G1223, on Apr 7 2004, 04:01 PM, said:
There are religions that prohibit transfusion of blood. of surguries being perfomred,or that certain medical services not be performed. Children have died for the above reasons.
Parents are assumed by law to have best wishes of the child's welfare at heart. Do we prohibit the people of these faith's from having the right to make these choices for their children?
Then what other actions could the state prohibit? Home schooling as they will not give the child the full range of social interaction? Attending services as they may discourage higher education or the value of women into our culture as equals?
I have to agree with G. Let's turn this around. What if a couple has an infant that has a life threatening illness requiring a blood transfusion. This couple comes from Timbucktoo. They live in the US because they are getting education here. They will be returning to Timbucktoo. In Timbucktoo culture it is forbidden to have a blood transfusion. This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the ways of an entire culture.
Would you all feel it was appropriate for the government to step in and strip these parents of their culture beliefs by taking away custody and giving it to a hospital? Do you feel it was appropriate to do this to the parents of the baby with a religous objection because it is about their religious beliefs. (something that others often believe is expendible) vs the beliefs of an entire culture.
I believe it is totally inappropriate for the government to have stepped in at all. These people were not breaking the law by abusing their child. They were following their beliefs that they will pass on to their children. They believed whatever happened to their child without the transfusion was God's will. Whether you chose to believe or not, would you so easily disrespect your own beliefs?
The line between church and state, parental rights, and individual rights gets blurrier each day.
Edited by LJW, 07 April 2004 - 06:01 PM.