Thu 4 Jun, 2009 05:29 pm
I have read about this happening all the time in science magazines, Discover especially, where a doctor is conflicted with the task of deciding whether to obey the parents of the dying patient, or treat the patient to stop certain death.
If a child can't make the decision for himself (and rightfully so) whether to receive treatment then the parents/guardians/family are the ones to do so. If a child needs a blood transfusion but the parents' religion won't allow for it, then what does the doctor do?
My personal opinion is that it is sick enough to consider God above one's own child in the hierarchy. Lord knows how insane that is. In these measures it would be an act of God simply to go against him, if it's embedded that deep in one's religion to actually consider the threat such a 'sin' has to one's established religion. If the patient were an adult or mature enough (whatever that might mean) and were religious him/herself, then yeah, I respect their decision, their ownership of their body.
Now I know in some states that medical treatment cannot be refused if it's a matter of life and death. My question is, what do you all think of this law? I ask the religious here specifically. I am wondering if there is an empathy I should be having towards the parents who have this conception of duty towards the separation of divinity from the potential of a child.
I've been at the hospital countless times for 'matters' dealing with my family, and I'm thankful my parents are not heavily religious enough it seems to act so dishonestly to God. Are the scriptures not perhaps just this cowering from facing God's eyes directly? So I have had a taste of what it feels to be around the situation at least.
Also, what are all of your opinions on the course of action that the doctor should take? Court? Obey parents? Or treat the patient?
Child Protective Services removes a child from their parents if there are any number of things happening or not happening. Some of these behaviors towards children up to and including real and sustained beatings and murder could be argued as religious belief. There is no way without theocracy to balance social welfare policy and religion. All the doctor has to do really in any state is to claim that its abuse or neglect and call Child Protective Services, at least in the short term those children can be removed from their parents long enough to get treatment. This doesn't however necessarily work in the emergency trauma or long term sickness.
Does the child need protecting, is that the contemporary assumption?