View Single Post
Old 11-05-2007, 09:15 AM   #12 (permalink)
ratbastid
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
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.

Last edited by ratbastid; 11-05-2007 at 09:18 AM..
ratbastid is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360