Government Always Wins...

[The Mike]

Political thread?... Dangerously close...

Political no. Religious yes. You can't discuss this without getting into a religious debate.

There is a separation of church and state. First Amendment guarantees the freedom and expression of religion. Choosing to have their son not receive Chemotherapy is no different than Jehovah's witnesses choosing not to undergo blood transfusions because its against their beliefs and there are a hundred and one examples from all various religions where the spiritual belief draws the line in the sand.

Personally, I think the government was wrong in doing so. You don't tread on religion despite your beliefs or what your moral compass says is "right". I'm not hyperreligious and don't agree with the parents but to do this just opens Pandora's Box to all the nutjobs who will rails against the Government and do the whole slippery slope bull^^^^ where they go to the extremes and say its the same. Tell the parents if they refuse to treat the child they will be charged with Voluntary manslaughter and Child Abuse (because you can't say he isn't in chronic pain) and see if they are willing to go to jail for their beliefs. If they are willing to sacrifice the child for their beliefs then let that be the crime not the refusal of services.

 

[DinoLast]

Political thread?... Dangerously close...

A religious one too. :eek

 

[pixletwin]

I would agree with you Mike, but only to a point. The Government has no right to intercede unless the practice of that religion impedes on the rights of others.

This child is a minor and practicing their beliefs will (not room for uncertainty here) result in the harming of that minor.

Ergo Government must intercede on the minor's behalf.

 

[316what]

Really? Kind of. I do see your point. News is always political to some extent unless it's the weather.

Weather leads to Global Warming leads to political.

 

[karamazov80]

Personally, I think the government was wrong in doing so. You don't tread on religion despite your beliefs or what your moral compass says is "right".

But the line has to be drawn somewhere. As I was suggesting with my previous post, you can't just let religious groups do whatever they want if it hurts others who don't have the ability or wherewithal (including the cognitive wherewithal) to protect themselves. Following from pixletwin's post, is it not the government's job to protect children (from forced labor, child abuse, etc.)? If the refusal of services has a high probability of being detrimental to the child's health, then it is akin to child abuse, IMO, and the government has a responsibility to act against the will of the parents.

 

[316what]

Personally, I think the government was wrong in doing so. You don't tread on religion despite your beliefs or what your moral compass says is "right".

So you would have been opposed to any government intervention in Jim Jones Jonestown???

 

[karamazov80]

I can see an argument that the treatment may not be necessary, or may have a potential worse effect on the child's health than non-treatment, and that then there could be an argument for non-interference by the government, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

With Jonestown, that was pre-meditated murder, so in that sense, the government should get involved if it had intelligence to that effect, no question.

 

[The Mike]

I would agree with you Mike, but only to a point. The Government has no right to intercede unless the practice of that religion impedes on the rights of others. This child is a minor and practicing their beliefs will (not room for uncertainty here) result in the harming of that minor.
Ergo Government must intercede on the minor's behalf.

The government can step in when a crime as been committed. Not treating this child is not a crime, it is morally wrong to many of us but not a crime. If/when the child dies or if the child needs to go to the hospital because they are mortally failing and the parent does nothing then a crime has been committed. Parents are responsible for the care of their children and in making their decisions until the age of 18, if it has been a parental issue CPS would have taken the child under that infraction.

Its not the best case scenario and one where people's lives are at risk but that is the way the law works.

So you would have been opposed to any government intervention in Jim Jones Jamestown???

This is the kind of ^^^^ I'm talking about. Its the first rule of High School debate to take your point to its most illogical extreme and force your opponent to argue it, not to mention the cue of a lazy debate participant. This is where you expect me to say "Well that's different" and nullify my point right? Well here is the thing there is no law against moving to a commune. There is no law against following a religious leader into another country. It was a mass murder/suicide that was committed. That is the crime. Once that was committed that is when they need to intervene. So YES I am and would have been opposed to any government intervention in Jamestown or Waco or any other extreme cases you want to throw unless a crime has been committed. Once a crime has been committed they need to go and rectify the situation. If we knew in Jamestown that they were going to murder then Yes they should step in because last time I checked attempted and premediated murder is against the law.

Its not the government's role to step in and change because it isn't seen as okay with the status quo. Its the government's role to step in and enforce the laws of this country.

 

[wofford29]

I'm happy the government got this one right. Hell the kid may not hold the same beliefs as his parents, I certainly wouldn't want to die for that ^^^^.

 

[pixletwin]

....Its not the best case scenario and one where people's lives are at risk but that is the way the law works.

That's not true. There are Endangered Child laws which would most definitely be applicable here and more than justify intervention.

 

[The Mike]

I understand the Endangered Child Laws but if there was really an infraction wouldn't CPS have a clear cut case to just take the kid? This went to a judge and then after it was handed down she skipped town. If it were Child Endangerment those don't wait for judge, jury or anything, the kid is taken immediately to minimize exposure to dangerous situations and/or abuse. If there was legal recourse under that statute and nothing was done then the authorities dropped the ball.

 

[karamazov80]

Its not the government's role to step in and change because it isn't seen as okay with the status quo. Its the government's role to step in and enforce the laws of this country.

Unfortunately, there are too many gray areas where the law is not completely cut and dry, however. This case is a good one that illustrates this, in that it isn't a parent beating a child, but withholding treatment from a child with a serious illness. What kind of specific law could you put in place that would apply to this specific instance? If there was one, it would probably exist, but it's just too messy, and requires too much interpretation. As such, you rely on precedent in similar types of cases, and judges use their best judgment, based on the laws and norms in place, to make a decision. Law is inherently moralistic, and is often based itself on religious principles, but again, the right to protect those who can't protect themselves trumps this, and is the over-riding reason why the government should intervene.

Regarding the Jonestown case, the sexual abuse of minors and threats of death prior to the suicide/murder were certainly enough to warrant governmental intervention, but being in South America provided an additional dimension that would have made overt U.S. interference very difficult.

 

[pixletwin]

I understand the Endangered Child Laws but if there was really an infraction wouldn't CPS have a clear cut case to just take the kid? This went to a judge and then after it was handed down she skipped town. If it were Child Endangerment those don't wait for judge, jury or anything, the kid is taken immediately to minimize exposure to dangerous situations and/or abuse.

Well I suppose the legality of it is a bit more blurry than your typical CE case. DCFS does have the right, without court order, to intercede where harm to the child is plain and obvious. However, afterward they still have to justify it to the prosecution and to the court. So your point is a bit moot.

 

[The Mike]

I don't think so. If they removed the child and then have to justify it wouldn't they use the same ideas spurned by many of the posters above? That denying treatment constitutes a clear and present endangerment of the child's well being? The child would still be removed from the situation. If the judge says that the argument doesn't hold water or CPS knew it wouldn't then we would see why it wasn't done. So my point that no laws were broken even the Child Endangerment ones or else something would have been done still stands.

 

[pixletwin]

So my point that no laws were broken even the Child Endangerment ones or else something would have been done still stands.

Well that much, I think, is obviously the result of gray areas in the issue and the necessity to tread a bit lighter.

 

[BadMoon]

I don't care about the legal issues, moral issues, or whatever you want to argue back in forth. What they are doing is wrong and repulsive. I would never associate with that type of person.

 

[Black@ssB0lt]

I totally agree with Mike here.


How many on this thread consider themselves truly religiously devout?

 

[pixletwin]

I consider my self spiritual, but I don't believe that gives me the right to impose my beliefs (and what is most certainly a death sentence) on someone who isn't even old enough to make a decision themselves.

 

[Black@ssB0lt]

There is a difference between spritual and devoutly religious.

Spiritual is vaugue. What do you mean when you say you are spiritual?

Also, when you tell them they can't follow their religion, aren't you imposing your beliefs?

Also, it was a 90% chance at success with chemo. There is really no way you have of knowing that it would be "most certainly a death sentence". Would you please take that statement back?

 

[pixletwin]

There is a difference between spritual and devoutly religious.

Spiritual is vaugue. What do you mean when you say you are spiritual?

What indeed does it mean? I think it means as many things to different people as there are religions to define. I'm not sure I could articulate it very well. I would say being religious is along the lines of following the letter of the law while being spiritual is following the spirit of the law, if that makes any sense.

Also, when you tell them they can't follow their religion, aren't you imposing your beliefs?

No. You are enforcing a law. Big difference.

A

lso, it was a 90% chance at success with chemo. There is really no way you have of knowing that it would be "most certainly a death sentence". Would you please take that statement back?

I would say a boy with untreated Hodgkin's lymphoma would most certainly die far sooner than his peers who are being treated. Yes.