Should parents be charged if they deny their children certain types of medical c

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (16 posts)
  1. Aime F profile image84
    Aime Fposted 2 years ago

    Should parents be charged if they deny their children certain types of medical care?

    JWs denying blood transfusions for their children is a classic example. There's currently a case in Canada where parents are in court for not seeking medical care for their child who they suspected had meningitis.  Instead they took him to a naturopath and only went to the hospital once he stopped breathing (and he died).  They also did not vaccinate him and the likely cause of death was the strain of meningitis he would have been vaccinated for.  Should parents be held criminally responsible for their child's death if they refuse to treat a fatal illness with modern medicine?

  2. Link10103 profile image75
    Link10103posted 2 years ago

    If the only thing preventing them from being charged is "but its my religion", then yeah, charge em. Any other case constitutes as a homicide.

    1. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I honestly don't know which is scarier - the ones who refuse treatment because of religion, or the ones who refuse treatment because they think they know better. I guess they're just as bad as each other, ultimately.

  3. ElvisaM profile image77
    ElvisaMposted 2 years ago

    Yes. I don't care about what religion parent practices, if you see that your child is sick and is struggling and you do nothing to help him but pray, you are the sole reason why your child has died. Rules have to be implemented and social services should be making weekly visits to homes that are anti vexxers and believe in the healing by the lord.

    1. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I think it's a great idea to set some extra precautions with people who clearly are hesitant to utilize life saving medicine/vaccines. At the very least maybe make it a requirement that parents see a doctor immediately if their unvaxed kid gets ill.

    2. ElvisaM profile image77
      ElvisaMposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah. We have to start somewhere. It's just sad that children pay dearly for the mistakes of parents.

  4. Dean Traylor profile image95
    Dean Traylorposted 2 years ago

    By all means, yes. This couple had already been warned of the dangers and were also in the process of being closed down because it was determined that the stuff they were selling didn't work (they owned the "health" store that sold the stuff they used on the boy).
    Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. Too many parents have had to learn the hard way that naturopath medicine is snake oil. And, too many times, these people buy into a hoax that vaccines causes autism (which has been proven to be wrong on so many levels in numerous court cases). 
    Also, why should a parent deny blood transfusion on the grounds of religion (as often seen among Christian Scientists)? Here, the child really has no say because of the parents. Someone has to step in and stop this madness.
    If it means prosecution, then that's what should happen.

    1. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The more I learn about these people the more frustrated I get. They seemingly have no remorse and IMO that should play a big role in the outcome.

  5. profile image53
    peter565posted 2 years ago

    This is a complex question, depending on the circumstances, the parent's action can either be appropriate or not appropriate. For example, when curing certain illness, certain other school of medicine have proven to be more effective then western medicine. But in the west, because our understanding towards it, is limited, it is usually not recognized by the state, the only school of medicine other to western medicine, is Chinese medicine and that is only in recent years and not in all western nation. So, for example, if the parents let the child use a more effective alternative school of medicine, in the eye of the state, it would be denire the child medicine, but the parent's action is appropriate.

    If the parents are religion nuts, that try to cure the child via Christian science (preying) and not allow the child access to medical care, the parent are acting inappropriate.

    If it is a situation, where the child got a decease that we know he would die for certain and curing won't make a difference, so the parents just want his last hours to be fun, rather then suffer in a hospital, is that inappropriate?

    There are so many variable when it come to situation like this, we cannot generalized it with a single answer of yes it is appropriate or no it is not appropriate. I believe, we need to let the court decide and examin each case independently.

    1. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that if treatment won't help then it's a different situation. However, in a case like the one I mentioned with meningitis, early treatment would have in all likelihood saved his life.

    2. profile image53
      peter565posted 2 years agoin reply to this


  6. fpherj48 profile image80
    fpherj48posted 2 years ago

    Aime....This question seems (to "normal, rational human beings") to be one that is simply needless to ask...does it not?  It causes such extreme emotional reactions and outrage, it's nearly impossible to even imagine there exists. in a civil world, "parents" who would deny their child medical care.  But these complete imbeciles do, in fact, exist. 

    At one time, I was well-informed in terms of the various laws (U.S.A) both Federal, State & local that dealt specifically with this issue.  However, as one might imagine, these laws change and/or are adopted in more and more areas, all the time.

    However, I did know these laws quite well 3 decades ago, due to an extremely tragic case I became involved with, on a professional, clinical basis.  A local single mother of a 12 year old boy, who had gotten herself involved in a "cult," operated out of someone's garage & headed by a bona-fide lunatic, refused to allow her son medical intervention for a lethal BRAIN TUMOR. Leaving out a very long story to include legal battles & herculean efforts on the part of many many individuals, this young boy died.  Within a short period of time, the mother simply vanished, leaving no information nor connections of any sort.  Although authorities made some attempt to find her, she never did reappear. "Stories" have continued to live on, to include one that claims she has committed suicide.  We could only hope.

    I'm not familiar with the case you mention here.  Every now & then though, these cases appear in the news.  The actual results and the repercussions in terms of charging parents with a crime always seem to be drowned out by the controversy and somehow, become back page snippets of news. 

    The actual LAWS that are on the books and strictly enforced, as I mentioned, must be researched in accordance with one's State as well as education of the Federal laws. 

    If you're asking for a "personal" opinion to your question~~As a staunch child's advocate, pro-life, anti-cult/religion insanity, mother and compassionate woman....My suggestion is that ANY parent ANY where at ANY time for ANY reason (religious or otherwise) who willfully withholds medical care from a child in need of it~~ should be INJECTED with a lethal dose of the most horrendous disease known to man, locked into a room and left to suffer excruciating pain until they expire, without so much as an aspirin or human touch.

    Is that personal and STRONG enough an opinion, ya think?  I couldn't be more serious.

    1. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Paula, I agree with you. Unfortunately the FB page these parents have set up is filled with support for their decisions & they get thousands of dollars in donations, so apparently many disagree w/ us. It's so sad.

    2. fpherj48 profile image80
      fpherj48posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Aime...LOL.  I'm certainly not surprised by those warped enough to "support" whackos. The world must have it's quota of "crazies."  Consider there R those who continue to worship Mr. Looney Tunes himself, Charles Manson after 40 yrs!!

  7. tamarawilhite profile image92
    tamarawilhiteposted 2 years ago

    My concern with this is the overreach of Child Protective Services in many cases trying to charge parents for not giving ADHD drugs or the Justina Pelletier case, where she received medical treatment over time but one doctor with no personal experience with the child or disorder says "it is all in her head, parents disagree, terminate rights, put in psych ward".
    So I'm very concerned that upping the ante will result in more parents facing charges for not agreeing with one determined doctor. There are even cases where parents faced child protective services for saying no to one doctor while seeking a second opinion with another.

    1. Aime F profile image84
      Aime Fposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I think for me it's more applicable when we're talking about life saving procedures (like blood transfusions) and not taking a child to the hospital when they're deathly ill. I'm not concerned about villifying parents who don't give ADHD meds.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)