People who refuse medical treatment for kids based on their beliefs should have their kids taken away forever. amirite?

They should've been charged with murder.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Technically negligent homicide but def agree

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Negligent is too soft. They made a choice, it's the same choice a murderer makes when they murder someone. You openly choose not to save the life, that should always be seen as murder.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Neglect means you have resources available to help a kid, and choose not to give it to them. It doesn't mean you forgot about it or didn't notice. It's considered child abuse.

by Kindly-Enthusiasm997 1 year ago

Its not the same choice at all. Not to say it isnt crazy. But you cant tell me with a straight face its the same as murder

by Greenholtollie 1 year ago

Ya but those scumbags got away with it apparently. source

by Legitimate_Neck_5532 1 year ago

This is sadly a different story than the one I read about. I don't know how the one I read about ended up. The child had just died, and it was around 2018. The child in this one passed in 2012.

by Kindly-Enthusiasm997 1 year ago

Oh? Awesome, there's another couple out there that neglected their child to death.

by Legitimate_Neck_5532 1 year ago

Might be this one. They didn't take their baby to the hospital for "religious reasons".

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I didn't realize that was a JW thing! I got asked in the hospital before a procedure recently if I'd consent to a transfusion of something went wrong or if I had a religious objection and I couldn't FATHOM who would say no!

by Anonymous 1 year ago

JW and Christian Science are the big ones

by Lewsawayn 1 year ago

That's horrible. People procreating just so they would have biological trophies and treat them as such instead of living beings that they are. No wonder countries with most religious people look the way they do.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I mean a lot of these religious people will happily die on the beliefs so they are in fact testing them as living people because it's how they'd treat themselves . Not defending them but you can't really call them hypocrites here either .

by Anonymous 1 year ago

"No wonder countries with most religious people look the way they do". Places like Poland, Italy, south America and south east Asia have pretty decent medical care, especially compared to US.

by kleinjohan 1 year ago

They really don't, not even by a long shot. Especially South America. People literally die on boats or crossing the border to get better health in the USA than what they have in their countries. And I'm not even defending USA's system, it's pathetic in comparisson to those in Finland, Japan, France etc.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Yet many Americans go to Mexico to visit the dentist.

by kleinjohan 1 year ago

Cheaper doesn't always mean better. Some just try to save money. It's same in Germany, it's expensive, so Germans go to Croatia, or Serbia or Bosnia and pay instead of 5000 euros, 2000euros for "premium treatment". It also doesn't mean there are bad doctors in those countries, just a much lower living standard.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

And those living standards have nothing to do with amount of religiosity.

by kleinjohan 1 year ago

What? Countries with the lowest living standards are those with highest religious belivers. I'm done wasting my time here.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

There is a fine line here, though. Your principle assumes the national healthcare system of a given country is scientifically based and vetted against the highest of scientific standards. .. in the current world; surely your principle does not hold in all places. … and due to this fact, such a doctrine seems naturally incoherent. Though, I agree.

by jorditillman 1 year ago

Your principle assumes the national healthcare system of a given country is scientifically based and vetted against the highest of scientific standards Absolutely! When politicians get involved in healthcare, nobody wins. I feel like this kind of binary thinking is what leads to abortion bans.

by Wavawalker 1 year ago

I mean yes. But chances are you're very unlikely as a layman to be able to have better judgment. Maybe if you yourself are a doctor. But any country where the medicine is that unscientific also has a populus as uneducated.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The problem is not that the better judgment of laymen is quashed. The problem is that the authorities have given us very good reasons to believe that their judgment is not any better, but persist in forcing the rest of us to go along.

by Lucky_Limit 1 year ago

This is exactly the fallacy I'm talking about actually Yes, they are occasionally wrong, sometimes a fair bit! But in no situation are you personally equipped to accurately guess which 1% of things are wrong and which 99% are right, and amongst all the other alternatives which one is the true situation. And that doesn't change when you get 1000 of your friends together.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The kid says he doesn't want treatment, so it's not the same as denying treatment to an otherwise healthy kid who needs a blood transfusion or antibiotic. The kid should have body autonomy and the choice not to continue treatment since it hasn't worked the first 2 times, so yes that makes this scenario different. Denying treatment and making a decision for someone else is not the same as someone not accepting treatment.

by Hilpertkeon 1 year ago

The kid says he doesn't want treatment What if the kid is religious just like his parents and also wants to refuse the blood transfusion/antibiotic?

by Wavawalker 1 year ago

I guess it depends on how old the kid is. Is he old enough to understand what religion is? What death is? Is he doing it to make his parents happy? He should have a psych evaluation

by Hilpertkeon 1 year ago

Great questions. I don't know, I'm open to the possibility that this might not be a black and white issue. I do know that I'd feel more comfortable if this decision -- whatever decision it was -- was made between the kid, their parents, and their doctors and definitely not the government.

by Wavawalker 1 year ago

What do you think "the goverment" looks like in this scenario?! Because in reality it's social workers, psychologists and in more extreme cases judges in family court. I think it's great they are involved, they would be in my country. The parents have their beliefs and their fear, the doctors have their schooling and own beliefs, the kids are often in an impossible situation. Having a professional person there advocating for the child and mediating between the two positions can be essential. I also like the british system where there is a board with multiple professionals from different fields which can make some hard decisions. What you are saying is you want the status quo: parents can decide to let their children die. Or worse, a doctor can singlehandedly decide when and if they can override a parents decision.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Kids aren't mature enough to take those decision, kids are generally bad at seizing delayed gratification.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I mean.. the kid doesn't want treatment, sure, but idk if a 9 year old can understand the seriousness of the situation and although it sucks right now, will help save his life. Kids don't really have delayed gratification like that.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Good point, but an irrelevant hypothetical. Kid will die soon anyway. And OP is likely French style secular, in which whatever solution he comes up will be hostile to religion. Like ",Asterix: Refusing blood transmission." but not abortion let"s say.

by Effective_Dog 1 year ago

I believe that parents have the choice not to take preventative measures for religious reasons, but I believe--even as a religious person--that refusing medical treatment that your child actively needs is child abuse.

by NeedleworkerSmall528 1 year ago

I 100% agree with this. While I personally believe and promote vaccinations and don't feel bad when parents have to home school or privatize their child's learning because of being anti vax, I still think it's their fundamental right if they are willing to do all that for no vaccines. But if you deny your child lifesaving treatment that wouldn't compromise the child's quality of life (like blood transfusions) then that's abuse and neglect.

by TinyInvestigator9944 1 year ago

Doing this would solve nothing as any parent with these beliefs would simply not get their children medical treatment ever and make any parent hesitant to take their child to a doctor. Also what about cases of misdiagnoses, I've been falsely diagnosed with serious medical conditions twice in my life or what if the parents refuse treatment because they don't agree with the doctor or don't trust their ability because bad doctors are very common.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I agree with a way more tempered version of this take, but yeah, it REALLY sucks people do this to their kids And wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more kids have been harmed/killed due to crazy religious beliefs than ANY "liberal leftist trans kid conspiracy"... But guess which one people are worried about, apparently.

by Jaydekuhlman 1 year ago

Give it time. Trans has only been trendy for a few years, but it has the power of the government behind it in many places. This in contrast to the faith-healing crowd, which is at least as opposed by the powers that be as transsexualism is supported by those same powers.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Lol, yeah bud

by Jaydekuhlman 1 year ago

How is this unpopular at all?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Lmao ok

by Anonymous 1 year ago

You get it

by DullMathematician311 1 year ago

So the government should get to decide? No thank you.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

So you trust goverment to build roads, sewers, hospitals, schools, water pipes, entire energy system, but now you think you know better? Get off the internet and live in a cave with that mindset. You're acting as if you know better than people who study medicine for more than a decade.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The people who study medicine for over a decade are notably people with minimal influence on the law or its interpretation as far as the governments or courts are concerned. We are not saying we know medicine better than those who have studied medicine. We say we do not trust the morals of politicians that are so often unaccountable to the people they harm. This is a remarkably bad faith interpretation of the critique you are facing.

by Borerbrain 1 year ago

The government doesn't build any of those things. Private contractors do that are overpaid by the government so they can funnel a portion back in the form of lobbying.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

And there's no corruption whatsoever in government OR the medical field, THANK GOODNESS

by Single-Coyote 1 year ago

Low effort bait

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Yep

by Alexys87 1 year ago

Somebody about to lose their kids for not buying them Invisalign.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

As much as I see how that would play out, there is a fine line between the govt controlling your kids (this bleeds into education and gender politics) and what a parent choses to raise their household with.

by Feeling_Wasabi8523 1 year ago

Parental rights should be a step below individual rights

by Anonymous 1 year ago

No up to you.

by jaleelebert 1 year ago

Same should go for people who push unnecessarily life altering medicalization on kids who cannot consent.

by Visual-Tone 1 year ago

So how do you prove that their decision was based on religious belief and not something else?

by Vincetromp 1 year ago

Jehovah witnesses refusing life saving blood transfusion for instance

by Anonymous 1 year ago

By them literally saying "We refuse the treatment, god will hear our prayers"

by Anonymous 1 year ago

So what happens when they don't say the latter half out loud?

by Vincetromp 1 year ago

Are you talking about forced government experimental injections? I hope you're not

by Anonymous 1 year ago

What is it with you people and goverment experiments?? Are you OK?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

What is it with you people trying to force meds that have " Emergency authorization" and we have no idea of the long term effects. Sure I might have considered it if it had been an emergency form of a vaccine we had been using for decades, but NO, it had to not only be an experimental vaccine, it was also an experimental MRMA delivery method. No way I would let anyone near my kids with that.

by Aggravating-Thing 1 year ago

They do .

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Yeah, my brother is vehemently opposed to psychiatric meds even though he'd benefit a lot from them for his depression. It stems from the fact that my mom opposed them when she was alive. My brother loved my mom. He was cutting himself in high school and my mom wouldn't allow him to get on meds when the school counselor suggested it. She believed he'd become addicted or something.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I agree with this 100% it proves that they care more about their own personal opinions than the life they created.

by Fit-Independence 1 year ago

I'm with you, wo/man.

by stammlilian 1 year ago

Reminds me of when Christina Maggiore refused to take antiretrovirals because of her AIDS denialism and breastfed her daughter which caused her premature death. The DA office refused to press charges on her despite the fact that Eliza's death was because of AIDS.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

How is this opinion unpopular?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I don't think this is unpopular

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I live in the US and medical treatment is denied to me for being poor, can someone please take me away forever?

by sporerkyle 1 year ago

Not unpopular.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I keep wondering if they were poisoned by very natural snake venom, would they take a synthetic antidote? Are the adults in those types of families at least also dying from easily treatable conditions?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

To an extent. This could get out of hand easily. Could be used to punish the poor and immigrants. Indigenous peoples have already had their children stolen for generations.

by Practical_Cookie 1 year ago

Same goes for not teaching your kids comprehensive sex ed. You're just increasing the likelihood that they'll experience sexual violence and increasing the chances that they'll be traumatized by sex when they are in an adult relationship later in life.

by Pale_Goose 1 year ago

Jehovah's witnesses have a belief against blood transfusions, their have been some that would rather let their children die then give them a blood transfusion, and the ones that do give blood transfusions are shunned

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Amen

by Anonymous 1 year ago

You sound bitter And yes parents should always choose whats best for their kid not you or a government.

by BabyParty 1 year ago

Yes, Unfortunately, it's legal to not vaxinate or even give your children medicine

by geraldstreich 1 year ago

Not your choice to make. I'm not living my in a country where that decision is made for me. Went through this at COVID and cont be legally forced to do anything.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

All religions should be banned. They are traditions, not necessities. How people spend thousands of dollars on unnecessary holidays like Easter, Halloween, Christmas and even weddings is absurd to me.

by Better_Appearance 1 year ago

Kids are not to be blamed for their parents indoctrinations. We should strive for society where kids are free of their parents lunacies.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

facts>beliefs

by Hot_Cookie 1 year ago

I don't support the death penalty because I don't trust the govt with that authority and I won't support taking kids away from parents when Noone has been convicted of a felony. Too slippery of a slope.

by giles80 1 year ago

I personally believe that those parents keep those beliefs in their life to keep themselves from losing it mentally. Yeah it's extremely dangerous for the kids, but asking parents to change their way of thinking is asking for trouble then it is worth. However, then you get institutions like CPS involved, which have been known to be corrupt and problematic for families and will cause a ton of chaos. No solution actually works in this situation 100%, and more likely then not, the kids may just have to ask for medical treatment and the doctor can keep it confidential. The law should favor minors more in those specific circumstances, grant them more privileges.

by Sea-Salamander5416 1 year ago

That's assuming those minors have anyway of getting to the doctor themselves which I doubt they would.

by Andersoncelesti 1 year ago