CNN: "Boy who refused treatment on religious grounds dies" How is this ok.....what if?

Question

ppl would refuse treatments for their kids based on the belief that the three headed dragon Charlie said so? Would that be acceptable? Would they not remove the child from the parents and save the childs life or would they "respect" their faith in a three headed dragon and just let the child die? I'm sorry... I believe in religious freedom BUT when it lets a poor brainwashed 14 year old die because of his belief (HE"S FOURTEEN!!) then something is seriously wrong...

It just makes me so upset to keep seeing these things happening in the name of some imaginary God. When do we say stop!?

And whoever feels offended by this...so be it

sorry forgot to post the link..here:http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/29/jehovahs.witness.ap/index.html

Answer 1

his parents should be imprisoned. thats what i think. they let their child die because they have "faith" in some god. i am thoroughly disgusted that this was allowed to happen. the judge who made this ruling should be in the cell right next to the parents.

Answer 2

Usually the kid dies before the Officials know what is going on. So there isn't a chance to step in to save the childs life. This is not the first time something like this has happened. I believe Christian Science also doesn't allow their followers to go to any doctors for anything.

You can't say stop. The US Constitution protects ALL beliefs and non-belief. Now, if they knew ahead of time that the child was dying and that the parents just refuse medical help, the child would most likely had been removed on the grounds of neglect and it may even be viewed as abandonment of a sort. But, unless we're willing to pay even more taxes so that we can have officials to go to every single home in the US to make sure the kids are getting proper care (fat chance of that happening when our own President won't even sign in a bill so the kids who do want health care can get it)... well, I just don't see how you can save these kids lives. At this point in time, all I can hope for, is that guilt eats those parents up.

Answer 3

This is so sad, and sickening. I want to cry just reading this. When will people realize that it is the living who must be valued, to value life, not imaginary deities?

He was 14, not legally an adult. The judge should never have allowed him to make this decision. He was still legally a child, and his life could have been saved by Child Protection Services had they intervened. The judge should have at least acknowledged that he was young and had been influenced by his parents all his life. Yes, brainwashed.

We had a couple up here (Canada) who had sextuplets and they were premature, needing blood transfusions. The parents refused, and one of the babies died. The government stepped in, took custody of the babies from the parents, and got them the medical treatment they needed.

I can't imagine anyone choosing religion over the life of their child. Quite frankly, it disgusts and deeply upsets me. I can't believe this kind of thing is allowed to happen in the name of religion. The JW's should be branded a cult, not a religion, along with Scientologists and all the others that impede medical treatment for those who need it.

Answer 4

well, when we have freedom of religion, we run into people who take religion too far. (no i am not against freedom of religion i am for it, just hear me out) It is one thing to raise your child in church if that is how you spend those days. however, when the child is old enough to decide on their own, you shouldn't force it. I have mixed feelings because if it were my child, I would do anything to save his life, but if my child were to tell me no mom, i know the risk, i won't do it, I couldn't force them too. And that would turn into the hardest day of my life.

I can't blame parents or anyone for refusing treatment based on religion, but blame religious leaders for teaching this way and allowing it to happen. Personally, I am more spiritual than religious, but I mean, its wrong to let a child die who could be saved.

However, if the boy knew even with treatment that he may still only have 5 years, he may feel like its not worth it. At 14, I knew full well what dying meant, and for him, it was possibly 5 more years, or face death now. I think he was brave. And the fact that his parents wanted to appeal the court case and force the treatments shos its not their fault, and they didn't appeal because they spoke to him first. If I was there, I would ask the child how he knew he was going to heaven in the first place. Jehovah's believe only 40,000 souls get into heaven. Maybe he just wanted to make sure he had a chance. He knew in 5 years if he had the transfusion (by his religion) he couldn't at all.

Answer 5

I believe that an adult has every right to refuse treatment .. for whatever reason
but when it is children , then whatever is in the childs best interest must be done
if that goes against the beliefs of the parents ... then so be it

edit
sly ... thumbs down
this is a child we are talking about here

edit again
Dias , I think we have a very different case there though sweetheart
that young girl tried and experienced chemo ... it sadly didnt agree with her , and she later refused
it was not a religious decision , but one based on experience
which I respect

Answer 6

I believe people should be free to do with their bodies as they please. Yes it makes me very very sad to see a young man die because he believes that a God would not be okay with it.

To explain the first line, when I was in highschool, there was a girl in my class who had recovered once from Leukemia, with a long and painful chemo treatment and other treatments.

When she was 14 she was diagnosed with Leukemia again and she decided she did not want to go through the incredible hardship again and that she just wanted to enjoy the life she had left and then be reunited with her mother (who died when she was younger).

It broke us all up to see her choosing to die, but it was her choice nonetheless. If she had taken the treatment, she might still not have survived, or she might have had a life ful of painful treatments. No one could have forced her to do so.

EDIT: By the way, in this case the parents tried to force him to take the transfer, thats why it went to court. It was the boy himself who refused, presumably under the influence of his aunt.

Answer 7

While I do not follow the religion of that family my feeling on the matter is this:

Religious belief is sacricanct. Anyone that is not part of a particular religion has no right to force that person to do anything that may be against their belief, nor do they have any right to prevent them from doing anything that is part of their religious belief. ONLY when that philosophy is applied to ALL religions fully and completely will there be ANY chance of "peaceful" co-existance.

Answer 8

Yes that is a very sad case :( The boy knew he would die without a blood transfusion, yet he preferred it that way because if he got the treatment he believed he wouldn't be let into heaven.

Answer 9

If the infant might die devoid of the scientific care then it may well be incorrect. yet whilst it won't kill or harm the infant permenatly then it fairly is the discern's discression if scientific scientific care is needed. Many states have regulations in this and that i've got heard of many situations the place a decide has required a infant to be taken faraway from their mothers and fathers to guarentee they obtain scientific scientific care. examine you states regulations in this, some have regulations saying that oldsters who refuse existence saving scientific scientific look after their toddlers are committing infant abuse and could be held responsible comparable to if that they had beat them. As an grownup you are able to ascertain for your self in case you think that scientific scientific care is unnecissary yet a infant relies upon up on their care giver and would possibly no longer get the help they prefer. Now that suggested, i comprehend of a particular case in identity the place the mothers and fathers desperate that the radation scientific care the Dr stated replaced into no longer mandatory. the infant had decrease than long gone surgury and kemo yet felt the radiation replaced into no longer likely to help. It went to court docket. The decide desperate that there mothers and fathers had no longer denied look after the infant yet that the care they felt replaced into suitable replaced into in simple terms diverse from the Dr. A 3 hundred and sixty 5 days later a newspaper suggested the infant replaced into in simple terms advantageous and nonetheless in remission. My nephew additionally replaced into in a similar case the place my sister had finished the surgury for him and the kemo yet in simple terms had a terrifble feeling regarding the radiation scientific care the Dr. had to do. She ultimately suggested confident and it replaced into the biggest mistake she ever made. The Dr even admitted he replaced into to agressive. He killed off area the the peturitary gland and area of the suggestions that processing the potential to study. My sister desires she had stood her floor. So 0 scientific care is a no-no yet all emergency and existence saving care would desire to be finished interior of limits of the mothers and fathers ideals and desires. it is an exceedingly complicated one to comprehend the place the line would desire to be drawn as all of us have diverse thoughts approximately this.

Answer 10

There was a story that a lot of parents were getting off from getting their kids vaccinations on religous grounds. The school used to accept them but they decided to keep them from attending their schools.