In recent news there has been a case of a boy who is rejecting medicine to cure himself, saying that he believes in natural healing. The boy is mentally handicapped and is of the age of 13. The courts decided that he must and will be forced to take the medicine even if it is against his religion. Just today the boy and the mother are missing and no one knows where they are.
Upon reading this, at first I sided with the mother and boy, on the belief that the boy is old enough to know what is right or wrong. However, knowing that the boy is mentally handicapped that changed my mind on the subject. Not that my mind switched to the other side of the issue, but more that it became harder to come up with a correct decision.
In some states people are proposing that girls as young as 13 can get an abortion without their parents knowledge. This is a surgery, which I think is weird that you have to be 18 to get a tattoo but they think a 13 year old can decided to have surgery or not. What the question for this topic about the sick boy is, is he old enough to make his own decisions and under the separation of church and state does the state have a right to force someone to take medical treatments? Another question is, being mentally handicap place you in a different category with different rules?
Minnesota, where the boy is from, statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough. Who decides what is "neccessary medical care".
I guess out of all this, the main poltical question is do parents have the complete right over their children? and if so at what age does it not apply? and if not, what rights do parents not have the right over their children?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
for starters, thats a funny observation about the tattoos and abortion ages.
ReplyDeleteSO there was a case that i have already mentioned in another post that is relevant here. It was from Oregon and the parents were charged with child abuse and criminal neglect charges because they refused treatment preferring prayer and the child died.
I think that it is completely appropriate and just for the courts to require this child to be treated. The state doesn't deny the family the right to their religious practices but it does require them to do everything possible and prudent for the child such as reliable medical treatment.
I think there is a further complication when the child is mentally handicapped. When Amy turns 18, she is not considered an independent adult. As far as i know she is never considered and independent adult. She will always have to have someone as her legal guardian. What that is saying is that there will always be someone around to look out for her well being since she is not fully able to on her own. This mother is not doing that for her son and so the state is rightfully stepping in to allow him access to what he is entitled to as a citizen of the united state. I know a patient is free to refuse treatment from a doctor but in a case of a mentally handicapped child, he is not cognitively able to weigh the consequences of refusing treatment.
As far as the political implications i would say no, a parent does not have absolute right over their children any more than a spouse has absolute right over the other spouse. Each person is entitled to the same rights, to life and liberty. Since a child is usually independently incapable of the necessary actions to exercise their rights, a parent aids them in that. But in this case the parent is actually robbing her son if his right to life.
I like your post here. it has very sound judgment. I find myself sometimes going too radical and its nice to be pulled back into sanity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, however I side with caution when the state gets involved in family affairs. The social structure of the family is very important for the stability of the society as a whole and when the state gets too involved I get nervous. But in this case I agree with you 100%.
SEPARATION OF RAUNCH AND STATE !
ReplyDelete(It's still legal - and always God-honoring - to air messages like the following. See Ezekiel 3:18-19. In light of government backing of raunchy behavior (such offenders were even executed in early America!), maybe the separation we really need is the "separation of raunch and state"!)
In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big "signs" that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the "days of Lot" (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide "sign" (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven't accomplished! Gays couldn't have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture - you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint - San Andreas - may soon get a big jolt out of what's going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!
[If you would care to learn about the depraved human "pigpen" that regularly occurs in Nancy Pelosi's district in California, Google "Zombietime" and click on "Up Your Alley Fair" in the left column. And to think - horrors - that she is only two levels away from being President!]
Fast forward 4 chapters and this is what jesus says:
ReplyDeleteEven so, when you see these things [things like the ones you quoted from Luke 17] happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near."I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Luke 21:31-32
There are several passages (Matt 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27) like this in the NT indicating that Jesus expected the "kingdom of god" to come within one generation. So the passages are probably not talking about 2009 but rather the first century CE. The reason that we don't find any passages like these in John is because it was written later, after some of "this generation" had already passed away, requiring a slight modification to the prediction.
Scott, We did it! We finally did it! We agree 100%!!!! I also agree that the government getting too involved with the family is troubling. I have not heard too many cases of this happening, only when the child is in danger, and even then, they seem to err on the side of the family. I have heard of a few cases, including a good friend of mine's with sister, where even though the child might have been better being taken by the state, there was not enough compelling evidence for them to take the child from their parent(s). OK bye.