Robot Heart: Sex, Religion, and Politics

Religious exemption and medical abuse

squashed:

Robot-Heart (and I suspect many others) sees these as a pretty simple case of children suffering for the willful ignorance of their parents. I am much more ambivalent. Can people simply choose to toss their lives into God’s hands, even if that likely means their death? Are we so horrified of death by natural causes that we will force life-prolonging treatment on families and communities who don’t want it? Are we so confident in ourselves that we will force invasive procedures on terrified and unwilling children?

In the case of a child with a treatable illness (which is what we are talking about, by the way), whose alternative to treatment is certain death, I am very confident in the argument that parents should be required to seek appropriate treatment for their minor children. If any parent can refuse treatment for their children on the basis of religious belief, what is to stop parents who do not or refuse to seek treatment for their children’s illness out of laziness, out of a desire to save money, out of neglect, from claiming that they refused treatment on the basis of religious belief if their child suffers serious harm as a result of their neglect? You might say, “No parent would do that!” Ha. I’m here to tell you there are many parents who would, with little to no effect on their conscience (if they even have one.) That is simply reality.

Either way, I lost a playmate as a child to something that was very treatable because his parents believed prayer was more powerful than a doctor with the ability to do an x-ray and perform what would have been a relatively minor surgery. If consenting adults want to pursue their own nonsense, refusing basic medical treatment and such and getting themselves killed, that is fine. That is their prerogative. Children however should not be punished for their parents’ religious-fervor-induced stupidity. Regardless of whether the children are “unwilling and terrified,” I certainly think frightened is a much better alternative to being dead.

You bring up questions about treatment options for terminal illness, as well as age of consent laws. Personally, I believe that the terminally ill should have the right to decline treatment, in the absence of reliable treatment, and this includes children. However, I am not talking about those cases. I am talking about cases where parents turn down treatment almost guaranteed to save their children in order to pursue a course of treatment (or non-treatment) where the chance of long-term survival is negligible.

In terms of consent, we already have legal age of consent in this country. If we deem children under the age of 18 (or 17, or 21) incapable of making responsible and informed decisions to the extent that we do not allow them to vote, to drive, to choose their sex partners, to make most of their other medical decisions, to marry, to get a credit card, to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, etc., then why should we assume they are capable of making a responsible and informed decision when it comes to the choice of medical treatment? I am not arguing that the age of consent laws are correct. I am simply stating that your arguments over what age is the correct age for children to make their own medical decisions is one already addressed by the laws on the books. They are not old enough to make medical decisions for themselves, according to all the laws in this country at present, and while I might think the age of consent should be lowered for many things, the trend in this country has been to move that age upward.