Here's Something I Don't Remember Discussing Here...

We probably don't discuss this issue as much because it's harder to take a clear cut stance.

My problem... I know what my gut tells me, but I don't like the ramifications of my feelings on other issues (freedom of religion).

I respect someone's right to religious beliefs... hell, even to brainwash their children with odd beliefs. But when the child's life and future is at stake... that takes precedence for me. A child can't choose... so, imo... even if the parent's "right" in that medical attention is "wrong..." the child isn't morally culpable since it isn't old enough to make an informed choice.

I think there should always be limits concerning how much control has over another person. Nobody has all the answers, even if they think they do. The rights of the parent should stop when a child's physical (and in some cases mental, though this seems less obvious) well-being is in jeopardy.

 

There have been a couple of Supreme Court cases that dealt with similar issues - one that dealt with blood transfusions to a Jehovah's Witness (apparently they are not fond of these) and one that dealt with maintaining life support for someone who had not previously dictated whether or not they wished to be kept alive if in a comatose state. I believe that the court basically ruled in favor of keeping the persons alive, with the reasoning being that when two rights (life and freedom of religion) are weighed, life wins over religion (or more broadly, the beliefs of the family).

Although I can understand the importance of allowing someone to act on their beliefs, I don't think it should extend so far as to allow another person (especially a child) to suffer or die. It's a hard line to draw in many cases. I don't envy the judge.

 

To me, this seems like a pretty simple case. Religious freedom ends where law begins. I presume it would be clearly illegal for the parents to deny medical attention "just for the hell of it", right? If so, then it's just as illegal regardless of religious grounds.

If we allowed this under the guise of "religious freedom", what's to stop a religion from doing other illegal things under that name? For example, what if my "religion" encourages me to practice infanticide of unwanted children? If you allow one, you have to allow the other, it seems.

Both are illegal, though, and the government has a role in protecting life -- especially for those who don't have a choice for themselves (kids, babies) -- so I don't think religious freedom should protect those practices.

 

Dammit major. That's atleast the fourth time this week you've beat me to the punch.

 

To make the point even more obvious, what if a religion called for human sacrifice? Certainly someone could not get off the hook for murder by claiming they were trying to appease the volcano god.

 

And yet the Bible teaches that where there is a conflict between God's law and mans that we're to follow God's law.

There have been some cases where the government has forced children of Jehovah's Witnesses to acede to blood transfusions against the will of the parents, but that's not very common anymore. Non-blood alternative treatments are popular and growing in popularity in the medical community, we have legal documents detailing our belief and releasing the medical community from blame, and we're in contact with the hospitals in all major communities so they know our stand and we know theirs. Obviously, we wouldn't patronage a facility that refused to respect our beliefs. Most do.

 

<B>I understand that Major and Hydra, but what about when it comes to adults? If an adult wants to kill him or herself in the name of her religion, why should the government be able to stop it? </B>

Well, since suicide is illegal, same concept. Now, you can argue about whether that should be illegal or not, but then that has nothing to do with religion.

If society has determined that life is more important than free will (in the case of suicide being illegal), then that's true regardless of a person's religion.

<B>And yet the Bible teaches that where there is a conflict between God's law and mans that we're to follow God's law. </B>

gettingbranded -- that's true, and that's your choice to follow what you believe to be God's law. However, different sects have different "God's laws", so man's law should still take precedence here on Earth.

 

<B>I understand what you're saying Major, but how do you feel about it? Your response is like my Mom's response to homosexual marriage...it's against the law, so my opinion on it is that it's wrong...until they change the law. </B>

I feel that law does and should override religion, and (like I said the first time, if you cared to read ) that "Religious freedom ends where law begins."

I don't care what your religion is -- if you do something illegal, it's illegal. You deny your kids medical attention, you should be arrested or whatever. Now, if you want to make a case that denying kids medical attention should be legal in general, I'd be willing to listen to the argument. However, using "it's my religion" to do illegal things opens up the door to way too many loopholes ("it's against my religion to pay taxes" would be a nice one.)

In terms of suicide, I don't think suicide should be illegal. That really makes no sense to me. However, I don't think that justifies suicide for religious purposes any more than suicide for any other purpose. They are either both legal or illegal.

 

<B>Again, you didn't care to read my question, I'll make it clearer. </B>

Oh hell, I thought I answered already.

<B>Disregarding the law, how do you feel about it?</B>

<I>You deny your kids medical attention, you should be arrested or whatever. Now, if you want to make a case that denying kids medical attention should be legal in general, I'd be willing to listen to the argument. </I>

I think it's wrong. One, life comes first. Second, the kids have to be protected by the state.

Now, if you can give me a good reason WHY the parents should have the right to deny medical attention, I'd listen to it. Maybe there is a good reason -- I just don't know of it. However, religion shouldn't be a part of that argument.

 

Do suicides get prosecuted? I mean, obviously if you're successful there is no one around to convict. If it is just an attempted suicide, I suppose the state could prosecute, but how heartless is that? Generally, a person attempting suicide has serious emotional and/or physical pain. They need help, not punishment.

Anyway, I'm not sure that what the Jehova's witnesses do, refusing medical assistance, constitutes suicide. Don't they believe that they will be saved through prayer? It's not like they wish to die.

 

THAT IS A LIE!!


Jehovah's Witnesses seek medical attention just like any other sane individual. We just don't accept blood transfusions as part of our treatment. There are alternatives and we avail ourselves of those.

 

Sorry man, chill. I did phrase it in the form of a question, after all. And you confirm that the goal is to live, just without transfusions - so my point is made that it's not suicide.

BTW, could you use a bigger font next time?

 

i knew a family that had these beliefs..they had a child who had some difficulties when he was born...i believe he was born with down's syndrome...he suffered some further brain damage that doctors believe would not have happened if the parents had not withheld treatment. that was roughly 40 years ago or so, though

 

My bad.

 

Well, there is some debate on this. Weren't you in on that Romans 13 debate?

So, you're out of the closet GB. You're a Jehovah's Witness. Is this what you thought we wouldn't believe? I have a friend who is a JW, but we don't talk about faith much. I'll be interested in your perspectives.