Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

When we have defined certain rights, then we can reason as to the best methods to protect those rights and to deal with conflicts between them. We might not have clearcut obvious ways to determine which argument is the best, but we can be clear that not all 'opinions' are equal in the discussion. And yet you are perfectly intent to force other people to receive medical treatments just because some opinion things they should? Does that sound fair or consistent?And remember, nobody is forcing anybody to receive medical treatment. We're not even forcing people to seek medical treatment for sick people in their care. We're just saying that if you have responsibility over someone's welfare you should face the consequences of any action you take with regards to that person's welfare. I'm getting some mixed signals from your position. On the one hand you think we^* should have these laws and on the other hand you think they are wacky. Is it your position that a country should have wacky laws? Obviously you don't think that 'religion' should exempt you from following certain laws. I'm not sure of the wisdom of having a system which treats religious people in one way, and expects more of non-religious people.I'm all for allowing certain leniences, but I'm not sure that we should be drawing a line which will allow child abuse to go unpunished (it is classed as child abuse in certain states, with certain religious people potentially immune from prosecution based only on the fact that they were abusing the child from a religious perspective). Considered as legitimate a form of treatment as medical intervention is. Nothing. That's why I am arguing that the law is not a good one, and that it should be changed. I am a human being, that's who. And if it is not my state, I can still do the stuff I mention above. That is because the stuff I mentioned was a causal chain. It started with the spread of ideas which includes spreading the ideas to people who live in one of the many states that have this exemption with the hope that people in those states will then essentially lobby
to have the exemption removed or modified. So I'll continue to spread ideas, discuss them, and continue to hope that this leads to increased pressure on the relevant parties to review the law. Well obviously it is nothing but expressing my opinion. I have already said that simply stating my opinion doesn't change the law. However, all laws, rights and exemptions that your country has is there as a pragmatic solution to a thorny moral issue. They have their basis on moral arguments. Take the legal rights you and I take for granted today: their basis lies in the moral arguments of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine amongst others. Yes, some people want to exempt some people's practices from what would otherwise be regarded as a criminal offence. That's fine, nobody is demanding you feel such a need. What we are suggesting is that the government can and should be able to limit the extent of your ability to freely practice your religion; especially where the rights of others may be infringed. That includes legally obliging families to have their children vaccinated regardless of a family's religious convictions.There is a legal argument to be made, and some states of repealed these laws after it was agreed it was unconstitutional and the like.There is a moral argument to be made too, as we've discussed.

---

^* Shorthand for ease of communication.

My cousin had a terminal and progressive illness. My aunt was given a choice of exteme measures to extend his life or letting him go peacefully and she had a very short window to make the decision. She chose to let him go with dignity and I support that decision. I myself would rather die in many of the variety of terrible medical conditions I could find myself in rather than suffering the indignity and pain of gradual decline.The reason I didn't go into this in any detail is because I don't think it is particularly pertinent. I have no problem with parents making these kinds of decisions - other than the ideal world in which no parent should have to.This kind of decision is seperate from the issue of neglect though. This isn't about a child that is almost certainly going to die being allowed to go peacefully versus a protracted and degrading few weeks. This is about getting a sick child looked at by a doctor. If a doctor has been consulted it is about deciding if a simple injection or pill is in the best interests of the child's welfare or if a method which has very little efficacy - if any - should be on the legal cards.I'm not sure a case can be built to deny a child food or water on religious grounds (for a limited, but often lethal amount of time) and I don't see how medical intervention is any different than food or water. Yes, I believe that was the case until 1995 when there was a (surprisingly very close) Referendum.

Except that religious freedom alone does not cut the mustard. As has been established, your constitutional freedoms only extend to the point of not affecting the lives of others. Once you start affecting other lives, limitations can be placed. The argument cannot be just 'religious freedom' but it needs tell us why in this specific case religious freedom should over-rule the physical welfare of a specific kind of person under the care of a specific group of people with a specific set of religious beliefs. After all - many religious parents don't belong to a certain church or religious community and they therefore don't get to have their religious freedoms protected in the case of medical neglect. As a Brit I was allowed to consume alcohol upon reaching the age of five years old as long as it was in extreme moderation, under the supervision of my parents, at home and my parents would be held liable should I suffer any ill-effect.Sure, leniences are allowed - but if someone had a religious belief that sacrificing the first born to protect the youngest - I'm sure you'd be keen to draw the line way before allowing that? Whereas taking a sip of red wine before 21 years old isn't a big deal so the line can be drawn after that.Thus, we need a line somewhere between "You can drink a small amount under the legal age in small quantities during a religious ceremony" and "Child sacrifice". The question is, can it be argued that the line should be drawn so that medical negligent homicide is OK? So far there are only two arguments coming forth:1: Religious freedom. This argument doesn't help us establish the limits of religious freedom.2. The current law contains the exemption. This argument is useless in determining whether or not we should have such an exemption and if we shouldn't work to having the exemption removed. Or didn't do. And I agree. I have insisted upon using words like 'sticky wicket' and 'grey area' and 'difficult' as often as possible. The reason I started debating you in the first place was because your Message 149 was implying the issue was 'cut and dried' by simply asing 'Why doesn't a parent have a right to refuse medical treatment on their child?'.I think we have advanced in the discussion enough to conclude that you agree that a parent, under some circumstances does not have the right to refuse medical treatment (without subsequently being charged and tried for doing so). Where we have a problem is that there could be two identical set of circumstances, but because the parent belongs to a certain group in one case - that parent has the right to refuse medical treatment and the other one does not.Seems a little wrong to me.Is it clear-cut that these parents definitely should be punished? No. However, there are cases in which the parents have been been punished for doing completely reasonable things because the law holds that the parent holds ultimate responsibility for the welfare of their child. The parent who followed doctor's advice, who was denied access the medical care she was entitled to, was still held liable for negligence when it turned out the doctor's advice was wrong because it was held that parent still has responsibility.If that parent with a sincere belief about the best way to care for her child should face a jury, I can think of no reason why the parents of Miss Neumann should not face a jury. Whether or not they deserve punishment lies with the jury. Like with any crime, there are many possible mitigating factors and I think that religious belief can be one of them. An example.Let us say that a medical treatment would give a child a near 100% chance of surviving and that withholding that treatment would mean the child has a 90% chance of dying. But the parents believed that medical treatments would taint the soul you believe that they should not be punished.Would you also agree that the following parents should not be punished?In this case the parents believe that water taints a child's soul during the first four days of a female child's 7th year on earth. Let us assume that a 6 year old has a 90% chance of dying after being without water for four days, and a near 100% of living if given water.I assume that you would want the government to let this religious community continue to practice their religious ceremonies unharassed?If so - then you surely want the law changed to reflect this.

And we come to our actual area of agreement. I might still have a problem with it, and may still argue against it - but I would much prefer a system of law where this kind of thinking was allowed for all and not just certain categories of religious believers. If the thinking behind the law was applied universally rather so selectively, I would have less of a problem with it. While there may be problems with allowing universal exemptions where a parent can refuse to medically treat a child if they have a belief that it is for the best then at least it wouldn't be so damned discriminatory.Perhaps we could one day find ourselves facing Orthodox Humanists who believe that not using medical intervention is for the good of the species. Either we allow them the same rights as members of established churches to carry out their beliefs within their family unit or we deny both groups. Indeed, so fine a line I don't feel like arguing the toss on its exact placing. I think medical treatment should be considered in a similar way to food, I can see the kind of argument that would be produced to dispute that claim and some possible refutations to those arguments. I foresee a muddy and difficult technical discussion ahead here, and will be perfectly happy to shake hands at this point with disagreement but understanding.

For someone that doesn't care about the exemption, you have spent a lot of time discussing it. If you genuinely don't care and don't see why you should care then there is no point continuing the discussion. I'll just refer you to Martin Niemller and leave it there: At first they eroded the right to life of children of certain religious families, and I didn't speak up because I am not a child of certain religious families...Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

In Message 217 I raised some points that that you didn't subsequently answer in Message 234. I have discussed the religious freedom problem and raised some questions of you about it. I guess if you do care to discuss it further that's the best place to pick it up.

Where to start? First is the presumption that religious extremism is limited to Muslims and only people who commit violent acts for political ends, which is tellingly the level of blindness one expects from a religious extremist.To compound the error - the father said that they believe in a holy book, believe in a god, and feel inspired by a spiritual force that drives them to doing the right thing. After all, Muslim extremists don't have any holy books, beliefs in a god, and they don't feel driven to do the right thing.Anyway, I think they are being honest but I think many crimes have been in the name of 'doing the right thing' - extreme beliefs have a tendency to pervert moral judgement. If, for example, you completely believed that your child will be tortured for eternity if it receives medical attention it would seem like a moral imperative to withold medical attention.And yet society still considers this kind of faith (as in certainty in the necessarily uncertain) a virtue and there is outcry when people question this...