Is praying for your sick children enough

[JerryNumbers]

If a child's parents, by their religious beliefs, believes in only praying for their sick children, do you think its proper for the government to intervene and take them to a doctor?

If no, please give the reason why you say no and that our goverment should not have that authority.

[John81]

I say no because parents are responsible for their children. Once the government sticks their nose into something they eventually demand total control.

At what point can the line be drawn between parent and government once the government is given control?

Should a 16 year old who has had all the radiation and chemo treatments they can stand be forced to take more if their parents agree with him that it's time to stop such treatments?

Who will end up determining just how sick is sick enough for the government to take your children away from you?

Since we can't control the government once they get involved, I'm typically for the government staying out of family matters.

[Annie]

I don't know about this one...Our Constitution does guarantee the right to religious freedom/expression ("Congress shall make no law..."). On the other hand, I do think a good government has laws in place that protect its weakest members, like children, from those who abuse and/or neglect them. There's a tension here between religious freedom and enforcement of child welfare laws.

If I had to decide right now (like if I were a judge in this case), I think religious freedom would win out. The parents of this child weren't "doing anything" to harm the child. They weren't actively abusing the child in the name of their religion. Was what they did horrible? Yes, IMO. Do I think "praying for your sick child is enough?" No, I don't. However, in this case, I think I'd err on the side of religious freedom. For better or worse, these parents did what they thought was best for the child. They were gravely mistaken, and they have paid a very high price for their mistake. May God allow them to find forgiveness and healing for themselves, as well as a good church that doesn't encourage this kind of practice.

On a similar note, I know Jehovah's Witnesses do not approve of receiving blood transfusions...I believe the US govt. allows parents to refuse this treatment for their children, b/c it is genuinely a matter of religious belief with them.

[RayJr]

No, its not enough and any parent that refuses to take their child to the doctor is, activelly abusing them, its called neglect. I am all for religious freedom, and personal freedom, But God gives us a brain and if we refuse to use it we must pay the price.

[John81]

No' date=' its not enough and any parent that refuses to take their child to the doctor is, activelly abusing them, its called neglect. I am all for religious freedom, and personal freedom, But God gives us a brain and if we refuse to use it we must pay the price.[/quote']

But who is to decide where the line between parental right and neglect comes into play?

Many times when my children have been sick my sister thought they should have went to the doctor but I took care of them and they are fine. (Of course, there have been a few times when I realized they needed a doctor and I took them too).

Government social workers can't tell the difference between a biblical spanking and child abuse how are we to trust them to tell the difference between a sick child being cared for by their parents and a sick child being neglected by their parents?

[Annie]

No' date=' its not enough and any parent that refuses to take their child to the doctor is, activelly abusing them, its called neglect. I am all for religious freedom, and personal freedom, But God gives us a brain and if we refuse to use it we must pay the price.[/quote']
...and these parents have "paid the price," regardless of what the gov't does. I have to disagree that what these parents were doing was neglecting their child. Neglect might be the legal term that describes what they did, but I don't think it is an accurate description in this case. "Neglect" by definition is passive; it's a non-action. It is what parents who live high on drugs do with their children: nothing, except when they happen to remember. The parents in this story are not guilty of neglect; they took the action they thought was best, which was faithful, sincere prayer. (I assume they also cared as well as they could for her, making her comfortable, feeding her, etc.) Was that "enough?" No, it wasn't, but it also wasn't "nothing," which is what "neglect" is.

[John81]

I agree. The parents made wrong decisions here but it wasn't a matter of neglect or malice.

[JerryNumbers]

Actually at this time the child is the one who paid the price, for the child in now dead.

This child would have had the opportunity of growing up if she had the proper medical treatment.

But due to the poor decsion of the parents she will not grow up.

Remember to, you don't know what these people believe about the Bible, they may be totally lost and teaching many to go down the wrong path.

[John81]

If you believe children go to heaven when they die then this child was blessed upon death.

It's true, we don't know the beliefs of her parents. We don't know if they are born again or anything.

However, should the government have the right to interfere between parent and child on religious matters?

We know, once the government gets involved in even the smallest aspect, it doesn't take long before they want more and more control until they are the only authority.

[IM4given]

I think the government should stay out of ALL things medical! Period. It is not their job to play God or to second guess the family's decision. I could even argue that the government forcing healthcare on us is a conflict of interest, since so much of what has become the medical idustrial complex is paid for by the government through Social Security and Medicaid, and the hospitals and doctors are subsidized by federal government funding.

If one of my children get sick, I pray for them and I take them to the doctor if I have to (but without insurance I really cannot afford to take them).

[Anon]

First, the title of the thread and the poll are not related. Whether or not prayer is good for the sick and whether or not the government has the right to make our medical decisions are completely unrelated.

The government has no right to make our medical decisions. Especially as modern medicine is constantly changing. 100 years ago the girl would have died from diabetes anyway. Do I agree with the parents? No...but I don't agree that modern medicine is such a "fundamental human right" that the government should force treatments. The idea that the government should force treatment goes hand in hand with socialized health care...taxes go sky high so the government can "pay for" our treatment...and what they pay for, they are going to be able to control.

[JerryNumbers]

So you believe the government should stay out of peoples lives, them why do you want laws passed against abortion and homosexuality?

As for the 11 year old girl, I have no idea if she is in Heaven or not, perhaps she has already reached the age of accountability and had not accepted Jesus as Savior, or maybe she had been taught a false hope of heaven by her parents. The point is she has rights to get treatment for diabetes.

I believe firmly that in such situations our government ought to over ride the parents who does this to a family member.

Our government should never just set by and watch a father and mother let their children die without medical treatment under situations like this family did.

According to our constitution each person born in this country has the right for pursuit of happiness, that 11 year old girl had her rights taken away from her and our government did not protect her right to pursuit of happiness but set by and watch her die of something that was treatable.

There are just to many evil people that will hide behind the Bible & false teachings to say that our government should stay out of it. Evil people don't need the government protecting them while they are sacrificing their children with false teachings from the Bible.

No father and mother should be left alone by our goverment to abuse their children, children deserve to have protection.

[Anon]

If you give the government the right to dictate our medical decisions eventually they will decide who gets what vaccination, who gets bone marrow transplants, and who takes birth control!!! Give them an inch, they will take a mile.

It is the government's job to keep our streets safe. It is not their job to patrol inside our home. Abortion is a public crime. Official marriage of homosexuals is public as well. However it is not the government's job to creep into people's houses and legislate their private lives. If men want to be disgusting in the privacy of their own homes, it is nobody's concern and they will answer to God. And if parents want to choose the medical care for their child, it is also between them and God.

[Annie]

Our government should never just set by and watch a father and mother let their children die without medical treatment under situations like this family did.

According to our constitution each person born in this country has the right for pursuit of happiness, that 11 year old girl had her rights taken away from her and our government did not protect her right to pursuit of happiness but set by and watch her die of something that was treatable.

There are just to many evil people that will hide behind the Bible & false teachings to say that our government should stay out of it. Evil people don't need the government protecting them while they are sacrificing their children with false teachings from the Bible.

No father and mother should be left alone by our goverment to abuse their children, children deserve to have protection.

Jerry, what you are saying sounds good "on paper," but in reality we're talking shades of gray here. Others have already pointed out where this line of thinking could go--places we certainly don't want the gov't interfering. What it comes down to is this: who has ultimate responsibility for children--that is, who will answer to the Lord personally for their care and well-being? The answer to that question determines which side we should "err" on when there is tension like this (between freedom of religion/expression and child welfare). If the gov't steps into a situation like this, they are violating the Third Amendment (?) of the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence (from which you quoted) is not a legal document like the Constitution is. The language is ambiguous..."pursuit of happiness" could mean anything--like robbing a bank or killing someone else b/c they're not making me happy. That's why we have to go by the Constitution, a document which qualifies and makes practical the ideas put forth in the Declaration of Independence by establishing laws. Hence, gray areas and tensions like this emerge. That's the reason for our judicial system. The answer is not cut and dried here.

[JerryNumbers]

So you would just set back and watch evil people let their children die for no good reason?

Nothing sound good about that.

Seems to me some of you don't know just how evil some parents can be and how much their children can be made to suffer.

You know that those false teachers are not praying to God the Father of Jesus Christ. don't you?