Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Freedom of Religion V. Right to Life?

I'm writing an essay and I need this question answered:

Is it wrong for the parents of a medically-ill child to refuse treatment for their underaged child due to their religious beliefs? I'd appreciate long and thoughtful paragraphs if possible. 10 points for whoever brings up the best points from both sides.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Yes. Simple Reason. If prayer healing worked...there would be no health care industry. No need for hospitals and doctors if praying to god actually worked and made people better.

    And it is hypocritical...if the child has pneumonia the religious parents will withhold medical treatment but if the child's hand is cut off in a lawnmower accident the religious parents will RUSH that child to the ER and scream at the doctors to do something.

    So they have Faith in God when a child has the flu...but toss something more serious at them and suddenly their faith in god is nowhere to be found.

    Again...if faith healing actually worked nobody would go to the doctor at the hospital and pay money for treatment, everyone would just go to church and see the faith healer.

    On top of that...a string of DEAD children who died because mother and father prayed instead of taking them to the hospital is the best proof to show prayer healing = dead child.

    Another point. The beliefs of the children are forced upon them. The parents force the children to believe in prayer healing, they brainwash them from birth...should the beliefs of the children be taken into account or do we count them as ignorant, they simply do not know any better?

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    The question hinges on the child's legal right and ability to choose.

    Since he's below the age of majority (he's not 18 yet), the parents make his decisions for him. If a court finds that the parents knowingly risk the child's health or life in any decision (religious or otherwise), the child can be forced into a remedy, and it would be the right thing to do.

    The parents can't make the decision for the child, they can only act in the child's best interest. The child has the right to decide, and therefore has the right to reach the age of majority so that he can.

  • 10 years ago

    The state already has laws in place to put a child in danger as a ward of the state and give them medical treatment against the parents wishes.

    Is it also right for parents and doctors to refuse medical treatment to children that they deem hopeless. What about abortions? Where does the state have a right to or obligation to save life.

  • 10 years ago

    It's certainly illegal.

    It goes back to the Supreme Court decision Reynolds v United States (1878). George Reynolds was charged with bigamy after taking a second wife without divorcing his first. As a member of the LDS church, he argued that anti-bigamy laws were a violation of his first amendment rights.

    The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that freedom of religion spreads to beliefs, not to actions. They gave an example of a religion that might demand human sacrifice, in which case one could argue that religious liberty trumps legislative protections against violence, "in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Congress, they indicated, can never legislate against opinions, but must legislate against actions.

    Your specific issue with medicine is the same sort of case: if it's illegal for parents not to provide appropriate medical care for their child, their reason for doing so is irrelevant. Their reasons are opinions and are not illegal; the fact that they were neglectful in their care is. Otherwise, parents could claim "religious freedom" no matter what they do to their children, which can range from dangerous and torturous, to downright lethal. A line must be drawn somewhere, and the point where that line was drawn was determined by the courts 133 years ago. One can disagree with where the line is drawn, but it certainly wasn't ambiguous.

    Legally, you can believe whatever you wish, but your rights stop at the very moment when you start affecting the rights of somebody else.

    Source(s): Quote is from the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Yes, it's "wrong."

    Taking the life of a living child over silly superstitions denies that child the rights of all human beings. It's no different than shooting a child in the head -- would you allow that if the religion of some parents demanded it?

    Peace.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Yes, this is called "faith-healing." The laws vary but a good number of people have been prosecuted for it. Google "faith healing death" for more info and examples.

  • 10 years ago

    Yes it's wrong.

    Do the rest of your homework yourself.

  • 10 years ago

    "Long and thoughtful paragraphs".... So, you want us to do your homework for you?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.