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

1. 74

   Aime Fposted 9 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?

   replyreport
2. 61

   Link10103posted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Aime Fposted 9 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.

      replyreport
3. 71

   ElvisaMposted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Aime Fposted 9 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.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      ElvisaMposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
4. 83

   Dean Traylorposted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Aime Fposted 9 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.

      replyreport
5. 56

   peter565posted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Aime Fposted 9 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.

      replyreport
   2. 56

      peter565posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
6. 61

   fpherj48posted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Aime Fposted 9 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.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      fpherj48posted 9 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!!

      replyreport
7. 82

   tamarawilhiteposted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Aime Fposted 9 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.

      replyreport