It's ironic people get upset by these issues, most likely Jehvoas witnesses denying blood products, but think abortion is justifiable regardless of the same consequences.
That being said, in Denmark can't speak for other countries, we have the option to temporarily take the parental authority when doctors deem it a necessity for saving a life. That being said we usees as many alternatives as possible to avoid this.
We don't have many religious people in Denmark, so it almost always Jehvoas witnesses if it's based on religious beliefs.
I think it depends whether the illness is life threatening. If a parent does not want their 5 year old child to take anti-depressants - to me that is good. On the other hand, if a parent wants to deny a blood transfusion - that should be illegal - and the parents should be banned from monitoring their child.
`No in most cases. It should be considered child neglect in life threatening situations. My grandma who was very religious said God made doctors to take care of us. We have to rely on more than prayer to heal.
This answer could not be more simple, no it's not okay. You never know what your child could have and though most of the time, the things kids get sick with are common things that go away quickly, sometimes they don't. Sometimes the flu is more then a simple flu. Sometimes that rash is a symptom of something else. Sometimes that bug bite ends up getting infected or they end up being extremely allergic. Any parent that would put there child's health or life in jeopardy because of their religious beliefs, should not be a parent. Your religion should not be more important then your child's life and if it is, then your priorities are beyond askew. Ones beliefs should never be more important then their child. That's my opinion.
Absolutely and definitely not! It would be unacceptable to deny medical treatments. There are some things that do not just get cured by themselves and there are many illnesses or diseases that could end up being critical. You don't want you child to reach that state to act. And God is definitely not the one to save them. I don't mean to sound mean, but I really don't think that any God can cure your problem. Have there been "miracles"? Yes. I've had one myself, but that doesn't mean you can just sit around and wait for the inevitable to happen!
I think so, reality is the child is under the care of the parents not the state. The state can give advise and assess if there is a problem with the parents. if parents are on drugs, insane, etc.. that is another matter.
The medical system is not perfet. some treatments will kill the person. Alternative methods have indicators they can make a difference or work better (e. g. placebo effect, things science doesn't know, or not patentable?).
our med system is narrow minded based upon what is patentable and makes a lot of $. Finding cheap solutions, cures. they aren't interested... at least in the west.
They shouldn't. If you want your kid to be healthy how about you let doctors and nurses who have had 4+ years of medical school help your child succeed instead of pulling out an essential oils and telling scientists to go fuck themselves because a mental illness cannot in any way shape or form be caused by a needle. I have autism and I was born with it. Without vaccines you bet your ass I would already be in the grave by the time I was 12. I put anti vax moms in the same category as people who steal money from children charities.
Yes, but with the condition that they will actually have to provide the original reference where it says that they can't do this procedure. So not like people will be able to make up bullshit to deny a service. If they take it seriously, they have to prove that it is serious to them. Not just because my religious aunt told me that it's forbidden, lol. You know what I mean?
If someone told me that I'd have to take an organ transplant from a human-pig chimera, I wouldn't do that because I'm Muslim and every single part of a pig is forbidden to consume in my religion. Until or unless there is no other option available and my life will be at risk if I don't do it, I won't do it. Because something impermissible only becomes permissible in case of extreme necessity.
Yes. It is their kid so let them raise it how they see fit. Some of the parents that were forced to get immunizations ended up with permanently damaged kids. They kept claiming it was perfectly safe, but recently (2018 or 2017) they finally proved correlation between immunizations and autism. Sure the health industry still tries to claim it doesn't happen, but some of them were a little older and perfectly fine until they had an immunization. It is rare, but it is still possible.
It is understandable if people that do get their kids immunized don't want them going to school with ones that aren't immunized, but realistically if they are immunized, what do they have to fear from someone that isn't? Wouldn't their own immunization protect them?
Same goes for if their kid is influenced by the corrupt society that confuses kids into thinking they should get a sex change. Parents don't have to agree to that.
This is not only slightly wrong it’s completely backwards. Not only is autism not caused by immunization, the study that originally claimed it was turned out to be not just bad research, but intentional fraud set up as a first step in trying to profitably sue pharma companies based on the fraud.
"they finally proved correlation between immunizations and autism." source?
As for why people don't want their kids going to school with people who aren't immunized, it's because there are some kids who CAN'T get immunized. & They shouldn't have to suffer because of the choices of other parents who irresponsibly decided to not protect their own kids (& the kids around them)
Yes they should be allowed based on religious beliefs. For example Christian Science believes in prayer to heal. They also can call on a Christian Science Practitioner. But I also believe in the right to refuse medical attention and proceedures if you believe that something is harmful. Such as your average flu shot or immunization shot contains 10 parts per billion of lead , Mercury , aluminum , fermeldahyde , animal DNA , aborted fetal DNA etc. Tap water is only allowed between 5 and 10 parts per million of lead , Mercury , aluminum etc. Not pet billion like shots. So go to Walgreens and ask for inverts of flu shot , HPV shot , measals , chicken pox and read the ingredients and side affects. A doctor is not a expert on the ingredients , side affects and dangers including death of these. The hospitals , news outlets , insurance companies , CDC make it to be rare but it's more common than you are lead to believe. Look at all the lawsuits and recalls byhat are on the news or lawyer adds
Honestly don’t get me started. Religion is the route of all evil.
Do I agree no. Any person willing to let another person suffer when there is someone or some means out there to help them is a fucking moron. I don’t give a shit what anyone says that is stupid.
No, the parent should have to take all available measures to ensure the health and safety of their child. If that child is over 18 and an adult then they can make their own determination, but until that point, no. As far as I'm concerned parents who do that for any reason are abusing their child.
Depends on what it is. I am not religious, so may not apply to this question. My ex. and I have decided to take caution with what the hospital suggests. We agree to make sure we both come to conclusion with finding all ways to help our children before the dr/hospital can make their fast decision that their might be other options. Not all dr. know what they are doing.
Not if it cause grievous harm or death to not have the medical treatment. The exception is if the treatment causes a lot of pain, and the parents are reluctant to go through with a doubtful procedure, due to it causing much pain, with only mediocre chances of working.
It's tricky. Generally I think professionals have a better idea of what to do and the well-being of the child comes first.
That being said - I am also an advocate of personal freedom, see the risks of forcing people as well as there being medical procedures that are "nice2have" (such as vaccination for example) or have a very high risk-factor that barely doesn't outweight the benefits.
No, nobody should have the right to refuse medical treatment for somebody else based on personal beliefs. If they’d actually did research and found that maybe a certain treatment wasn’t the best idea then maybe but that’s not what’s happening here so hard no
NO. It's not the child making an educated rational choice, it's religious parents making a irrational unscientific unmedical decision for someone else. That's not ethical in the slightest.
No, but I notice that it doesn't seem to last very long. Friends of ours were Jehovah's witnesses (No idea what they've witnessed!) who believe that, even if a baby is born with a problem doctors can easily fix, they shouldn't!! One day, THEY ad a baby that was born with some kind of severe physical problem that would've left her crippled al her life! They LET the doctors fix her and she's been normal ever since... Except that she's a JW, too!!
Like forcing veganism on children the religious beliefs of the parent should not determine the course of action of the children, especially if their life is on the line it's just not right so NO. Neglecting your children in favour of faith is basically putting aside what you now is real so that you can live in the fantasy of something you can't see, feel or confirm.
3
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
I understand religion is a very important thing in life, but in my opinion health has to come first. So, to answer your question it is wrong for parents to refuse medical treatment for their child. It is not their bodies but the child's. So therefore, they shouldn’t be allowed to deny medical treatment. The parents shouldn’t force their belief on a kid, that’s dangerous for them in some cases.
NO! I read a story about a two parents's who's kid got some kind of infection or something, and they refused to take him to the doctor because they believed God would heal him. Even their PRIEST told them, I will pray for your son, but you HAVE to take him to the doctor.
If they would have taken him, the doctor's could have saved him. Instead, they prayed to God, and their son died, and they're now in prison for neglect!
hell no There ARE NO facts when it comes to religion... that's why it's based on FAITH. If you want an argument based on facts, look to science... it's something EVERYONE believes in. That's why "when you get sick, you go to a DOCTOR and not to a priest".
It should be an automatic 20 year prison sentence for any government to interfer with a parents rights over their children. There may be a few bad parents but natural selection keeps their numbers low. Parents have always have been and alway will be the best protectors of children and far better than any government agency. Governments don't love children but parents do.
@JSG4_ That probably doesn't have any measurable effect on overpopulation. However, if defective parents kill their children, it's a dead end. They don't pass on their defective genes. The ultimate effect of saving children from defective parents, assuming that was possible, it to populate the world with defective genes; i. e., defective parents.
A parents authority should always supercede that of the state when it comes to children, and to those who don’t understand this, think long and hard, who cares about the kid more? Doctors aren't always right and vaccines can have negative side effects
Yes, they should. We live in a nation where you are free to exercise your religious beliefs and that includes medical practices. Besides, all you need is for a hospital to inject infected blood into a Jehovah's Witness and then they'll get the shit sued out of them.
I think it depends. For example, JW's have long refused blood transfusions. That to me is crazy, yet in the early days of AIDS it might have prevented HIV transmissions. There is also the pendulum between governmental protection and governmental totalitarianism. It really boils down to the facts of the specific case.
Religion is a life style... and the belief must be shareable if it threatens a innocent life.
And by saying that... everybody has their place.. so is the child in question... the child must be given the opportunity to choose for themselves... Until they attain that maturity the parents has to make sure that the life they created stay awake.
Should be heavily fined for negligence. Once. Twice, they should be jailed for harming a child under their supervision and have a psychological evaluation
Eventually take away their story books if it comes to that
Some people take religion too literally. If you believe god will provide that's fine, but it's also said that god acts indirectly upon the world. So doctors and modern medicine would be a part of that, so refusing a doctor's help doesn't make any sense to me.
They shouldn’t One thing Happened Here a Sten Tribe was refusing to go to the clinic for her child’s medical. The mother was Giving the child wrong medicine mean while the child was suffering from malaria. The child died in hospital after the condition went worse
it is wrong for parents to not allow their child to get help based on their beliefs for it is not their bodies but the child's ! if the child needs help from a doctor or hospital then they should get it ! thanks
No. I resepct that you believe in something but this is not a matter of religion, it's a matter of science and facts. So hide your crosses, moons, talismans, necklases and magic rings from D&D, this is not your realm (so to say...).
The caretaker's beneficence trumps the parent's paternalism.
General rule: I believe in freedom of religion. However, if that belief infringes on the rights of someone else; i. e. the child's right to life, then that's where their paternalism ends.
No. Seriously no, they ain't gonna know more than a doctor, they likely don't spend recovery day learning and practicing medicine. Maybe get a second or third opinion do that but not do so because of belief.
If it’s something small they should have a say but if it’s something that could be fatal or very damaging to the child then they shouldn’t be allowed to refuse and risk their child’s life for any silly reason
No. I do not. Their children (at least children under the age of 11) are too young to give informed consent to refuse medical treatment. They should be treated against their parents’ wishes (and theirs, if necessary).
And where do the Christian Scientists get off calling themselves “scientists?” They’re about as scientific as drilling a hole in someone’s head to let the demons out.
Nope. Your beliefs should not lead to the endangerment and potential death of a child. I belief a child's right to health and life outweigh a parents religious right by far.
Constitutionally yes they should have the right to refuse medical treatment for the child. Ethically not on religious basis. If God is all powerful then he has provided the means for the child to be treated by having Doctors in the world.
some religions do this an I think the laws should say no you can't do this some won't let blood be given to help heal them which should be wrong an against the law let people die just cuz they dont believe in gett ing blood
i don't know of any religious reasons to refuse treatment but i do think there should be regulations for it. like you should have some power to decide but your decision should be overruled if your decision cause harm.
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because of their religious beliefs... Which means the parents can refuse it if say their kid is dying of blood loss, ultimately causing the child to die.
Governments always exploit well meaning laws, so I'm reluctant. I'll qualify "life threatening" medical issues as a threshold. Then NO. That doesn't mean vaccines unless there's a local epidemic
According to which religion is it sensible to leave one's child untreated? There are religious doctors out there and even they don't want to hear about religion in a medical discussion.
Parents have the right and responsibility to seek out medical treatment for their children and themselves that really works for the individuals concerned without compromising their deeply held convictions.
It depends on the outcome for everyone else. Sometimes it doesn't affect others and other times it does.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
No it is absolutely wrong and disgusting if you don't provide medical treatment to your child you don't deserve to be a parent why should a child suffer because of your selfish religious beliefs
Not if its just plain stupid... for all the shit people talk, modern medicine can cure a fuck ton of atuff easily that used to kill you or wish it would... if I got a tooth ache I'm going to a dentist not church
Justifiable? yes. Ethical? Not really. But if you have freedom of religion then freedom of choice comes along with it. Besides, treatment refusal doesn't need a reason.
Nope. Failing to get treatment for your child counts as child abuse. If parents refuse treatment on religious grounds, then doctors should be allowed to press on with treatment.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(25-29)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
01 Reply
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions