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.
__________________
Those who dance are thought mad by those who hear not the music
Don't drink and derive--know your limits.
If men menstruated, we'd do it openly. We'd do it on the sidewalk. We'd squeeze real hard and squirt for distance.
|
Threaded Mode
