Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

I'm sure we've all heard the joke about the sincere Christian who while watching the water rise around his home during a flood turns down all offers of assistance, each time saying that he puts his trust in God. God is surprised to see him at the Pearly Gates, exclaiming, "What are you doing here? I sent two boats and a helicopter!"I believe in freedom, especially religious freedom, but faith can drive people to irrational actions. As Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winning scientist) is purported to have said, "Good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."I can't understand the defense of any practices, religious or not, that cause the deaths of children. Everyone must concede that there have to be limits to religious freedom. Just try inventing a religion that doesn't believe in paying taxes. And one only has to consider that we would never permit the religious practice of child sacrifice of ancient Aztecs. Once you've decided a line must be drawn against some religious practices, no matter how sincere, then it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that medical care for treatable conditions can never be denied, and that courts, not parents, should decide.This unfortunately puts parents at odds with both the legal establishment and law enforcement, with all the messy outcomes that such entails, including incarceration, fleeing jurisdictions, etc. But we as a society cannot ignore our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, regardless of their unfortunate choice of parents.--Percy

Yeah, exactly! How did this thread get to 149 messages with absolutely no one addressing this question?--PercyPS - Sometimes it does help to read a thread before joining in.

I suppose this is as good a time as any for me to put in my standard plug for Chad Twitchell, who in my mind will always be the poster boy for prayer-driven child abuse. He died more than 20 years ago in Massachusetts. His parents were Christian Scientists, and he died after several days of severe pain while his bowel obstruction was treated with prayer. His parents fled the state to avoid prosecution and were found guilty of child abuse in absentia.I've been following the back and forth in this thread, and I guess my only comment is that everything everywhere is a slippery slope. There is no place to draw a line on level ground, every issue is a gradient. Accepting responsibility, which is what a society does for itself, involves making choices, and making no choice is an abrogation of responsibility.I believe in quantitative criteria, so regarding health care choices for children and keeping considerations like financial cost and treatment availability and so forth equal, I believe we should select the approach that allows the most children to survive to adulthood. People can muddy the waters with as many side-issues as they like, but I believe this simple criteria is all we need.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Well, given some of the arguments advanced in this thread, I threw in that qualifier to exclude whole families of silly answers, such as claiming that I'm actually in favor of taking away the children of poor families who can't afford adequate health care, or of invading foreign countries who are providing an inadequate standard of health care to their children.It's a simple criteria: we should craft policies that maximize the longevity of children. Or you could express it the opposite way: we should craft policies that minimize child mortality.--Percy

No, I wasn't suggesting that, either. What I was saying was that I didn't want to be interpreted as suggesting anything at all about those factors. I wanted them factored out of the equation. That's what phrases like, "Other things being equal" mean.That means, for example, that a parent faced with a life or death situation concerning something like appendicitis would not be permitted to choose faith healing.All I was saying is that we should have health policies and laws that minimize child mortality. This simple criteria says that we as a society would not allow parents to choose faith healing as a treatment for appendicitis. There are always limits. The particulars don't really interest me. I certainly wasn't assuming that. In fact, if you read my first post in this thread (Message 22) you'll see that I mention the concern of parents fleeing jurisdictions. See the "Other things being equal..." clause. This is actually asking the question of how indirect the cause of mortality should be before it is considered under such policies. I'd leave it to policy wonks to find a dividing line. Well yes, of course. But don't lose sight of the goals in the details of the process. What you're saying is that the goal of minimizing child mortality is just one of many goals that a society has, that these goals will inevitably conflict with one another, and what is one to do in such cases. This is true, but it forgets one thing. The right to life is an overarching principle that overwhelms almost all others.--Percy

You wouldn't want the particulars factored out of policies. I only wanted them factored out in the way I expressed the goal. I'd leave it to others to decide the details of where to draw the lines.If this is truly a tug of war between a child's right to life and the parents' right to religious freedom, I'm confident of the choice most people would make.--Percy

I didn't reply because I thought I could convince you, but because it seemed like the important goal was getting lost in the details. I can see you want to discuss the details, but there seem plenty of others more than willing to do this with you.I'm not myself interested in a detailed discussion because your position doesn't worry me. This is not because I think you can be persuaded out of it, but because I don't think enough people to make a difference can be persuaded into it. For most people, concern for the wellbeing of children is just too important a consideration, and all your little details just aren't going to matter to them. The genies been in and out of the bottle so many times he's got a revolving door.--Percy

If you disagree with what I have to say then focus on that or don't reply at all, but don't make me the focus of your discussion. The topic's in the title.As I said, I only posted because I thought the important goal was getting lost in the details. There are plenty of other people here willing to discuss the details, this is the hottest thread at present, you don't need me. As I've made clear on a number of occasions and on a variety of topics, I have little interest in arguing against positions with little chance of gaining much traction.--Percy

I'm not interested in discussing the particulars with you. You accused me of posting unnecessarily, gloating and cheerleading, so I suggested you steer your focus away from me and onto the topic, which I still think is a good idea. I was referring to the notion that religious freedom should take precedence over a child's right to life. I don't believe that notion will ever gain much traction, and I doubt the laws you're referring to state it this way. One of the dangers of well-intended legislation is unanticipated outcomes, and the Neumann case is one of them.As I once again feel the most pertinent point is getting lost in the details, let me state it again: A child's right to life is of overarching importance and takes precedence over almost all other considerations one can imagine.--Percy

If it's okay, given that I can't follow how you reconcile your endorsement of the overarching importance of the right to life with your actual position on this issue and so am not certain that these principles mean the same to you as they do to me, I'd prefer not to be perceived as in agreement with you, even at a "broad stroke" level.--Percy