Consider this hypothetical: Members of a particular religious sect firmly believe that receiving medical treatment of any kind (including medication and surgery) demonstrates a lack of faith in God’s power to heal, and thus their religion forbids medical intervention. The members of the Doe family are all members of this religious sect. Last month, State welfare case workers discovered that the Doe’s two year old child was home with a fever of 104 degrees and other symptoms of a life-threatening illness. The State welfare workers took the child against the wishes of the parents and had the child admitted to a hospital for treatment. The parents immediately went to court and asked for an emergency injunction stopping any medical treatment. The parents’ protest is based solely on the sincere religious belief that any such treatment will condemn their child’s soul to hellon the sometimes conflicting “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses of the First Amendment, how should this case be decided under the Constitution?.
2006-12-05 11:44:26 · 20 answers · asked by loop l 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Under decisions rendered by American courts, your right to practice religion freely ends at the point where the religious practices are considered criminal.
Thus religions which practice human sacrifice or even consentual polygamy are not allowed to persist in their practices, even if they are central tenets of their faith.
And religious families which do not have their children given what non-believers see as life-saving treatment have their children taken away and assigned legal protectors to guard the child's 'interests'. No protest from the religious group, the family, or even the child himself will hold any weight with the courts.
2006-12-05 11:53:04 · answer #1 · answered by Hate Boy! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a tough question you ask. I believe the Doe family is in error, but it is a tough thing they are trying to do. They do not wish their child to die, but trust to God for divine healing and protection. Their wishes should be followed, but I doubt the courts will see it this way. If the courts followed the letter of the law they should allow the parents to raise their kids as they see fit. Social services should only intervene when a family is making a child sick or harming a child needlessly. It is truly a sticky wicket.
I would like to believe that if I thought something so strongly that I too would act in the heavenly interest of my child. I do not care about Man's laws and ideals...only Gods.
Hard fact is if the child dies the parents and family will feel the loss more than anyone else.
The hope is the child will enter eternity. We are all appointed a time to die this is fact.
2006-12-05 20:00:20 · answer #2 · answered by crimthann69 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well there are some beliefs that if you seek medical help or blood that you are violating there beliefs I stand on the First Amendment however I can also see the welfare of the child is also important and I know of kids dying because the parents denyed health care.
It is a real tough call to make
2006-12-05 19:54:49 · answer #3 · answered by revfergy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am strongly opposed to the government raising children. Just a quick look at the failing government schools shows this to be true. I also loath giving the government the right to take children and or interfere in the family. However some cases need help. No children should be allowed to suffer greatly and/or die from what can only be false religion. So their needs to be help but not open the door to the family by the government whose track record is far worse than almost any family.
O for a wise judge in this case.
2006-12-05 19:53:04 · answer #4 · answered by beek 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ignorance, pure and simple, these type of people royally tick me off! God does not condemn children to hell for getting medical help. The child did nothing wrong and God does not punish innocent children for the actions of stupid parents or legal authorities trying to save the child's life. Sitting by and watching a child die is something I'm thinking God might not look to kindly on, but unfortunately, that's why the state has to interfere, too many extremely ignorant people out there raising kids.
2006-12-05 19:54:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The welfare of a child goes above and beyond any religious claim the parents may have. I would rule in favor of the Sate.
2006-12-05 19:52:29 · answer #6 · answered by pirulee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know of anything in the bible that says you can't use a doctor. I have had many people in the hospital and prayed for God and the Doctor to heal them. I know there are sects like you mention but I don't know where their belief comes from. I would like to know where they get their words. If it isn't in the bible than I wouldn't believe it.
2006-12-05 19:55:56 · answer #7 · answered by Stand 4 somthing Please! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From what I have heard, the court will take control and give the child medical treatment.
2006-12-05 19:49:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The parents do have the right to practice their faith but not when it endangers the health of their child. I have not heard anywhere of the court ruling with the parents when it puts the child's life in jeopardy.
2006-12-05 19:49:04 · answer #9 · answered by Merilee L 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was a woman in the bible that had been to many doctors, but none could heal her. Jesus didnt say to her well if you had only come to me first. He never condemned her for seeking doctors to heal her. Jesus is not aganist us going to doctors. I think the parents should do everything in their power to protect their child, and not cause harm to them. I think welfare was right for coming in and getting the child.
2006-12-05 19:51:09 · answer #10 · answered by iwant_u2_wantme2000 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋