Faith Healing Kills: Conservative Christian parents in Michigan who refused to get their dying daughter medical attention because of “religious reasons” now face 25 years to life in prison. Where do you draw the line with religious rights? Should the church that indoctrinated these people be held accountable? Faith healing, anti vaccine and mental abuse should be considered. [patheos.com]
Holding them accountable is the only thing to do. If they get off because of their "faith" and religious beliefs does it mean that they can collect the life insurance on the dead child? If so, you would find so many more deaths where faith healing was allowed but nothing from medical science.
Where do I draw the line..... You have no "so called religious rights" aside from being able to worship or not worship what ever the fuck you want. Child abuse is child abuse. Same with anti Vaxxers. Laws should NOT bend for religion.
Or to stupidity! Anti-vaxxers are a menace to their children and should have them taken from them and both husband and wife have their tubes tied!
Hope they both get life, with no possibility of parole.
"Religious rights" should only go as far as the individual. No farther.
No religious indoctrination of children, ever.
The church that preaches against medical attention, is anti-vaccine, preaches
any kind of hate against anyone, indulges in mental abuse, or anything that infringes
on ANYONE'S civil rights, should be abolished and fined into bankruptcy.
This kind of thing really fires me up, and further solidifies my anti-theism.
Well crap, now I don't have anything to write beside "yup".
Yup.
In the UK there is now a system in place where if a Doctor believes a child is being denied medical care on religious grounds, an emergency hearing can be held before a judge within 12 hours, making the child an immediate ward of the court and allowing the doctor to do their job.
This came about after children of Jehovah's witness's died after demanding their religious "rights" be respected over and above and above the child's right to stay alive.
Any parent, in my opinion, who denies their child life saving medical treatment on religious grounds is a fucking negligent parent at BEST and a fucking murderer at worst.
GOOD. My dumbass relatives also thought that I could be faith healed. Lucky for me, I was receiving treatment and the attempts at faith healing from the con artist (Benny Hinn) was an additional attempt. Ironically enough, this is what was the first wedge of distance from god and religion for me, this supposed god refusing to heal me while he "healed" others. XD
Benny Hinn. Benny Hill was a comedian.
@DenoPenno I couldn't remember which Benny so took a stab in the dark. You got it though.
It’s the ultimate child abuse and the duty of care stops firmly with the responsible adults, mostly the parents.
To wilfully allow a death is no different to causing death, the religious issues aside.
You can’t blame an ideology but you can incriminate the practitioners.
If as an adult you choose to take or not to take a course of treatment thats up to you but your chikd can't make that choice at least not one based on anything but what as been said in church the parents are responsible for any harm coming to the child
I saw that, those sick motherfuckers. They need lots of prison time for murder.
more than that, I think the story of how their faith didn't work needs to be viral in order to help reduce future stupidity. Moreover, if someone wants to use their child to prove their own faith... it should be treated as a mental health issue.
@ZealotX yes, isn’t it odd the adults don’t use these methods on THEMSELVES, but on helpless children? It should go viral.
The line is drawn at precisely that point at which the belief potentially affects the wellbeing of another individual in any negative manner. That one believes crossing the street is best when the light is red does not justify pushing anyone else into the street when the light turns red. I know, simplistic, but you get the idea. That responsibility goes all the way up the chain of command. Ultimately, again being simplistic, one should be able to place responsibility on the shoulders, or whatever it has, of the professed deity that originated the practice while demanding all members of that chain share the burden of guilt.
I consider the mere indoctrination of children into a set of any beliefs without having the benefit of adequate information, experience, and freedom of choice to be a form of child abuse. Of course, that isn't the way humanity does things, is it?
Half a lifetime ago I was a part of a cult that didn't believe in blood transfusions. Thankfully we never had to make a decision regarding that belief. I honestly don't know what I would have done and I might be still bearing the consequences and remembrance of that decision. I can see that if that had happened it would have been so much better to have that decision taken out of my hands by the courts rather than be regretting that decision every day of my life. If the law had discovered the harm this couple were doing to their daughter she would still be alive and this couple probably wouldn't be facing incarceration for a big part of the remaining part of their lives.
They do not believe in blood transfusions because according to their book that would be "eating blood."
When my daughter was born After a difficult birth I held her in my arms and made myself a promiss that if it was needed no matter who said what or threatened what she would have a transfusion. I never had to make that descision and she is now a grown women well away from the cult.
I'm not sure the church could be held accountable unless there was direct evidence of a minister advising the parents not to seek medical help. It is definitely on the parents though.
I just don't understand how someone could see their child in pain & not try to physically do anything to help them. It's so sad
Certain religions' philosophies call for prayer healing and no medical. I believe Christian Science is one of these. Parents get convicted but the church gets off even though they profited by convincing them of this. Hardly seems fair.
Oh, I believe ALL churches should be held accountable for this kind of thing.
If they don't preach against it, they're culpable.
ALL churches are EVIL.
I'm glad they got 25 years, although I honeslty think it will never be enough to satisfy their abhorrent neglect & abuse of their child. Idiots like these should not be parents.
To show you how fucked up Christians are my sister believes that parents should not be held accountable when their child dies from Christian discipline (beatings) or faith healing. Her reasoning is that they will be held accountable when they meet God after they die.
I then remind her that not all people believe in God. She then looks at me confused (yes, she knows I'm an atheist).
That's despicable... Why endanger the children?
Because "God"!
I have nothing but contempt for the dangerous fuckwits who use religion as an excuse to deny medical attention to a vulnerable person. Such fuckwits do not have religious rights, they are committing religious wrongs.
Money is often considered the root of all evil. I do not know that how much of that saying but in the Bible, the scripture is actually "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." I think we can begin to address some of this "infirmity" of the fundamentalism in religion if WE"TaxTheChurches."
Also, these are people with a legacy of seeing mental illness as a spiritual deficiency. It is superstition from "a time when mental illness was seen as demonic possession or a sign that the person had fallen in God’s eyes.” I think the government should look into the "silence and stigma among conservative Christians around psychiatric disorders" and use that data as qual/quan data to reverse taxation benefits. Otherwise, we continue to support their "kind of evil" and mental illnesses.
Parents have an obligation to provide adequate care for their children, although the term adequate may have a level of grey area, I’m pretty sure that neglecting their medical care to the extent that they die isn’t in the fuzzy part!
Anybody who claims that doctors "are [priests] of the medical cult" can only be described as being clinically insane.
I hope this ruling helps to limit the zelots from allowing their children to die.
Yes, I do too. Maybe prosecuting the church might stop them preaching that shit.
You draw the line at death....hopefully, before actual death, but not this time!
Jehovah's Witness have been allowed to refuse certain life saving procedures for their chidren for a long time. I believe their is a supreme Court ruling "protecting" their religious freedom (sometimes at the expense of their children's lives).
I am a former jw i don't know about the usa courts. in the uk when a child is in danger and needs a blood transfusion the doctors will go to court and job done child gets the needed treatment. Their teaching as changed since i left in 2002 they are allowed to have blood factions but not whole blood. So its like saying no roast dinner but you can have a plate of meat a plate of veg a bowl of gravy but no roast dinner.
@raymetcalfe - I checked Google and couldn't find where the US Supreme Court ruled on the JW medical issue, but numerous states' top courts did rule upholding the JW's religious right to refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children. Children who have leukaemia will often need transfusions as part of their treatment. One article sounded like one state had a dystem of medical apppeals similar to what you describe in the UK. The state's top court ruled against this practice as a violation of the parent's religious right.
@RussRAB In the uk I think that thye have to think of the child first.
@raymetcalfe - That makes sense to me. An individual can't exercise their freedom of religion if they don't survive childhood.