Would you let religion dictate whether your child lives or dies?

[TigerLily]

that is so sad. I can't imagine it. Since it isn't part of my belief system I don't know exactly what I would do. I imagine it's a really hard decision for someone with a strong belief against it.
That was one of my husbands medical school interview questions. weird

[DCJenn]

If it's a persons religious calling then the society that we all claim to love and admire ever so much can't dictate the decisions founded by those religious convictions, despite how much we may revile them. Sorry- Americans don't get to have it both ways. Even if a kid dies.

Jenn

[poky]

If it's a persons religious calling then the society that we all claim to love and admire ever so much can't dictate the decisions founded by those religious convictions, despite how much we may revile them. Sorry- Americans don't get to have it both ways. Even if a kid dies.

Jenn

I agree, for the individual in question. But if the individual is a minor and therefore, by our society's standards, unable to make decisions like this for themselves? I thought christian science parents had been convicted for allowing their children to die of treatable diseases?

[diggitydot]

Yep, they have been. There have been multiple cases in Portland, OR where parents have been convicted for not seeking basic care for their children who later died from very treatable conditions. Although I think most of the kids were younger.

I wouldn't let my kid die due to religious beliefs because, well... I'm not religious. Which is why I've kind of avoided this thread. I have a great deal of respect for those who are religious, but since I don't understand the strict adherence to (what I see as nonsensical) dogma, I'm not really coming at it with a sympathetic perspective.

[DCJenn]

That's how I reached my conclusions, too. If someone is SO religious that they believe that transfusions are wrong then that's what they believe. If it's not illegal then how can we stop them? Now, if you're successfully able to argue that child endangerment trumps freedom of religion then more power to the courts. It's not at the physician level to make that decision, though.

J.

[PrincessFiona]

Some religions also believe girls should be circumcised or that women are no more valuable than common farm animals.

How do we draw an acceptable line. Additionally, if we depend on govt. funded healthcare, will the govt. have the legal right to intervene?

Now, if you're successfully able to argue that child endangerment trumps freedom of religion then more power to the courts. It's not at the physician level to make that decision, though.

J.

I DO think child endangerment trumps freedom of religion, and who better to say that that religious belief will harm a child than a physician?

[Vanquisher]

I DO think child endangerment trumps freedom of religion, and who better to say that that religious belief will harm a child than a physician?

I agree. It is different if you don't want a tranfusion for yourself, and you are an adult, but a minor child? No. I find that completely unacceptable, negligent, abusive, endangerment, and murderous. It's the same thing to me if you said you religion wanted human sacrifice, and it was allowable as a religious freedom. I am liberal as all hell, but I draw the line at this. This is not live and let live. This is live and let die. Unacceptable!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DCJenn]

Kris- the gov't already has a say in determining health care- which is why you can't have an abortion if you're on medicaid. (or at least one paid for by medicaid) Or why my mother has to pay out of pocket for her Ambien as Medicare won't cover it. and why Medicare won't pay for addiction treatment (uh, there aren't any disabled people who are addicted?)

I personally find all of the above named examples completely abhorrent but I'm still not sure where the line is drawn. Personally I don't think you should be allowed to get a tattoo until you're 21 but clearly I'm in the minority there, too.

J.

[medpedspouse]

I think the difference for some is the argument of eternal life vs earthly life. That is really the argument, IMHO. So the question in this context should be would you rather your child have earthly life and be damned to hell or have eternal life. These parents don't make this decision lightly. Some have left their faith community, family culture, etc because of this and have then dealt with those ramifications. Think about your child being sick, the stressors associated and now you are alone because you no longer have your faith community support or even family. Some have (willingly) had CPS step in their place to make these decisions to circumvent (not quite the word I want to use but can't think of another right now) some of the judgement they may receive from their faith community. Again, I only give examples because each family (and their belief system/how they will react/etc) is different.

I get that, I really do. But the laws of our country, and the "rules" of how physicians act aren't/can't be based on religion and spirituality. It's got to be about the welfare of the LIVING PERSON. If we follow the logic of protecting their eternal souls, then it's okay that Andrea Yates killed her 5 children because she believed that she was saving their souls.

[medpedspouse]

BUT that's just it. There aren't laws.....yet. The only law is the law that states who can make the decisions for a minor....or an adult that is in a situation where they can't make that decision for themselves. The interesting thing to me about the adult law is that the "spirit" of the law is that the spouse, adult child, etc. will make decisions based on what the patient would want.....and the majority of the time, unfortunately, this is not the case.

[diggitydot]

But the laws of our country, and the "rules" of how physicians act aren't/can't be based on religion and spirituality.

Unfortunately, that is not the case in all instances. Particularly when discussing reproductive freedoms.

[diggitydot]

Actually, I was alluding to the ability of docs and pharmacists to avoid dealing with the issue of birth control if it went against their beliefs. But, yeah -- now I see the abortion issue in it, too. My point was that religion absolutely plays into our healthcare laws.

Wow - I'm off the site for a few days, and miss a very interesting thread. I agree with so much of what has been said -

- I used to work in patient relations on a peds floor, and yes, CPS stepped in sometimes in cases of blood transfusions.

- I'm so thankful for people who are understanding enough to look at things from a religious person's point of view. It shows an even deeper respect, IMO, to have the medical discussion in spite of religious beliefs. Some people change their minds. I changed my mind about IVF, thanks to a kind, respectful doctor who was willing to "go there" with the discussion.

- About birth control and abortion... That is why there are LOTS of doctors out there, and why it's so important to preserve patient choice - choice of physicians and choice of treatments. If one doctor is not willing to perform an abortion, there are others who will. The balance between government provision of health care to the poor and protection of choice is tricky.

And when the patient is a minor, patient choice is a whole other ball game...