliefs were around any of them. I think they are good people

And what I meant by my last statement was that our justice system is there to protect the innocent...it had nothing to do with religion, although when I re read it I can see now where you got that. I didn't word it right.

coasterqueen replied:
I wonder if this is what that family would say about their beliefs

.....and we are questioning theirs?

Maddie&EthansMom replied:

Funny how you got all of this out of 2 sentences I posted. I never once said they weren't good people. They do amazing things, true. They are some of the best people I've ever known. I have friends who are JW. Door to door does not seem strange to me. I've read in depth about their religion and it's a cult. I own a book on cults as well. I never once said anything bad about the "follower". Please don't put words in my mouth.

coasterqueen replied: Also, you did say what was the right way. Wait, correction - you said their way was the wrong way. So you are essentially saying what is the right way and it's not their way.

Again, I think what they did was wrong. I just don't think we should be allowed to judge what they did if it had anything to do with their faith. I'm just trying a more open approach to the logic of all of this, that's all

Maddie&EthansMom replied:
I don't have to question their faith. I already said they were a cult if their "faith" practices such a thing.

msoulz replied: As far as we know, those parents did not intend to hurt their daughter, they intended to save her via prayer.

Intent is hard, if not impossible, to prove, I realize. However, I don't think the government has any business telling me how to raise my children UNLESS I intend to do them harm or am so neglectful that they are in harms way.

Praying over a sick child is not neglecting her, nor is it intent to harm her IMO.

While it is not logical to me to ignore modern medicine, who is to say God won't punish me for letting those doctors give drugs to my children? I certainly haven't met God yet and no one that I know of has, so we are going on potentially misunderstood/translated/misinterpreted books from centuries ago as guidance written/translated/interpreted by mortal men, and who knows what their intention was when writing/translating/interpreting it?

We will all face judgment at some point, if one believes in that, or we will not. Who really knows?

coasterqueen replied:
Never did I put words into your mouth I don't question your knowledge or whether you have books on that religion.

I guess because it *appears* your are talking about these people as a cult in such a negative tone how can you think they do great things.

Could you please give me your definition of a cult? Maybe that would help me understand a bit better so you don't think I'm put words into your mouth in the future.

Maddie&EthansMom replied:
Setting religion aside, Karen. What they did was WRONG! It's not moral. I'm not going to argue religion with anyone. Everyone has their own beliefs. Of course I feel that what I believe is the right way. I wouldnt' believe it if I didn't. I'll put it this way...I think what they did was morally wrong.

coasterqueen replied:
I think you missed my point I was simply saying they are probably thinking the same thing about their faith as you do yours So that confuses me how you can say what you said in the below quotes, but then turn around and question their practices of faith.

coasterqueen replied:
Again, I think what they did is wrong, too. You can't put religion aside in this. They did what they did because of their faith (or so it seems from the article we had to read from). So you can't put it aside. You are questioning their faith and their practices and IMO that's wrong. You don't like it when people question yours, right? You get very defensive when someone tries to talk to you about faith, I can see that. I'm sure they do too.

Crystalina replied:
God sent his son who healed many. There were many "healers" at that time. I would assume now they would be called doctors.

Maddie&EthansMom replied: I said they are wrong for what they did to their child. Regardless of how they feel about my religion, I'm not the one who let my child suffer and die. I'm not the one in question here.

I didn't miss your point.

coasterqueen replied:
No you are not the one in question here, but I bet if you were of a religion that practices no medical intervention you'd feel differently.

I think you are missing my point, but I'm just going to let it go. I just think we should keep an open mind to all religions, personally, and unfortunately that means ones that don't allow certain medical treatments - whether we agree with it or not.

Maddie&EthansMom replied: No, I get your point that you think I'm being a hypocrite, Karen. I have tried to think of this situation with an open mind. I think it's fine when people want to practice their own religion, but I keep thinking about that poor little girl suffering and it makes me It just breaks my heart. Regardless of what they believe it is their job to protect their child. I'm being judgemental and let my emotions get the best of me, but good grief someone has to step in and protect these kids. That's where religion shouldn't matter. They killed their kid. Not too long ago we had a woman in the town next to us that cut off her daughter's arms b/c God told her to. If you start allowing such nonsense, where is the line drawn?

I'm sorry if I seem like a hypocrite and I'm sorry I was being judgemental. I personally just believe that any religion that would tell you to do that, did not come from the same bible I read. I know that can be argued and I'm sorry I didn't get my point across better.

MommyToAshley replied:
I've thought a lot about this whole situation since it happened. To be honest, I am not sure what I believe. I too tried to define abuse by intent and make everything black or white. If the parent meant to do harm, then it was abuse. But, then when you think of this case, I am sure the parents didn't mean to do harm... they wanted to save their child through prayer. But, by letting her suffer and die, I do think it is abuse, just not intended abuse.

If you define abuse by intent, then all of you that described the lady spraying her daughter with a hose as abuse would be wrong... she describes her intent as simpy getting the child to stop throwing a tantrum.

Or even Jeanne's example, with the parent in the car smoking. The parent smoking in the car may not have the intent to hurt their child, but they are being careless, making a bad judgement call, and harming their child.

I think it is our obligation to protect children from parents that make bad judgement calls, are misinformed, or careless... regardless of their intent. If the authorities had known about this situation before it happened, then I believe they would have had the obligation and right to step in and ensure the child got medical attention. However, on the flip-side, I am not sure how I feel about punishing them afterwards. They are already going to suffer far greater than any legal punishment could inflict upon them -- they have lost their daughter and lost faith, what could be more painful?

The part that I am really unsure about is the original topic of this post -- what are the boundries of how far our government can intrude into our lives. The problem I see is that we are trying to define it as black or white situation, but there's lots of gray areas.

MommyToAshley replied:
Aimee, I struggled with the same issues as you did. Because of my faith, I think the fact that religion was involved, it clouded the entire situation. If it was simply a case that they did not get treatment, and it didn't have anything to do with their faith, there would be no debate here and everyone would be screaming abuse.

Because, like many of you, I think people should be allowed to practice their religion. The problem arises when they interpret their religion to do things that would cause harm to others... such as what happened with 9-11. Or even in this case, not that it can be compared to 9-11. I just don't see anywhere in the Bible that is says to let your child suffer.... I don't belive our God is a vengeful God.

coasterqueen replied:

You are right Dee Dee, but many of religions that don't seek certain medical treatments would tell you it does say in the bible certain things to support that. I know with JW it's because blood is sacred and therefore they cannot accept blood transfusions. I'm sure my MIL could point out many things as to why they believe that and where it ocmes from in the Bible.

Do I think it's wrong, yes.

MommyToAshley replied:
I am sure that Tom Cruise would have reasons to support this arguement and say it violates his religion of Scientology. But, regardless of the religion, it should not take precedence over not doing harm to others... and that is what happened here. Regardless of the fact that it happened in the name of their faith (any religion).

msoulz replied:

That's how I feel too - it's not as black and white as some feel it is.

Maddie&EthansMom replied:
This was pretty much my point all along.

coasterqueen replied:
Sorry I was typing/editing when you quoted me.

Dh is almost here to pick me up. So I am going to agree to disagree here. I have only tried to understand it and respect it in the eyes of my MIL and no matter what I feel is wrong, it's her religion, not mine and I can't force her to go against her beliefs - so I'm looking at this case the same way no matter how horrible it is.

coasterqueen replied: I also think a lot of judgement is being passed on these people based on a news article and not the REAL story. Media has a great way of making things look worse than they are and leaving a LOT of the facts out.

MommyToAshley replied:
So, if Kylie needed a tranfusion, would you still respect your MIL views?

If your MIL refuses one based on her own beliefs, that is one thing. But, to keep a child from getting one in the name of faith would be something completely different in my eyes.

coasterqueen replied:
No, because Kylie is MY child, not hers. I respect her beliefs for her to practice with herself and her family NOT mine And yes, she always said if her youngest son, Korey (who is a JW) needed a transfusion she would not allow it.

msoulz replied:
This is an excellent point - the media is not the most reliable for reporting all of the fects - they do report the facts that inflame people very well.

Maddie&EthansMom replied:
I was gonna say, none of us will ever know the entire story or the intent of these parents. It's not like PC will be the ones to decide the fate of this family. But, it's been a good discussion and Karen I totally see your point. I'm just really set in my ways. Shocked?

MommyToAshley replied:
I guess we would have to agree to disagree then, because if I was ever put in that situation I don't think I could repect this person's views (regardless of their relationship to me) and I would notify the authorities.

MommyToAshley replied:
This is true.

And, I agree, it has been an interesting topic to read and has given me a lot to think about. In fact, it helped me to dig down and really understand my thoughts on certain issues including government and religion.

boyohboyohboy replied: I think the point of this topic has been missed.
this isnt about religion.
its about whether or not for WHATEVER reason you feel that its ok for the law makers to interven into a families personal business on how to raise and handle situations that come up in a family.
because its not going to be just interventions on families like this that you feel are quacks..its going to be intervening into families like yours and mine on issues like whether or not they will make you vaccinate, its about whether or not they will make your kids go to public school, whether or not they will make your kids learn about sex in school, not at home..and many other family issues that we as parents should be dealing with at home.
if you open that door to the law makers and let them in for one issues its going to encompass many other areas.

its not about whether or not you feel this woman was or was not following her religious beliefs and let her child die needlessly..its whether or not she had the right to stand up for what she believed in.

Crystalina replied:
I think whether we want it to or not the Gov. is slowly doing all those things anyway. I'm not saying everything on your list will come into play but I do believe (and I'm sure not all in our lifetime) but it's going to happen. Look at the smoking in public places. I, for one, love this law even though I smoked from a teenager until the age of 28 when I got pg with Izabella. When I was a teen I would never have thought that would be a law. It will happen bit by bit and it will just be the norm for the next generations.

PrairieMom replied: These are not the first people to sacrifice their children or even themselves for that matter in the name of religion. What about thousands of Christian martyrs that were tortured, killed, fed to lions and all kinds of horrible because of their beliefs?

I'm not saying that I think that what these parents did was right, , I believe that they were honestly doing what they felt was best for their child, and obviously they have different religious convictions / beliefs than I do.

I don't know what the answer is. I think this is one of the times when there are no good answers. Either solution is a poor one. EIther let the Government intervene in any way they see fit, or let "misguided" people harm themselves or others. No one wins either way.

Crystalina replied:
True.

redchief replied:
First, I want to apologize, for I have no intention of hijacking this thread, but I have to answer the pointed questions from my favorite debater.

Jeanne, I don't think the government should create any law that is not fairly enforcible, regardless of the benefit. I've never said that smoking in a vehicle with children isn't bad for them. It's a horrible thing to do. So is smoking in a house harmful; more so in my opinion. Therein lies the danger of nannying so. Most kids are in the car for short rides and only rarely subject to long term exposure of whatever environmental ills happen to be inside. Let's face it - for the most part, small children can't even be seen in a car from a patrol car if they're properly restrained. If they're not, it's my firm opinion that the driver should be ticketed for not properly restraining their children. Now that law can be fairly enforced. Again, I don't feel that there can be fair enforcement of a smoking in the car law, any more than there can be fair enforcement of a smoking in the home law. I just don't think it's wise legislation. Those laws are a waste of paper and time. I said I'm a conservative libertarian... This description most matches my political views. I rarely think in terms of absolutes, however, which is one of the things that many people don't quite get about me.

Now, back on topic. I haven't taken a position in this debate, though I lean toward the view that society does have a responsibility to fairly assist those who have no voice. Jeanne and everyone else are right - this is a difficult topic to get one's thoughts around, especially those who, like me, don't feel we should have government intrusion into every facet of our lives. I would not stand still and watch a child get beaten. I have a responsibility to protect that child, even if he isn't mine. The questions I asked in this thread were based upon that view. Those parents must have known their little girl wasn't responding to prayer alone, and they had themselves sought medical care in the past. So again I ask, is it OK for society to allow the ignorant to allow their children to needlessly die without consequence? I'm not sure I've really come to quite the right level of "government intrusion" in this and similar cases, but I know it's not OK to let a kid die for nothing.

As far as not taking responsibility for this or that government, of course we all must take responsibility for whatever government we elect, regardless of how we voted. The only way you can absolve yourself is to deny your citizenship. The odds of a Libertarian government ever happening in this country are slim and none, so I'm stuck with whoever wins and nearly always have to make choices that are imperfect to my ideologies. But given all of that, I still believe this is the best country in the world, and even if a candidate I don't vote for gets into office, this is still my government, and I have a responsibility to actively work for change that works for me. Jeanne, you must agree or you wouldn't keep trying to change my mind.

MommyToAshley replied:
I agree sort-of. But I think it's more than that actually, it's about whether or not these people had the right to stand up for what they believed in at the expense of others... or in this case, at the expense of a child that was under their care.

jcc64 replied: Ed, you got me again! Thank you for clarifying your thoughts- I knew I missing a piece- and I do agree about unenforceable laws, believe it or not. Maybe you've changed my mind on that one!
About this particular topic, I have to admit, I'm not sure how I feel. Instinctively, I'd always come down on the side of a child, because they have no voice if their own parents aren't advocating for them. But the other side has a legimate legal argument too, though I don't happen to agree with it.
I've found all the side debates about theology very interesting. As someone for whom the jury's still out with respect to who or what God is exactly, I do find the whole "My god can beat up your god" argument to be way off track. Not one of us will ever know the true nature of our divinity, what God does or doesn't want. It's all subject to interpretation, and the moment we can unequivocally elevate our version above the other guy's, is one step towards the mindset that created 9/11, the Crusades, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Holocaust, and just about every large scale man-made disaster we've ever known. One man's cult is another man's guiding light. Let's at least agree to respect the fact that no one religion has the corner on the truth. Your truth is YOUR truth, not THE truth.
Now, what to do when someone's "truth" involves the willful and fatal decision to deny healthcare for a sick child. God help the judge that has to decide that one, b/c as we've all just proven, there is no easy answer.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Sorry Jeanne, I can't agree with that. If I didn't think what I believed was THE truth, why would I believe it? Unless, this however is not what you are talking about. Interpretation I can sway on...but WHO I believe to be God and Christ, I can't be persuaded.

MommyToAshley replied:
I wasn't debating one religion was better than another, and I hope that isn't what Karen or the others took away from my comments. I do have certain beliefs that I hold to be true, but I would not force them upon anyone else. But, where I do see a problem is when people do harmful things in the name of religion or faith. It's not faith in God or the practicing of a particular religion that is causing harm, it's the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of His words by the person committing the act. The people who ran airplanes into buildings on 9/11 say they did it in the name of Allah -- do they have a right to stick up for their beliefs too? Most of the people practicing the same religion would not agree that this is what their book tells them to do... it was how these extremist interpreted the word.

jcc64 replied: Yes, Dee Dee, that's pretty much what I was trying to say, too, and no, my post was not directed towards you. Jennie- that should clarify what I meant.