Parental Interference With Treatments

[Cattraknoff]

A question I would pose to you all: Should parents have the power to say their children should not be treated based on religious reasons (or any other reason, for that matter)?

Related article:
http://healthandfitness.sympatico.msn.ca/Sextuplets+seized+from+parents+were+not+in+danger+ lawyer+tells+BC+court/News/ContentPosting.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=35173021&feedname=CP-HEALTH&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True

I am personally of the opinion that most parents do not have the medical knowledge to make a proper judgement of whether it is necessary, especially when religious bias is brought into the mix. In addition I do not think these religious beliefs should be forced on the children anyway, what ever happened to freedom of religion? The children should not be effected by the religion of the parents until such a time as they're able to make a conscious choice, based on logic and their own beliefs. Why is it that the children themselves are enslaved by beliefs they know nothing about, and can't in any way believe in, being too young to know anything about what those beliefs actually are.

I would find it very troubling if the parents win in this case. Religion is no reason to restrict treatment, unless the patient is the one refusing it. Being that infants cannot make this choice, the doctors, being the most knowledgeable about what is needed, should be the ones to choose.

[Locke]

Quoth: "The lawyer for the family stated that the children were in no danger."
A lawyer, while erudite in his own field, cannot be trusted to give a correct diagnosis on a medical situation. (As well, he is being paid by the family).
Until a child is of the age whereat they can make their own choices, they should not be denied that opportunity through religious dogma and superstition.
Freedom of religion looms over many issues today, yet as free speech is denied when defamatory or inciteful to hate, religion should not intervene in matters of life and death.
Sadly, if this case is lost by the family, then there will indubitably be an outcry as to the allowance of Islamic veils in voting stations and schools, even though those are benign actions and harm to no one.

[Cattraknoff]

Quoth: "The lawyer for the family stated that the children were in no danger."
A lawyer, while erudite in his own field, cannot be trusted to give a correct diagnosis on a medical situation. (As well, he is being paid by the family).
Until a child is of the age whereat they can make their own choices, they should not be denied that opportunity through religious dogma and superstition.

This will also apply to the judge who is going to decide who was right, nay? Unless they bring in a jury of unassociated doctors.

[Locke]

But the initial mandate to provide them with medical attention would only have come at the prompting of some medical advisors or doctors.

[Mitch]

This reminds me of an incident a few years back when a young girl couldn't get a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah's Witness and they disallow blood transfusion.
The result: DEATH.

I really think that religious beliefs should not come in the way of a medical treatment. I think the parents should have the right to refuse treatment, but they have to have a VERY good reason for it.

[Cattraknoff]

This reminds me of an incident a few years back when a young girl couldn't get a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah's Witness and they disallow blood transfusion.
The result: DEATH.

I really think that religious beliefs should not come in the way of a medical treatment. I think the parents should have the right to refuse treatment, but they have to have a VERY good reason for it.

They will call religion a very good reason. I see no reason to subject children to the religious beliefs of the parents. It is against religious freedoms and basic human rights, especially when it interferes with proper health care.