When does Faith become Child Abuse?

[TheAnimus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8294225.stm

A US couple who prayed rather than seeking medical attention for their dying daughter have been sentenced to six months in jail.

So their daughter died of a very treatable condition because they didn't seek the proper help.

My question is, at what point does ones own belief been imposed on a child become abuse?

Certain people for instance, refuse blood transfusions, surgery of any kind even antibiotics. How do you say to someone no you can't impose your view on your child.

Its a hard thing to do, because there are plenty of religions that promote insane ideas if interpreted literally, but also there are plenty of customs which get in the way. A woman for instance having emergency treatment at the hands of a male is not permitted by some.

How do you draw the line between a parents right to choose, and letting them use something which we know will allow the child to die? (ie Prayer or Homeopathy) Is it really just what happens when you go against the status quo?

[kalniel]

Any action that's provably harmful to the child (who cannot consent) is abuse - it doesn't have anything to do with faith or beliefs.

[TheAnimus]

So when people don't allow their child to have vaccinations ?

[Lucio]

I don't think parents have a right over life & death for their child, nor do they have the right to inflict physical or mental harm on a child. Look at it another way, imagine you fall down in the street and instead of calling an ambulance, the person who finds you decides to pray that you'll recover, would you find it acceptable?

At the end of the day, the law has been applied correctly and appropriately unless they can successfully argue that prayer consitutes a valid medical treatment. They did get a light sentance, but that's also understandable because they commited unintentional harm instead of deliberate harm, no different to a mother who leaves her iron on and her child unsupervised to answer the door, they didn't want their child to suffer or die, but just made a mistake.

[kalniel]

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

So when people don't allow their child to have vaccinations ?

If it's proven that not having a vaccination during childhood will harm the child then yes. But I don't think that's the case, or vaccinations would be mandated by law (and most of us seem to be okay without having had MMR jabs etc. as a child). I agree it's in the child's best interests to have a vaccination, but that's not the same thing as preventing abuse.

[nichomach]

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

So when people don't allow their child to have vaccinations ?

Depends on the basis; if they refuse because of concerns about, say, adverse reactions, then the proper approach is probably to try to convince them of the benefits, and to demonstrate that their fears are groundless (assuming they are, of course). If they were to refuse because, for instance, the vaccine being offered was produced from (for instance) unclean animals or something similar, then a better approach might be to provide a vaccine that isn't produced in such a fashion. The thing is, quite a lot of parents refuse vaccinations for other than faith-based reasons or simply don't bother with them. In that context, we should probably look at whether we should be enforcing immunisation for all. If we're not, and we still allow parents to either refuse or not bother for other than faith-based reasons, then singling out those who refuse on some form of faith basis is abusive. If we move toward compulsory immunisation, then we should presume that every child should be immunised (unless there are good medical reasons why not - my wife, for instance, can't be immunised against TB because of the likelihood of severe allergic reaction). Within that, though, it ought to be possible to provide immunisation in a form which is sensitive to different faiths.

With regard to the case cited at the start, I personally feel the judge had a point: "He added: "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors." ".

[nichomach]

Originally Posted by kalniel

If it's proven that not having a vaccination during childhood will harm the child then yes....

We CAN however say with certainty that refusal to vaccinate in general harms the community at large by lowering the herd immunity and making it more likely that people other than the non-vaccinated person will contract the illness; vaccines aren't 100% effective, but while everyone (or almost everyone) is being vaccinated, the chances of encountering an infected person are much, much lower. There simply isn't a significant non-immune population to get a toe-hold on. Stop vaccinating in significant numbers, however, and that changes, hence the quite steep rise in measles cases after that ludicrous MMR scare. I suspect it's not compulsory because at the end of the day it is a medical procedure, and we still (and should still) presume that consent for a treatment is required (assuming competence to consent on the part of the patient or their guardian).

[chuckskull]

Faith doesn't enter into it. Those two are cruel, selfish child abusers. They sat and watched while an innocent child died. 6 months is a ridiculous sentence. They should both be spending the next 25 to life thinking about that mistake in a small room. If they had done this for any other reason than faith I think they would be.

As for the faith vs medicine etc. argument it reminds me of a joke;

A man stuck on the roof of his house in a flood.

He sits there and eventually a man comes along in a rowing boat and offers to take the man to safety.

He refuses saying God will help him.

Next a group of firemen turn up a fully kitted out rescue boat.

Again the man refuses insisting God will help him.

Next as his house the has almost completely covered by water his house a coastguard helicopter and they plead with him to climb aboard.

Again he refuses. Shortly after his house is washed away and he dies. He arrives in heaven and angrily asks God why he didn't help him. God replies; "I sent 2 boats and a chopper, what more do you want?"

[John H Woods]

A man is caught in a flash flood. His neighbours try to get him to evacuate with them, but he says he prefers to pray. Soon the water is much higher. A fire tender appears and they try to get him to climb off his roof onto the ladder, but no, he prefers to pray. Soon the water is up to the roof. A boat comes along, then another, but no, the man is sure that his god will save him. He is standing on the chimney pot with the water around his knees when a helicopter appears, but he is still fervent in his belief that his god will rescue him.

The water rises further and he drowns. In his afterlife, he challenges his god: 'I was a fervent devotee, I prayed for salvation when everyone else was running - AND YOU LET ME DIE'.

The reply is: 'You fool - I sent your neighbours, the fire service, TWO boats and a FLIPPING HELICOPTER - what more did you expect me to do?'

[John H Woods]

lol chuckskull ... great minds!

[kalniel]

Originally Posted by nichomach

We CAN however say with certainty that refusal to vaccinate in general harms the community at large by lowering the herd immunity and making it more likely that people other than the non-vaccinated person will contract the illness

I agree it's likewise in the community's best interest for vaccinations to take place, but that's not an issue of child abuse any more than taxing alcohol is.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

So when people don't allow their child to have vaccinations ?

Uh oh. Can of worms + can-opener?

Originally Posted by kalniel

If it's proven that not having a vaccination during childhood will harm the child then yes. But I don't think that's the case, or vaccinations would be mandated by law (and most of us seem to be okay without having had MMR jabs etc. as a child). I agree it's in the child's best interests to have a vaccination, but that's not the same thing as preventing abuse.

What if it's disputed as to the efficacy of a given vaccine? For instance, at the height of the dispute, the MMR .... or the controversy today over swine flu vaccine?

At what point does the parent's judgement get over-ridden and a vaccination (which may or may not work, and which often (depending on type) carries an element of risk) become mandatory to avoid prosecution?

Are parents liable to prosecution if they give their child a poor diet and the result is obesity?

And how do you monitor/police this, and inform parents when they can exercise judgement and when not?


I'm guessing that's the kind of issue TheAnimus had in mind .... when does religious belief win, and when not? Or for that matter, a strongly held conviction about child-rearing that isn't religious. Does a parent have the right to "discipline" a child, even physically ... and where is the line between discipline (say a slap) and abuse?


Oh, and by the way, I'm not defending the decision of the parents in this particular case. My personal view is that they're right numpties and their stupidity cost their child it's life. The more general point, though, is .... where's the line?

[kalniel]

Originally Posted by Saracen

What if it's disputed as to the efficacy of a given vaccine? For instance, at the height of the dispute, the MMR .... or the controversy today over swine flu vaccine?

Still no problem, given vaccines are not mandated and the chance of harm to a child in this country from not having them is small.

At what point does the parent's judgement get over-ridden and a vaccination (which may or may not work, and which often (depending on type) carries an element of risk) become mandatory to avoid prosecution?

If we ever reach such a point where the child would provably suffer harm as a result of not having the vaccination, of course.

Are parents liable to prosecution if they give their child a poor diet and the result is obesity?

If you can link a child's diet to resulting obesity and that to harmful effects, all without doubt, then they should be (albeit sentancing should take into account intent/knowledge). We're not at that stage yet though.

And how do you monitor/police this, and inform parents when they can exercise judgement and when not?

We've no need to at the moment - instead we should just educate.

Does a parent have the right to "discipline" a child, even physically ... and where is the line between discipline (say a slap) and abuse?

That's already determined by law isn't it? (Leaving a mark).

[DeludedGuy]

Originally Posted by kalniel

If it's proven that not having a vaccination during childhood will harm the child then yes. But I don't think that's the case, or vaccinations would be mandated by law (and most of us seem to be okay without having had MMR jabs etc. as a child). I agree it's in the child's best interests to have a vaccination, but that's not the same thing as preventing abuse.

Survival of the fittest FTW!

Darwinian jokes aside, my grandmother is from an era where vaccines weren’t available and therefore it was common for infants to die. The older people where I’m from all seem to be very healthy, living well into their 80s and 90s with little health problems apart from the obvious ones such as arthritis. My opinion is the Darwin idea has truth to it.

Unfortunately religion also played a big part in how many children she had (12), she and many unfortunate people like her, are devoted Catholics who at the time were encouraged not to use any form of contraception as it was a sin, 4 of her 12 children died as infants. Shes always said if she knew what she knows now she would have used contraception.

Fortunately we have advanced in medicine and most of the population has also advanced mentally, infants who die of common curable diseases are no longer the norm, there is no excuse for it.

When religion becomes a deciding factor in creating and maintaining life, its time to re-evaluate the human rights act and change some laws.

I hear everyone talking about climate change, and global warming, but few people mention the most obvious cause and solution to the problem – overpopulation. Stop breeding so much and we will be ok, but certain religions are against contraception and that’s a big problem.

[kalniel]

Originally Posted by DeludedGuy

but certain religions are against contraception and that’s a big problem.

I think you've hit on a really important point. It's not just religions, but also cultures.

[TeePee]

The same thing happened in my state recently.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/52220642.html
Its depressng that there are people like this and jurors who let them get away with it.