Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kadath
No, I'm not going to bother to seek out the father (not sure who they are in this case since the mother is dead). I stated an opinion on an internet message board, which is pretty much the definition of not accomplishing much.
|
It was sort of a rhetorical question. My point is: saying to people, "Hey! Your beliefs are stupid, and aren't helping anything! Stop believing them!" is about 99% as dumb as them having those beliefs in the first place.
I recognize the irony of saying this to you about your beliefs, of course.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kadath
Let me ask you: at what point should the state step in to protect the child?
|
Well, I don't really know. It's a good question. I'm a computer programmer, not a medical ethicist. I do think people's right to religious expression should include their right to opt out of medical treatment if they so choose. Obviously it gets more ambiguous when they're making those decisions on behalf of those incompetent to give their own informed consent (let's not forget, for instance, adult children with mental retardation).
Legally, it's a state law issue, and here's how things stand:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical1.htm
In 1974, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare first required states to have clauses in their child abuse and neglect legislation that permits exemptions on religious grounds. If a state refused, they would not receive federal child abuse protection grants. By 1999, 40 (one source says 41) states had complied. Parents who choose prayer in place of medical care for a sick or injured child cannot be prosecuted in those jurisdictions. This federal regulation no longer exists, but most the state laws remain on the books. In only 4 states have these laws been overturned by the courts on constitutional grounds: HI, MA, MD & SD as the other two.
|
So, 36 or 37 states say that there's NO point the state should step in to protect the child. Or at least, in those states the law hasn't been put to constitutional test.