Bioethics issue

[Xantar]

I'm taking a bioethics course this semester, and I decided this would be another good topic to get some intelligent discussion. And yes, there are doubloons at stake, so if you don't want to discuss issues out of the goodness of your own heart, think about that custom rank you are working towards.

Anyway, you may be aware that there are segments of American society which practice faith-based healing. These include but are not limited to Christian Scientists. Faith based healing involves getting the community to gather round and pray for the patient's well-being.

That's all very well and nice, but a lot of these people also reject conventional medicine. There is one case of a boy who contracted a rare disease which is easily treatable with drugs. His parents refused to allow doctors to give him that medicine because it went against their beliefs (I don't remember exactly what religion they belonged to). They used faith based healing instead. The boy died.

A lot of these cases rise up every year, and it's perfectly understandable if you think the parents were being foolish. But consider the following:

1. The parents believed they were doing what was best for their son.

2. So did the boy. He had no regrets in his final hours, in fact.

Consider also that we as a society value autonomy. For example, we allow smokers to continue smoking even though the evidence is overwhelming that they are slowly killing themselves. They're allowed to destroy their own bodies, runs the belief. A similar standard applies to parents and their children. They can't make their children smoke since it's illegal below a certain age, but parents are allowed to feed their children whatever food they want. Even if their method of raising children is considered harmful to the children, the parents are allowed to raise their own children as they see fit.

I haven't even gotten into the religious aspect.

So here's the question: should the parents be punished? Can they be charged with criminal negligence or manslaughter for their religious beliefs?

What if the treatment only had a success rate of 20%? If the parents withhold treatment for religious reasons and the child dies, can blame be laid on them? What if the success rate of the treatment is 40%? 75%? 90%?

[fingersman]

Originally posted by Xantar


Consider also that we as a society value autonomy. For example, we allow smokers to continue smoking even though the evidence is overwhelming that they are slowly killing themselves. They're allowed to destroy their own bodies, runs the belief. A similar standard applies to parents and their children. They can't make their children smoke since it's illegal below a certain age, but parents are allowed to feed their children whatever food they want. Even if their method of raising children is considered harmful to the children, the parents are allowed to raise their own children as they see fit.

I haven't even gotten into the religious aspect.

So here's the question: should the parents be punished? Can they be charged with criminal negligence or manslaughter for their religious beliefs?

What if the treatment only had a success rate of 20%? If the parents withhold treatment for religious reasons and the child dies, can blame be laid on them? What if the success rate of the treatment is 40%? 75%? 90%?

Hmmmmmmmmm this is a tough one .........In a way, yes the parents should be held responible but they shouldn't be punished, Seeing our chid die is one thing but knowing that you could have saved your child by just giving him a few drugs is punsihment enough. So no I don't think that the parents should be punished....that situation that they were placed will haunt them forver


Why do the parents do it??
------------------------------------------------------------
You see the parents don't think they are purposely harming the child.
( however not doing the best thing for the child's well being can be considered neglect but I'll touch that later). They actually believe that they are doing the right thing....and if your a parent you would want to do the right thing for your child wouldn't you? But then again it's not your life that your dealing with is it? and does your child willing believe the religion that you believe in....or is he force to believe in it...because you didn't gave him/her much of a choice.
After all it would be your beliefs not the childs if you force it on him//her..and it is the child's life not yours..you're just suppose to be a part of it
Depending on the age I think you should let the child make the descion himself. If he's too young I think the situation should be explained as simply and as unbais as possible..so the child can understand or atleast grasp the concept.
---------------------
This has always puzzled me ...I always thought people who could have saved themselves were a bit stupid...ok ok really stupid. But i can see now that people that allow this, really stick behind their beliefs......they would let someone die, that they could save just by giving the go ahead to the doctors to give that person certain drugs. In a way aren't you killing that person by not helping??........especially if the method you are using is not working? I think that if you believe in prayer healing..and you try it and you aren't getting any results and the condition of the person is worsening I believe you should try modern medicine. If it is really his//her time to go there is nothing modern medicine or prayer healing can or will do for that person IMO.
---------------------

Look I'm not bashing anyone's belief's cause we all have to believe in something....but someone use to tell me when it's you time to go there's nothing you can do about it. But not trying all the methods or possible alternates to try and save yourself or some one else just seems ................I don't know it just seems non sensible


I believe that if you believe in something, truly believe in something that you should stick too it but they are expections to every rule and you would have to know how far you would go stick too your belief. Would you kill a man for them..even though another part of your belief is to live and let live.


Errrrrrr how was that Xanny? BTW you finish that 3rd Chp on Zelda yet?

[LoudHowardZERO]

I guess it would all have to depend on teh belifes of the child. If he thought that this was the right way to do it, then why should they be punished, but if the child wanted to take those drugs, but the parents rejected the idea, wel then yeah! They should be punished.

But then again it also depends on the age of the child. I mean a 4 year old kid probably no say in what they use to cure him, he's only four, and he could be going agnest what he might later believe in...

But in my opinion I think they should have given him the drugs. I mean what's so wrong about using a couple pills to keep someone alive, I'd like to know why there religion bans that.. intreasting, I just don't see why that is so bad, not to say that it's a bad reason...

By any chance could you find some more info about this certin example, if you find time in your busy busy life, and maybe a couple more examples like this... the weird thing is that this is sort... sort.. sorta... intreasting... (But it's not something I'm proud of)

[TheGrimReaper]

Darnit Xantar! Dont make me think! j/k :D

Well I really beleive that they should not be punished. For a numbe of reasons.

Number one: This is sickness. This isnt stabbing to death or anything like that. This is natural sickness. Refusing to take medication is in my opinion, a pretty stupid idea, but I can see other peoples points if they decide not to. It's like having a second hand car. There will probably be dodgy parts in it that will break down after a matter of time, but its your decision wether you fix them or not. It is the parents right do refuse or accept drugs.

Number two: To understand the religious beleifs, you have to look at it from a certain point of view. I wont bother explaining it, because id be here for hours.

[fingersman]

*bump*

So what do you think of my post Xanny?

[Xantar]

*starts handing out doubloons*

This is good. Keep it up, guys.

I'm going to clarify a few points. Let's say the kid is 8 years old. In other words, he can understand basic ideas of health and is able to communicate his intentions. However, he's not old enough to make any decisions for himself.

Also, what would happen if the kid had died of tuberculosis? I may be wrong, but I believe tuberculosis is generally fatal but also 100% curable by simple antibiotics. So now the decision is much starker. Give him medicine and he definitely lives. Withhold medicine and he definitely dies. Should the parents still have to the right to withhold medicine from their own child?

LoudHoward raised an interesting point. The child obviously didn't have a choice in forming his own religious beliefs. However, we recognize that there are always certain restrictions on what we end up believing. Given most of our upbringings, it is highly unlikely that we can force ourselves to espouse the views of Hitler. So a child doesn't have control over his own beliefs, but on the other hand, neither do grown ups.

fingersman, that was a good post. Now, if only you could spell...

j/k :D

P.S. Chapter 3 is starting to shape up, but I honestly can't tell you when it'll be posted. It could be tomorrow, it could be next week. It all depends on my schedule.

[ed328]

I think the matter rests on several key issues:

1) The child's age. At what age do you determine that a child is reasonably able to decide for themselves what course of medical action to take. 12? 14? 18? Things like this are always subjective. I know that when I was 17 that I could have made this decision, but I also know plenty of people that would not have been able to simply because they lacked the maturity to handle the severity of the issue and would just go along with mom and dad. I think that for a child under about 12 though the parents should be held fully accountable as the child hasn't matured enough to really be able to develop ideas outside the parents beliefs(at least not a large extent).

2) Probability of survival. I also think that the parent's punishment should hinge on the liklihood any treatment would have worked. I think that for anything with a chance of survival exceeding 85% or 90%, assuming the child is of reasonable age, that the parents should be held responsible. Negligence is a crime and parents should not be able to hide behind religion to avoid prosecution. Freedom of religion guarantees your right to freely express your beliefs, within the confines of the law.

[fingersman]

Originally posted by Xantar


Also, what would happen if the kid had died of tuberculosis? I may be wrong, but I believe tuberculosis is generally fatal but also 100% curable by simple antibiotics. So now the decision is much starker. Give him medicine and he definitely lives. Withhold medicine and he definitely dies. Should the parents still have to the right to withhold medicine from their own child?

Your basically asking the same question again. So you get the same response. I aksed my friend about this prayer healing thing and he said he doesn't believe it...cause he thinks God put the doctor there and put the medicine there for humans to use or something to that extend I can't remember what he said exactly......but then that can go both ways....I mean guns were invented.:unsure:
But again it comes down to the age of the child.....I mean a 1 to 6 year old would not understand the situation so I think that a law should be put in place stating that under a certain age children should automatically be given medicine as doctors see fit....but that would cause an upstir in the religous community and sort of take away part of the whole freedom of choice thingy. :D So I don't know...if that law would work.( but then public opinion really doesn't have that much influence on the goverment):p


LoudHoward raised an interesting point. The child obviously didn't have a choice in forming his own religious beliefs. However, we recognize that there are always certain restrictions on what we end up believing. Given most of our upbringings, it is highly unlikely that we can force ourselves to espouse the views of Hitler. So a child doesn't have control over his own beliefs, but on the other hand, neither do grown ups.


True True, at a young age we can be swayed either way...children with a strong belief installed in them when young usually don't grow out it. So I would suggest that parents only make suggests in which path to take...and let the child choose his/her own path. However make sure they don't stray to far....after all wouldn't want them joining a cult and stuff:unsure:

As for me I was raised to have an open mind ...so I try to understand where people are coming from with certain points..although there are some points that I wouldn't consider even trying to understand. Like Hitler or anyone else who thinks other people in the human race are inferior because of whatever reason they see fit.



fingersman, that was a good post. Now, if only you could spell...

j/k :D

P.S. Chapter 3 is starting to shape up, but I honestly can't tell you when it'll be posted. It could be tomorrow, it could be next
week. It all depends on my schedule.

Of course it was a good post, I am fingersman, the voice of wisdom...well sometimes. :sneaky: Oh I can spell...I think:p
thanks for doing the chapter I think I should wait till all of them are finish so I can read all one time.

[GameMaster]

Yes, the parents should be punished. Can they be punished? I don't know. How much are they paying their lawyer ;) But on a serious note, they should be. Why, because their ignorant enough to refuse modern medicine techniques that can save their child from dying on the account of blind faith in beliefs that cannot be verified as true or even be proved to have been stated by someone at that. Using the practice of prayer is fine but why not incorporate it with the modern medicine techniques that have been developed for us by us. To assume or believe that the Lord would not want us to use our own technology along with the power of prayer to save a life is a bunch of horsy poop for the ignorant at the shallow end of the Christian pool. The more intelligent "disciple" would believe that the Lord has put in us some of his knowledge and understanding so that we may live better lives.

Even if the chance of success was only 20% and the little one dies the parents could still be given blame. I would also make it a personal goal of mine to convince the sorry excuses they have sinned beyond are world and will be punished personally by the Lord. As a Christian, I believe they are sinning. The Lord has provided us with a wealthy amount of evergrowing knowledge and they throw it away in their own cheesy interpretations. No matter the chance of success, if there is a chance it is there responsibility to take advantage of the blessing and hope that it heals their child. Not doing so is irresponsible and very stupid for the day and age we live in.

[TheGrimReaper]

Well, ultimately, it is the childs decision. Wether it be ignorant or not.

[Xantar]

Note: people are allowed to make major decisions for themselves, including what treatment they receive, at the age of 18 (i.e. the same time you are allowed to vote). At the age of 16, most of us might be able to make decisions on whether we want faith based healing and to reject conventional medicine. However, the law does not say that you can do so.

Therefore, the responsibility is all on the parents for good or ill.

[nWoCHRISnWo]

Well not really answering your questions, I think the parents are idiots. I hate when people put religion over life, when there's not even proof their religion (god, heaven/hell, things they believe in, etc.) is even real (for any religion).

And I'd say charge the parents.

[sdtPikachu]

"Pray: To ask the laws of the universe to be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy."
-Ambrose Bierce

Well, that's what I think of faith healing, as I imagine most of you have gathered.

Even though Xantar has grossly simplified the issue for our benefit, it is still a very tricky siuation indeed... but here is what think.

Scientifically speaking, even if a 100% cure rate is not possible, surely a 60% cure rate is better than a 100% chance of death if medication is withheld?

Personally I don't think it should be up to the parents to decide the fate of their child, either wilfully or by accident (I won't go into the whole indoctrination aspect) and I believe they have no right to arbitarily determine whether their child should die or not. There have been cases of children being harmed in accidents and given emergency blood transfusions, only to find that their parebts belong to some religion that doesn't allow blood transfusion, and have refused to accept the child back, as it is now possessed by the devil or something.

Maybe it's cos I don't understand the whole religious aspect thing, in that I don't see how I can place my life in the hands of something as ephemeral as a deity.

But where does it all stop? What if a child of 16 wants to be treated but his parents won't let him? What would a doctor do? What would any human do? They would give the person the right to the life they wanted IMO.

In this scenario, it would be the parents fault if the child were to die as a result of lack of medication (obviously if the child lived it would prove that god exists :rolleyes: ), and although I think a penal sentence would be a bit harsh I think it would be a good idea to try to make them feel even more rotten.


Just another humouristical note on what I believe about this whole prayer thing...

There's a man living in a house, but the river nearby has flooded, and the water is rising. So he puts on his wellies and goes upstairs to the first floor. Looking out of the window, he sees his neighbour float by on a boat.
"Hey Fred!" he shouts "Come on, get in the boat, the water's rising"
"No-thank you" say Fred "God will save me if I pray hard enough"
The neighbour shrugs and rows away. In time the water rises again, and he goes upstairs into the loft. Looking out of the skylight he sees a dinghy flaot past with members of a life saving team on it.
"Hey man, get on - we're evacuating this area!"
"No, the lord will save me"
Having better things to do than argue, the life saver crew rows on.
The water rises higher, and the man climbs out of the skylight onto the roof. A lifeboat manned by the army chugs past, and throw a life ring to him and ask him to swim towards them in the rapidly intensifying current. He throws it back.
"The lord will take care of my safety, thank you very much"
"Aww come on man, this water is lethal, you're one of the last few people we've not rescued yet" they shout
Fred remains resolute. "Sorry, but only the lord will rescue me"
Annoyed, the boat meanders off. The water rises still further, and we find Fred standing on his chimneypot with the water lapping around his neck. A rescue helicopter hovers overhead and lowers a rope.
"Hey man, grab a hold of it! Why didn't the lifeboat crew pick you up?"
"The lord is taking care of me. Please go away."
The helicopter flies away, and the water rises even further. Fred is swept away and eventually drowns.

Fred goes to heaven, and storms off in a huff to go and see god.
"God, why the heck did you let me die out there? I've always been a good man. Why did you not try to save me?"
God rolls his eyes. "Not try? I sent you three boats and a helicopter..."

[TheGrimReaper]

Good post Pikachu.

[fingersman]

Originally posted by sdtPikachu


There's a man living in a house, but the river nearby has flooded, and the water is rising. So he puts on his wellies and goes upstairs to the first floor. Looking out of the window, he sees his neighbour float by on a boat.
"Hey Fred!" he shouts "Come on, get in the boat, the water's rising"
"No-thank you" say Fred "God will save me if I pray hard enough"
The neighbour shrugs and rows away. In time the water rises again, and he goes upstairs into the loft. Looking out of the skylight he sees a dinghy flaot past with members of a life saving team on it.
"Hey man, get on - we're evacuating this area!"
"No, the lord will save me"
Having better things to do than argue, the life saver crew rows on.
The water rises higher, and the man climbs out of the skylight onto the roof. A lifeboat manned by the army chugs past, and throw a life ring to him and ask him to swim towards them in the rapidly intensifying current. He throws it back.
"The lord will take care of my safety, thank you very much"
"Aww come on man, this water is lethal, you're one of the last few people we've not rescued yet" they shout
Fred remains resolute. "Sorry, but only the lord will rescue me"
Annoyed, the boat meanders off. The water rises still further, and we find Fred standing on his chimneypot with the water lapping around his neck. A rescue helicopter hovers overhead and lowers a rope.
"Hey man, grab a hold of it! Why didn't the lifeboat crew pick you up?"
"The lord is taking care of me. Please go away."
The helicopter flies away, and the water rises even further. Fred is swept away and eventually drowns.

Fred goes to heaven, and storms off in a huff to go and see god.
"God, why the heck did you let me die out there? I've always been a good man. Why did you not try to save me?"
God rolls his eyes. "Not try? I sent you three boats and a helicopter..."

You might think it's funny..hell I do to ...but in someways it's so true. :D

[sdtPikachu]

In some ways yes it is true... but then you know my feelings on matters like this. I just see it as a parable explaining to religious people that the actions of what they may see as a god may in fact be "disguised" as human intervention. Hey ho.

If I am correct in thinking that all doctors must take the Hippocratic Oath, surely there is some moral (possibly even legal?) obligation for the doctors and nurses in question to take some knd of action? Though guessing by the negative press these life saving (or merciful endings IMO, in the case of euthanasia) actions get, it doesn't look like they'd be encouraged to.

In my first year at UCL I lived with a 4th year medic called Rob. He told me that UCH (our hospital) had instructed their students, doctors and nurses alike never to intervene is someone asks for a doctor because of possible legal ramifications (i.e. there have been far too many cases where a doctor has tried to save someone involved in an accident and, as a result of either an unfamiliar filed of lack of equiment or just plain old bad luck, they and the hospitals have had their arses sued off).

Something to think about.

[LeonMagnolis]

There have been cases of children being harmed in accidents and given emergency blood transfusions, only to find that their parebts belong to some religion that doesn't allow blood transfusion, and have refused to accept the child back, as it is now possessed by the devil or something.

Parents*

Just to clarify, the Bible tells not to eat the blood or flesh of another human. The problem with this is the law was to prevent canniblism, and to keep the isrealites safe from food poisoning. And it worked for the most part. In no way am I agreeing with this though. And should someone argue that it is, tell them that they've sinned and must now sacrafice their favorite goat in a dirty, bloody, cruel, and all around disgusting ritual sacrafice.


Normally I wouldnt' agree with STD pikachu because he seems to have a belief system opposite to mine, but he has several excellent points. I'll be the first to admit that many times religion blinds people from seeing facts. And many times, religion is a cause of fallacy. Here, the religion does blind people. IMO, this is not much differant from the tribal africans who sacrifice babies to their Gods. It's a pointless waste of human life.

I think it's also important to point out that there is a huge differance between believing God will provide for something and refusing a blood transfusion. The blood transfusion does have a basis-- flawed as it is. But putting so much "trust" in God's provision that you miss when he does provide for you is foolishness and nothing more.