Refusal of medical treatment based on faith

[MagnusIV]

What is your opinion on the concept of someone refusing medical treatment based on their faith. For instance should the parent of a Jehovah's witness be able to not allow their kids to get a blood transfusion even if it could save their lives? Granted that's an extreme one another lighter one would be should a hindu parent be allowed to not let their kids take insulin since most insulin comes from bovine origin?

[connermt]

What is your opinion on the concept of someone refusing medical treatment based on their faith. For instance should the parent of a Jehovah's witness be able to not allow their kids to get a blood transfusion even if it could save their lives? Granted that's an extreme one another lighter one would be should a hindu parent be allowed to not let their kids take insulin since most insulin comes from bovine origin?

People who deny medical treatment based on faith have sever mental issues. Funny enough, these same people are likely giving their hard earned $ to their deity that created everything out of nothing (so it's been claimed) for its churches and to reach people in other parts of the world.
As I said, severe mental issues IMO.

[McCulloch]

A mentally competent adult is allowed to refuse medical treatment for whatever reason he or she deems appropriate. However, when it comes to children, who under the law are not competent to make such decisions on their own, the decisions of the parents are not always appropriate. Thus, where I live, there are limits to the kinds of decisions that a parent can make for a dependent child. They are not allowed to exempt them from school, sexually abuse them, neglect them or refuse necessary medical treatment.

[Suzy]

We can argue about wether it is right or wrong to intervene although I personally think it is wrong to let a parent kill there child which is what it is.

But having had Jehovah’s Witnesses in my own family and being a witness to this very thing I can say that to see it yourself leaves you in no doubt whatsoever. Save the innocent child at all costs!

[keithprosser3]

Certainly in the UK adult JWs can refuse blood transfusions for themselves, but the NHS guidelines (from the official website) state:

"...it is vital that the [refusing] parents are aware that their child will not be allowed to die for lack of a blood transfusion."

As it is unethical to force a mentally competent adult to undergo a procedure they have specificially refused, I see no need for any changes.

I think people who refuse treatment on religion grounds are misguided and misled, but there is not much that can be done about it.

[bluethread]

A mentally competent adult is allowed to refuse medical treatment for whatever reason he or she deems appropriate. However, when it comes to children, who under the law are not competent to make such decisions on their own, the decisions of the parents are not always appropriate. Thus, where I live, there are limits to the kinds of decisions that a parent can make for a dependent child. They are not allowed to exempt them from school, sexually abuse them, neglect them or refuse necessary medical treatment.

There are two questions here. One is the question regarding who gets to make choices for those who are deemed in capable of doing so. The parent or the government, and if the government, what level.

Also, there is the question of what is "necessary medical treatment". A better example is pediatric chemotherapy. Success is five years, the treatments are very expensive and the side effects can be horrendous. Mainstream medicine seems to see cancer as an infection and treats it as such. However, what about those who see it as a natural occurrence and malignancy as the real disease, ie. immunodeficiency? In the latter case, chemotherapy would be like trying to cure an infected toe by cutting off your foot.

Regardless, whatever one decides on these two questions, on is making the decision based of faith, ie faith in government over the parents, faith in conventional medicine over alternative treatments.

[Furrowed Brow]

A parent who puts their faith before the physical well being of their child stands for a way of life I have to admit to makes me angry. There is another school of parenting that says you don't get that luxury. Fortunately I think there are very few people who are so blindly committed that they would put faith before the life of their child. Other than that folk should be allowed to accept or reject medical treatment for themselves as they see fit.

[St. Anger]

Uh I'd put them in class total moron, someone who does not rely upon logic or reason for their blind faith.

[bluethread]

A parent who puts their faith before the physical well being of their child stands for a way of life I have to admit to makes me angry. There is another school of parenting that says you don't get that luxury. Fortunately I think there are very few people who are so blindly committed that they would put faith before the life of their child. Other than that folk should be allowed to accept or reject medical treatment for themselves as they see fit.

What of the parent that puts faith in medical treatment over the physical well being of their child? Is the physical well being of the child who dies immediately "under the knife" physically better than the physical well being of the child who lives for weeks without such treatment. Even more to the point, is the well being of the child who lives with moderate discomfort for several weeks before dying worse than that of the child who is either in great pain or is doped up for a year before dying? Can the state require a child to live in agony for years? Can that same state mandate infanticide, for the "well being of the child"?

[Goat]

A parent who puts their faith before the physical well being of their child stands for a way of life I have to admit to makes me angry. There is another school of parenting that says you don't get that luxury. Fortunately I think there are very few people who are so blindly committed that they would put faith before the life of their child. Other than that folk should be allowed to accept or reject medical treatment for themselves as they see fit.

What of the parent that puts faith in medical treatment over the physical well being of their child? Is the physical well being of the child who dies immediately "under the knife" physically better than the physical well being of the child who lives for weeks without such treatment. Even more to the point, is the well being of the child who lives with moderate discomfort for several weeks before dying worse than that of the child who is either in great pain or is doped up for a year before dying? Can the state require a child to live in agony for years? Can that same state mandate infanticide, for the "well being of the child"?

What about 'a 10 day course of antibiotics can save the child's life, but the child died instead'?

Or 'getting some iv solution to get rid of the strong dehydration caused by diarrhea instead of having the child die'?