Faith Healers Sentenced to Jail Time

Fightin Words ^ | October 8, 2009 | Walter Scott Hudson

[Walter Scott Hudson]

This is not a “slippery slope” argument. This is a “line in the sand” argument. Government must not be allowed to stick its nose in the tent of parental affairs except in cases of extraordinary and demonstrable physical abuse and real neglect (starving or exposure). Erring needs to be on the side of parental and religious rights, because we either have them or we don’t. This case, believed to be the first of its kind in the history of the state, sets the precedent that government decides what medical treatment is appropriate rather than parents. It is a very small step from there to forced vaccination, mandatory doctor visits, forced drugging, etc. What’s stopping it if not a strict libertarian position on parental rights? If you are going to make the argument that the state has a vested interest in making medical decisions for individuals and their children, what principle bars that interest from expanding to every aspect of health care?

[TheBattman]

You can flush it all down the toilet with “health care reform” - as everyone will be forced in some way or another to accept “health care”.

[KarlInOhio]

Government must not be allowed to stick its nose in the tent of parental affairs except in cases of extraordinary and demonstrable physical abuse and real neglect (starving or exposure).

What if the child is a severe type 1 diabetic and needs insulin shots to survive? It is both a medical case which some claim to be of concern to the parents only and a case of real neglect equal to starvation and exposure. Whose rights take priority in that case? What if the parents are of a Christian sect that believes only in faith healing and thus insulin shots are against their religion? What if they aren't Christians but have just as much faith that all healing comes from Mother Earth?

I wish I had answers, but in general I believe that the child's right to live outweighs the parents' right to control. Take the kids away and give the insulin shots. In cases that aren't immediately life and death I'm far less certain.

[Seruzawa]

The number of children that are harmed by a few nutziod parents are already overwhemingly over shadowed by the thousands destroyed by “beneficial” govt intervention. The press just ignores the rampant evil abuses of the State while turning these very rare religious objection cases in sensationalist propaganda.

[Walter Scott Hudson]

It’s just so dangerous. I get wanting to save children’s lives. But what you are essentially saying is the parent is unfit because of their religious belief, in effect diagnosing their religious conviction as a mental disorder. There are many who would not hesitate to interpret it that way and run with the precedent to start defining different beliefs as disorders.