Robot Heart: Sex, Religion, and Politics

Religious exemption and medical abuse

If a three-year-old is bleeding to death, let’s get that child some actual medical attention. But how far are we willing to go?

There are some parents who because of religious beliefs would argue that even if their child were bleeding to death, they are not obligated to take the child to a doctor. (I say this from personal experience.) And this is the problem with your entire argument. There is no such thing as a clear case. Personally, when there is a child with cancer, his doctor has recommended a treatment that works 80% of the time, and there is no other treatment likely to provide better results, the case is clear…to me and to most of society. There are always a handful for whom it is not. So do we cater to the handful who would let their children die, or do we protect children from certain death, in spite of their parents’ wishes?

We already have organizations like CPS which exist primarily to evaluate whether children are being cared for properly, whether parents are fit to raise their children. There is legal precedence for requiring parents to treat their children in certain ways, requiring parents to act in certain ways with their children. Parents can claim whatever reason they like for how they treat their children; it really doesn’t matter in the eyes of a state. Religion has yet to be allowed as an excuse for parents abusing, neglecting or otherwise failing to promote the well-being of their child. I don’t think we should start doing so now.