Jump to content

Freedom of Religion -- as it pertains to Medical Care


Cecelia
 Share

Recommended Posts

Everyone enjoys the freedom to practice whatever religion they want (or, choose to not practice any religion at all). This rarely becomes an issue, except when harm is caused to others. For example, your right to practice religion doesn't give you the right to sacrifice another human being at the altar of your deity. That's murder, and obviously illegal. Freedom of religion doesn't allow you to do that. Just as Freedom of Religion doesn't allow Kim Davis to deny gay couples from being married, nor would it allow Kim Davis to deny Christian couples from getting divorced.

 

But when it comes to the health care decision made for children.. many states seem to side with freedom of religion over protecting lives and other freedoms. You can refuse to give your kids medical care in favor of prayer... you can refuse to get them vaccinated for religious reasons, and you can choose to take them to a faith healer instead of to the hospital.

 

Take the case of Mariah Walton.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

 

Children should not suffer because of their parents beliefs. If I killed one of my children because my religion asked me to (and it wouldn't, since I don't have one, but that's beside the point) I would obviously be prosecuted. Most would even agree that I should be. (I certainly would). But if I let my child die of an easily treated illness because I believed prayer and faith healing were going to get the job done--people would argue that I shouldn't be prosecuted. I still killed my child. I just let illness do it instead of using a different method.

 

I think most Christians would agree that faith healing doesn't really work--after all, how many Christians ask their ambulance driver to take them to the nearest faith healer, instead of the nearest hospital? My guess? Not even 1%.

 

Yet, some states are perfectly fine with letting children die of easily treatable illnesses because of their parents beliefs.

 

"But," you might say. "The parents have a right to their religious beliefs. If they believe it'll hurt their child's soul, doesn't that mean they have a right to deny treatment?"

And my answer to that is--a resounding NO! If I thought that I had to kill my child to save their soul I'd either be locked up in a mental institution, or in jail. Freedom of religion should not protect you from the consequences of your actions. If you believe strong enough that it's more important to not give your child medical treatment--you should be willing to go to jail for it. And should your child die because of your inaction, you should be thrown in jail. (Faith Healers who don't recommend going to a doctor, that cause children to die of easily treatable illnesses should also be prosecuted tbh.)

I think it's time to end the protections we give people for what amounts to child abuse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

 

It should be a crime for kids to be treated with faith instead of science-based medicine. Nevertheless, in large, backward sections of our Nation, it has been made legal to do so. It is a national disgrace that amounts to legalized abuse of children, based on superstition. As the OP demonstrates, religion which is the same thing as standardized superstition, has enormous potential to cause harm.

 

To add; A little off subject:-- Churches of all denominations should be taxed just like any other money-making operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

absolutely Cecilia... no fundamentalist movement that strips basic rights from another human spirit should ever hold sway over any of us.

I love trees, especially, very very old redwoods. they are like deity to me.

But I would cut one down, to save a human being.

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children should not suffer because of their parents beliefs. If I killed one of my children because my religion asked me to (and it wouldn't, since I don't have one, but that's beside the point) I would obviously be prosecuted. Most would even agree that I should be. (I certainly would). But if I let my child die of an easily treated illness because I believed prayer and faith healing were going to get the job done--people would argue that I shouldn't be prosecuted. I still killed my child. I just let illness do it instead of using a different method.

The same Christians that would pray, rather than seek medical treatment for their child, would be 100% against abortion.

 

This shows that such ultra-fundamentalist people distrust human intervention in natural processes. The baby must be born, but once born, he or she will not be treated by doctors, only by prayer. And if the baby dies - it's god's will.

 

I have no problem with abortion, but once a child is born and can suffer, I want suffering to be alleviated and minimized.

 

And since I don't believe in god, I don't believe in god's will. Therefore, to me, "god's will" is a pretext that attempts to make legitimate the suffering and premature death of a human being.

 

The faith tradition from which I've emerged is Judaism. When someone dies, even if they died young and senseless, Jews ritually say "baruch dayan ha-emet", which means "blessed is the judge of truth". This ritual prevents them from saying stupid stuff in grief, but it also shows a stupid mindset: one that acknowledges that "this was the intent of god", rather than "humans just don't know enough yet to save the dying from death". It's an abdication of responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but it is unlikely that all children whose parents refuse medical treatment would be punished.

I think that their have been a number of court decisions, based in the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists.

I am not sure of what the legal decisions about this have been.

 

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions.They claim that they are banned by the Bible, I think the Old Testament.

Christian Scientists believe in the power of prayer as the proper way to heal the sick.

I am sure that there are other sects as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't about punishing believers, it's about not letting them punish someone else who has no voice. We do a crappy job at healthcare when we let any people go without. Same thing goes with those who pollute, we all pollute, and we all do a crappy job at not doing a thing about protecting the air and water we need. I think that needs to be said out loud a couple billion times over!

 

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so there she was religion a perfect bowel movement for once

religion in the revenant was meeting god and finding he was a squirrel

and eating his ass up

 

this forlorn dark tonality / symbiotic perpetual sacrosanct that sits alone

Crazy cunning sociopaths

 

they all said laying paralyzed whilst waiting for days for someone to wash their butts/

while my guitar gently weeps.

 

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

This shows that such ultra-fundamentalist people distrust human intervention in natural processes.

It just occurred to me that I was wrong about this. They don't actually distrust human intervention in natural processes ... just some natural processes. They're selective.

 

When it's raining, not one religious person says that it's god's will that they get wet. They're happy to go indoors, or into a car, or to use an umbrella.

 

After they've had a poop they use toilet paper; not one says it's god's will that they have a shitty ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone enjoys the freedom to practice whatever religion they want (or, choose to not practice any religion at all). This rarely becomes an issue, except when harm is caused to others. For example, your right to practice religion doesn't give you the right to sacrifice another human being at the altar of your deity. That's murder, and obviously illegal. Freedom of religion doesn't allow you to do that. Just as Freedom of Religion doesn't allow Kim Davis to deny gay couples from being married, nor would it allow Kim Davis to deny Christian couples from getting divorced.

 

But when it comes to the health care decision made for children.. many states seem to side with freedom of religion over protecting lives and other freedoms. You can refuse to give your kids medical care in favor of prayer... you can refuse to get them vaccinated for religious reasons, and you can choose to take them to a faith healer instead of to the hospital.

 

Take the case of Mariah Walton.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

 

Children should not suffer because of their parents beliefs. If I killed one of my children because my religion asked me to (and it wouldn't, since I don't have one, but that's beside the point) I would obviously be prosecuted. Most would even agree that I should be. (I certainly would). But if I let my child die of an easily treated illness because I believed prayer and faith healing were going to get the job done--people would argue that I shouldn't be prosecuted. I still killed my child. I just let illness do it instead of using a different method.

 

I think most Christians would agree that faith healing doesn't really work--after all, how many Christians ask their ambulance driver to take them to the nearest faith healer, instead of the nearest hospital? My guess? Not even 1%.

 

Yet, some states are perfectly fine with letting children die of easily treatable illnesses because of their parents beliefs.

 

"But," you might say. "The parents have a right to their religious beliefs. If they believe it'll hurt their child's soul, doesn't that mean they have a right to deny treatment?"

 

And my answer to that is--a resounding NO! If I thought that I had to kill my child to save their soul I'd either be locked up in a mental institution, or in jail. Freedom of religion should not protect you from the consequences of your actions. If you believe strong enough that it's more important to not give your child medical treatment--you should be willing to go to jail for it. And should your child die because of your inaction, you should be thrown in jail. (Faith Healers who don't recommend going to a doctor, that cause children to die of easily treatable illnesses should also be prosecuted tbh.)

 

I think it's time to end the protections we give people for what amounts to child abuse.

 

I ain't religious at all, but I was raised Catholic. Catholics DO believe in prayer and such.. but Catholics ALSO founded and funded the major Hospitals around here. There's a couple that each has a MAIN hospital.. and a few smaller suburban hospitals PLUS a bunch of "Urgent Care,Clinics, affiliated specialists". Meanwhile.......there's wack-a-doodle CULTS that deny science,medicine, basic good sense.

 

Many of them.. while breeding plenty....do AWFUL stuff to those offspring. They also tend to be idiots who live in a trailer in Tornado country......so....there's annual divine intervention to cull the herd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republican plan. Accordingly, the Republican plan with lowering taxes was always about raising the national debt to such a point that Entitlements would then be required to be stripped. They could then pick and choose to do away with the Entitlements they didn't like. David Stockman Director of the Office Management and Budget under Reagan said as much. Reagan cut taxes and then the government spent a tremendous amount on an arms race against Russia. This raised the debt. Cheney, under Bush II, pushed this same plan with the cutting of taxes and the Iraq war along with incredible security measures.

 

All to end entitlements. So only a few extremely powerful control the finances in this country. It's the same in the other G20 nations to a large degree. The bottom line is that the financial institutions which are controlled by a combination of the Treasury secretary - typically someone chosen from a financial institution, and the Federal Reserve Board - mostly headed by leaders from the financial sector, run the entire show.

 

The NeoLiberals are not much different. This is why a real discussion on inequality is almost shameful around those who hold all the power.

 

It has nothing at all to do with efficiency and finding real ways to truly improve upon equality, as well as really protecting natural resources around the world. It has to do with maintaining the system of Capitalism as it is today and leaving the current political power in the hands of the few.

 

That's an alarming truth those in power must not allow to get out. I listened to a lecture given by David Harvey today on my local NPR station regarding "The End of Capitalism". It is wonderfully done and well worth a listen. No, it is not crazy rebellious leftist nonsense in the least. He's not even an economist. Give it a listen and if you think you do not agree with anything he has to say, go for it.

 

http://www.alternativeradio.org/collections/latest-programs/products/hard001

 

The point here is that we are not utilizing resources efficiently and at the same time we create chaos. I really like his term, Fictionalized money. Here he defines the housing bust. Example, housing. A housing track gets done by a builder getting financed by a financial institution. The buyers of all the houses then go to the financial institutions to borrow money to purchase the houses. So, in a big way the financial institutions are setting prices. When people can't pay, they lower how much you have to pay up front to borrow. Risk to the financial system is offset by placing the debt into bonds that were sold to municipalities who were told that the bonds were rock solid. If it all falls apart, the financial institutions still got their money, so what if the municipalities can no longer afford to pay for police or city or state workers - too bad. And this is basically what did happen in the housing balloon that sucked trillions out of the economy.

 

Then, even if you choose to fix the problem in a Keynesian type way, you do raise the Fed debt. Or, if you are more like the EU, you go the Austerity route. It winds up with the same long-term solution which is less than optimal any way you slice it.

 

 

 

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...