Forced Medical Care

[Sam]

Some years back there was a case in a nearby Ohio town where a child was home with a lingering illness for several weeks. The family went to a UPC church in that town where the pastor (a district presbyter) preached against medicine and doctors. He had a policy that he would not go into a hospital to pray for people. However, he did wear glasses. The court intervened and the child received medication and recovered. When the judge asked the mother why she did not take her child to a doctor she replied, "I took Him to Jesus who is the Best Doctor I know of."

Was it right that a civil government over rode the wish of a parent and forced medical treatment of the child? Part of me says, "yes," and part of me says, "no." I have some problems with both sides of this situation.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Sam

Some years back there was a case in a nearby Ohio town where a child was home with a lingering illness for several weeks. The family went to a UPC church in that town where the pastor (a district presbyter) preached against medicine and doctors. He had a policy that he would not go into a hospital to pray for people. However, he did wear glasses. The court intervened and the child received medication and recovered. When the judge asked the mother why she did not take her child to a doctor she replied, "I took Him to Jesus who is the Best Doctor I know of."

Was it right that a civil government over rode the wish of a parent and forced medical treatment of the child? Part of me says, "yes," and part of me says, "no." I have some problems with both sides of this situation.

I agree with this. I have to side with the parents in these case for purposes of freedom and the "greater good", but some of these parents also make it VERY difficult to do so because of their stupidity (OK, lets call it very poor judgment in most cases).

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Sam

Some years back there was a case in a nearby Ohio town where a child was home with a lingering illness for several weeks. The family went to a UPC church in that town where the pastor (a district presbyter) preached against medicine and doctors. He had a policy that he would not go into a hospital to pray for people. However, he did wear glasses. The court intervened and the child received medication and recovered. When the judge asked the mother why she did not take her child to a doctor she replied, "I took Him to Jesus who is the Best Doctor I know of."

Was it right that a civil government over rode the wish of a parent and forced medical treatment of the child? Part of me says, "yes," and part of me says, "no." I have some problems with both sides of this situation.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

They MUST be free to live according to their religious beliefs.

We want to intervene when their religious actions do not make sense to us.

Then the person down the road wants to intervene when your religious actions don't make sense to them.

With all the talk on forums of the "slippery slope"... this is, indeed, a dangerous and slippery slope.

Either the Constitution is the law of the land or it isn't. Either we obey it or we throw it out.

The latter is, increasingly, becoming the trend.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

They MUST be free to live according to their religious beliefs.

We want to intervene when their religious actions do not make sense to us.

Then the person down the road wants to intervene when your religious actions don't make sense to them.

With all the talk on forums of the "slippery slope"... this is, indeed, a dangerous and slippery slope.

Either the Constitution is the law of the land or it isn't. Either we obey it or we throw it out.

The latter is, increasingly, becoming the trend.

I agree with the bolded sentence BUT the extra variable in the equation is the fact that in these situations where dealing with a young person who doesn't yet have the authority to make their own choices.
It is far easier to have faith for your OWN healing devoid of any medical intervention, but quite another to have faith for someone else who cannot make that decision for themselves. And then when that other person dies? "Why Satan is attacking me!" is most often heard.

Now if I was a judge, based on what I know, I would very begrudgingly rule in the parent favor in most cases. I would be angry at them and have a hard time drumming up sympathy -THAT would be saved for the young victims, but the Constitution is the Constitution and religious freedom is above individual cases.
Then, still as a judge but off the record, I would tell the parents what I REALLY felt in a person-to-person way as I exercised MY 1st Amendment rights.

[Aquila]

My opinion is that private life and death issues related to health are none of the Government's business. While I believe that an abortion may only be necessary in very few cases, a pregnancy is something that seriously effects a woman's health. So, in my opinion, issues relating to her pregnancy ranging from abortion to post natal care are entirely her domain... rather we agree with her choices or not.

I believe that a parent is the sole guardian and authority over their child. Therefore not only can they refuse treatment for themselves... they should also be allowed to refuse to allow their child to be treated, especially if that child also refuses treatment.

I think it bothers us to place so much responsibility in the hands of individuals. But I think it's the best way. Government is incapable of properly managing these decisions. Call me a libertarian on issues like these.

[ILG]

I am having a hard time with this one. They say the disease is very treatable. He is likely to die if he doesn't get it. There are no do-overs on this. Although I believe in freedom of choice....I can't help but think the mother would thank the judge in the long run for forcing treatment....

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I agree with the bolded sentence BUT the extra variable in the equation is the fact that in these situations where dealing with a young person who doesn't yet have the authority to make their own choices.
It is far easier to have faith for your OWN healing devoid of any medical intervention, but quite another to have faith for someone else who cannot make that decision for themselves. And then when that other person dies? "Why Satan is attacking me!" is most often heard.

Now if I was a judge, based on what I know, I would very begrudgingly rule in the parent favor in most cases. I would be angry at them and have a hard time drumming up sympathy -THAT would be saved for the young victims, but the Constitution is the Constitution and religious freedom is above individual cases.
Then, still as a judge but off the record, I would tell the parents what I REALLY felt in a person-to-person way as I exercised MY 1st Amendment rights.

That, my friend, would be a perfect response.

For it to frustrate and even anger you demonstrates your humanity. Law should not exist without there being the humanity of mankind involved. Else how would justice be tempered by mercy.

For you to then recognize that, despite your personal feelings, you have no authority to rule against their own religious beliefs is the mark of a judge that understands where his authority comes from and what the limitations of that authority are.

Of for more who would realize that their emotions neither equal nor supersede the Constitution of the United States Of America.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by ILG

I am having a hard time with this one. They say the disease is very treatable. He is likely to die if he doesn't get it. There are no do-overs on this. Although I believe in freedom of choice....I can't help but think the mother would thank the judge in the long run for forcing treatment....

One can only hope that the judge who made such a ruling would be disbarred for having exercised authority that he did not possess. The reason I say that is because one day that same judge might find your religious beliefs beyond his understanding and judge to overrule your own faith and worship. A judge who does not stay within the realm of his granted authority is a danger.

When ones personal feelings supersede the supreme law of the land it is time to be removed from a place where authority can be wielded. Authority should only be possessed by those who understand and operate within the well laid out limitations of said authority.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My opinion is that private life and death issues related to health are none of the Government's business. While I believe that an abortion may only be necessary in very few cases, a pregnancy is something that seriously effects a woman's health. So, in my opinion, issues relating to her pregnancy ranging from abortion to post natal care are entirely her domain... rather we agree with her choices or not.

I believe that a parent is the sole guardian and authority over their child. Therefore not only can they refuse treatment for themselves... they should also be allowed to refuse to allow their child to be treated, especially if that child also refuses treatment.

I think it bothers us to place so much responsibility in the hands of individuals. But I think it's the best way. Government is incapable of properly managing these decisions. Call me a libertarian on issues like these.

I hereby deem thee a libertarian on issues like these.

Of course, in my eyes, to be deemed a libertarian is a pretty high compliment.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

They MUST be free to live according to their religious beliefs.

We want to intervene when their religious actions do not make sense to us.

Then the person down the road wants to intervene when your religious actions don't make sense to them.

With all the talk on forums of the "slippery slope"... this is, indeed, a dangerous and slippery slope.

Either the Constitution is the law of the land or it isn't. Either we obey it or we throw it out.

The latter is, increasingly, becoming the trend.

I got news for you the Supreme Court said over 100 years ago they can regulate religious actions, but not beliefs.


"Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878).

Now as far as what you quoted even original intent won't help you because the Amendment prohibited CONGRESS from making laws not states (and yes that was the original intent) and was never applied against the states until it was argued that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights and made them enforceable against the states.