Where should respect for religion stop?

[Emperor Norton II]

I was presenting with a friend on Paternalism and the Patients Right to Choose. One of the case studies involved a Jehovah's Witness couple and their almost-born child. The doctors had determined there would be a slight problem, and the baby would need a blood transfusion. The parents declined, so docs went above the parents heads and got a court order. The baby was born, given the infusion, and lived. Meanwhile, the wife developed a clot, and needed a hystorectomy and a transfusion. She nor the husband would allow the transfusion to be done, and she died. Ok, iffy case. After we discussed it for a while, I went so faras to say that forcing a transfusion on the mother would have been an ok case of paternalism, as her religious beliefs were irrational, as she was willing to watch her child die rather than give it treatment. At that point, I thought it would be ok to go over her head and give her the blood. Ok, REALLY iffy case. So, a girl in my class spoke up about respect for religion as faras autonomy goes. So, a couple people speak up in various forms, lettin' out their opinions. I try to establish that there's a slippery slope involving paternalism- obviously, when a person is unconscious, they CAN'T voice their desires, so you hafta do whatever you think is right (you being a doctor). She then proceeds to tell me that religion requires some concessions, as the child belongs to the same religion as their parents. Nevermind me, I thought a person couldn't hold religious beliefs unless they were capable of, oh, rational thought. A guy speaks up, saying it's kinda silly for a person to have his or her dog put down because it was of their religion, and reminded the class in no certain terms that we're speaking about HUMAN life. I follow with this example,

 

"Jimmy McCannibal is a member of the Cult of the Mighty and Awful Snow Daemons. Their worship includes a ritual involving the devouring of the first-born child as a fertility rite, so the couple will have many more children. Are you saying that it's ok for the parents to eat the child?"

 

"Yes," the girl said.

 

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!

 

Maybe respect for religion should go farther than I'd like it to, but I'm pretty fucking sure it stops BEFORE EATING BABIES!!!

[TruthWarrior]

Maybe respect for religion should go farther than I'd like it to, but I'm pretty fucking sure it stops BEFORE EATING BABIES!!!

100748[/snapback]

 

Alas, it is too late,

 

http://www.eatbabies.com

 

[Amethyst]

I'm pretty sure respect for religion stops when that religion harms someone, be it the practicioner or an innocent child.

[pandora]

Issues like these is where I see philosophy and free-thinking coming into play. Once religion is somewhat less influential in the public square, we can start making standards. I see this as our responsibility.

 

Eating babies=bad. Letting baby die because of religious belief=bad. As in should be illegal. Unless a child really wants to die due to religious belief (assuming no depression or other psychological disorder), even if they understand that they can live, children under some age of accountability (I guess 18 is a good age) should have medical care forced upon them.

 

Although I lean towards libertarianism, this is one exception to the rule.... medical ethics is complicated, but we have to come to some sort of consensus.

 

On the other hand, I hope someday society can come to the consensus that religious beliefs (and all religious beliefs that cause decisions like this) are delusional and that these people are mentally unhealthy.

[Skankboy]

If they did not want to submit to the will of the doctors, they should not have gone to a hospital in the first place and they'd both be dead, just like their god wanted (apparently).

[Godless Wonder]

My respect for religion ends exactly where faith begins.

[duderonomy]

A simple can of worms.

Who 'owns' the offspring?

You can have an abortion, but you can't refuse a blood transfusion for the same child?

Which is it?

[Fweethawt]

My respect for religion ends exactly where faith begins.

I was going to say something along the lines of that.

[Godless Wonder]

I was going to say something along the lines of that. 

100875[/snapback]

Heh. And when I clicked on this thread, I was thinking to myself, "uh oh. Is Fweethawt gonna slam me for what I wrote?" Obviously I don't know you too well. I'm too often surprised by people conflating respect for the right to think whatever you want with respect for the strange thoughts themselves. (e.g. respect for the right to think faith is a good idea vs. repect for the notion that faith is a good idea. Former I can deal with, latter, not so much.)

 

Edit: Above, "right to think whatever you want" is concise, but slightly bad phrasing. More accurate would be "right to think whatever it is you're going to think anyway." If you're thoughts obey your wants, then where do you wants come from? If your wants are your thoughts, then "thinking whatever you want to think" becomes "thinking whatever your thoughs-classified-as-wants-about-thoughts dictate.... boils down to another way of saying "thinking whatever it is you're going to think anyway."

[Fweethawt]

Heh.  And when I clicked on this thread, I was thinking to myself, "uh oh.  Is Fweethawt gonna slam me for what I wrote?"  Obviously I don't know you too well.  I'm too often surprised by people conflating respect for the right to think whatever you want with respect for the strange thoughts themselves.  (e.g. respect for the right to think faith is a good idea vs. repect for the notion that faith is a good idea.  Former I can deal with, latter, not so much.)

Even if you don't know me very well, we're on the same page so far according to your comment above.

 

B'sides, I never "slam" anyone.

 

 

Edit: Above, "right to think whatever you want" is concise, but slightly bad phrasing.  More accurate would be "right to think whatever it is you're going to think anyway."  If you're thoughts obey your wants, then where do you wants come from?  If your wants are your thoughts, then "thinking whatever you want to think" becomes "thinking whatever your thoughs-classified-as-wants-about-thoughts dictate....  boils down to another way of saying "thinking whatever it is you're going to think anyway."

One of the older versions of The Golden Rule, has got you covered here, I think.

[pandora]

A simple can of worms.

Who 'owns' the offspring?

You can have an abortion, but you can't refuse a blood transfusion for the same child?

Which is it?

100854[/snapback]

 

Most abortions occur before the fetus can feel pain. It is not self-aware (doesn't have enough brain development to be so).

 

A baby is. A toddler is. An older child is...

 

Many people don't see the distinction, but in my own code of ethics, it is why I support abortion (not 3rd trimester ones though) and not the killing of children for religion.

[pandora]

Support abotion is a bad choice of words... more like support the right to have one and the ability of a woman to make up her mind to have one without anyone's permission.

[MQTA]

Romans 13:1-2

 

Abortion is Legal, they should accept that the law was ordained by God, Himself.

[Reach]

"Jimmy McCannibal is a member of the Cult of the Mighty and Awful Snow Daemons. Their worship includes a ritual involving the devouring of the first-born child as a fertility rite, so the couple will have many more children. Are you saying that it's ok for the parents to eat the child?"

 

"Yes," the girl said.

I feel sorry for that girl. I hope she will one day be strong enough to recover from the mind virus with which she has allowed herself to be infected.

[whatifidontwantausername?]

The girl who said yes probubly knew she was backed into a corner and took the only out that she could: Defending an irrational beleif.

 

As to whether the parents have total rights over a babies health I would tell them that not giving it a transfusion is the same as having a third term abortion. While I can certainly respect the mother's right to say, "I am not going to get a hysterectamy or a blood transfusion" that is as far as I push it. We are not entitled to make life ending decisions for people who cannot voice their oppinions.

 

Think of it as a deaf, mute, blind, mentaly retarded, paralyzed, parapalegic who is convicted of 1st degree murder and sentanced to death. He cannot defend himself or say "YOU MADE A MISTAKE" Neither can the child.

 

-Jake

 

P.S. Sorry for the ramble.

[BlueGiant]

I'll admit it, I would have probably respected their wish for their baby. If they seek to die, I would let them, it's cold, but it is in no way my responsibility nor the responsibility of society to protect stupidity. Now if you could establish mental incompetence (and the sarcastic part of me is commenting on how easy this should be) that is another matter, but barring that, why should we care?

[Dhampir]

One side says that the adults are able to make these choices of their own volition, wheareas a child is not mentally capable of such a thing, and we as a society generally don't allow people to make choices on their children's behalf that would bring harm to them.

 

The other side says that the religions that bring about choices that harm the adults who freely choose stupidity, are mind viruses that rob people of certain perspectives.

 

I have no respect for religion at all, except perhaps in the anthropological sense. If we realize that the irrationality of these religions have blinded these people to said irrationality, should we want to do to adults what we do to children under these circumstances?

[Kay]

I don't get it -

 

It's ok to die because your religion forbids you taking blood transfusions...

 

But euthanasia is regarded as a sin - like suicide.

 

What's the difference between suicide and refusing medical treatment?

[Amethyst]

What's the difference between suicide and refusing medical treatment?

 

None that I can see, except to the faithful, it's in "god's hands." Some god. He doesn't even bother to save his followers, much less anyone else.

[Jaded]

It is a pretty slippery slope. For the most part, I respect people's wishes to do what they want to themselves. Do I think that people refusing transfusions or medical care in general when their life depends on it is a wise choice...no. Where do you draw the line though? Do you force an 80 y/o to undergo surgery that may leave them alive but unable to get out of bed? Do you force that same person to go to dialysis when they don't want to? What if they were 60? How 'bout 50 or even 40?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think some of the suffering that has gone on in the name of religion that could have been prevented with medication or simple procedures is a real tradgedy. Would you want to send the police and medics down to force a 16 year old diabetic to take insulin when they are convinced that it is destroying the most important thing in their life (relationship or trust in god)? What is that going to do to a person?

 

We can't legislate life at the cost of quality of life. I have seen people who have died years ago and continue to live because they feel they have to as long as technology alows it. Aint pretty, and I doubt most would choose that life if they had to do it over again.

 

As far as emergency procedures go there is a concept known as implied consent. If the patient becomes unconscious you do whatever you can on the grounds that they may have changed their mind, denounced their religion, or whatever just as they were losing consciousness. Not sure if it is right or wrong, but that is the way it is.

[whatifidontwantausername?]

I just thought of something that I remembered from government class yesterday about the first amendment. Is says that congress shall make no law affecting religion or the free exercise thereof. This means in a legal sence that people can do whatever they want in there religion with one exception: they cannot break the law.

 

Is it just me or is refusing to let your child have medical treatment equal to criminal negligence and child abuse? Also the doctor would have been in the right for saving his ass from malpractice if he gave the child a transfusion.

 

Or am I missinterperating the laws?

 

-Jake

[duderonomy]

Hi all...

 

I didn't mean to imply that the original post opened a can of worms. And of course this kind of thing is never simple.

 

Pandora, we aren't too far apart on this, it seems. I was asking (rhetorically, of course) who 'owns' the offspring; the 'church', or the 'state'?

 

As an aside, the couple that created the offspring certainly doesn't own it, at least before birth, as it seems that half of the baby making couple (the man) doesn't have any say on the abortion issue at all... but that's another thread altogether.

[Jaded]

I just thought of something that I remembered from government class yesterday about the first amendment.  Is says that congress shall make no law affecting religion or the free exercise thereof. This means in a legal sence that people can do whatever they want in there religion with one exception: they cannot break the law.

 

Is it just me or is refusing to let your child have medical treatment equal to criminal negligence and child abuse? Also the doctor would have been in the right for saving his ass from malpractice if he gave the child a transfusion.

 

Or am I missinterperating the laws?

 

-Jake

101381[/snapback]

 

In most states a child can be treated against a parents wishes until they are 18 and able to make their own choices. It all comes back to consent. Are they old enough to make an informed decision about their treatment? There are still quite a few states that give the power to the parent and allow the authorites no say. Most of that legislation has come from the legal department at the christian science church. They wouldn't want to have treatment forced on their children (or health class, biology, vaccinations, vision and hearing screening, etc..)

 

In MA you need to have a parents consent to treat their children and can't do anything without a signed form unless it is an immediate life threatening injury. Just imagine being an EMT at a school bus accident....

[duderonomy]

Jake who doesn't want a user name...

 

The Constitution actually says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.

 

This is why, in my opinion, the nominees to the Supreme Court are so important to consider, and why there is always such a fuss and fight over them. The Supreme Court, after all, is the end of the line of one third of our whole government, and they 'interpret' the very Constitution that we govern ourselves by.

 

My interpretation of that part of the amendment, is that Congress, being our elected lawmakers, can't pass a law saying 'all must be Muslim', or 'everyone must go to a Christian church at least once a week', or 'if you want to be a citizen here, you have to be a New Ager', even if an overwhelming majority of us should elect them to office to do just that. They can't. No State Religion.

 

Also...and here comes the biggie, IMHO, Congress can't pass a law that prohibits anyone from the practice of their own individual religion, should that individual have one to practice. And who is to say what religion is or isn't? Who is to say what 'the free exercise' of that religion may include...or exclude? Not our Government...they can't (they do...but they 'can't').

 

I guess my bottom line on all of this is that I just don't know all the answers, but where should respect for religion end?

 

I don't think there is a definate answer, or a clear place where a line can be crossed.

[Kay]

Is it just me or is refusing to let your child have medical treatment equal to criminal negligence and child abuse?

 

It's my understanding that there have been some test cases against parents on such grounds. This might make for an interesting Google search.

 

And who is to say what religion is or isn't?

 

Contact your local tax office. It's highly likely that religion has been statutorily defined. I think in excess of 100,000 people nominated "Star Wars" as their religion in the last Australian census.