Posted on 04/23/2013 10:36:56 AM PDT by OKRA2012
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Do you still believe that these parents were acting within their rights by not seeking medical attention for their child?
So they were acting within their God given rights, but the state limits those rights. The real question may be, what God given parental rights does the state have the constitutional authority to limit? And everyone has a different opinion on that one. I think most of us here think this pair crossed the line.
There’s that joke about the guy stranded on an island who is praying for God to rescue him.
He wakes up one morning to find a small raft had washed up on shore, but says “God will rescue me”. He continues to pray.
Then he finds a boat washed up on shore, same thing. He continues to pray.
Finally he sees a helicopter flying overhead but doesn’t signal it, saying “God will rescue me”.
Well he dies a few days later. When he gets to Heaven he asks God why he didn’t rescue him. God says “what do you mean? I sent you a raft, a boat and a helicopter”
They can rely on prayer alone for themselves. For children its child neglect.
God gave us doctors.
But I’m arguing philosophically as opposed to addressing this specific case.
Anyone withholding medical care from their children and letting them die, has no principles.
So philosophically its ok to let a child die rather then provide easily obtained medicine?
You don’t think that neglect is an action?
The whole discussion focuses on the foundational principle and question, “who’s kids are thery and who has been given responsibility to choose what is best for them?”.
And all that that implies.
There’s no doubt that God can heal miraculously, but sometimes His will may be that you go to a doctor. Relying on prayer alone and refusing to seek competent medical treatment is putting God to the test, something the Bible warns against.
My big error here is using this case to bring up philosophical issues, rather than address the particulars of this case. I think most of us agree that this couple crossed the line.
That’s right. And Jesus said that well people do not need a doctor, but only sick people need a doctor. He was using sickness to illustrate the reality of sin and the need for a Savior, but He was using the natural realm to illustrate the spiritual.
does one’s religious freedom exceed another person’s right to life and liberty?
But even then one could argue that the belief that ones belief that he has the right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor and if someone comes to take them away, one has the right to protect his property up to and including ending the life of the perp. It could be argued that in such a case one’s religious freedom exceeded another persons right to life and liberty to take your stuff.
I came here for the full half hour argument. ;-)
I’m sure you draw the line at abortion though.
If prayer worked my son would still be alive. I prayed so hard that I was literally crying, pleading in the hospital chapel. It was a Catholic hospital. God sometimes has other plans for our lives.
If my religion allows human sacrifice does it mean I can do it?
Not on my property. Not in my country. It is one “God given right to choose” that my country’s constitution usurps. And rightly so.
Yes. See my post 67.
I can be like a bull in a china closet in some of these threads. My apologies.
I bet the kids would have preferred to go to a doctor.
I want to thank you both - I think.
That’s the problem. Now I’m going to be (as my #1 Son tells me frequently) “overthinking” this for the rest of the day.
It’s one of those tricky problems where I can see both sides having a modicum of merit. I know that in my own life (regarding that son I just mentioned) we did a lot of *BOTH* praying and medical attention. Just recently, after many years of struggle, he finally received a pancreatic transplant which has been a life-altering experience for all of us.
But I still firmly believe that prayer had a lot to do with it - and his surgeon agrees.
Being a fan of old movies and old TV shows, I sometimes watch “Marshall Dillon” with James Arness. In those old shows from the 50’s and early 60’s one is struck by the “hands off” attitude that is taken when it came to legal intervention in people’s lives. The pervasive feeling was the castle doctrine expanded beyond merely defending from invasion, but covering all aspects of life on a person’s estate.
That said, I have to say that I shudder at the mental image of homelife conjured up by the photos of the “parents” at the top of this thread. I am forced to make myself intellectualize the situation by reminding myself that sin and imperfection is pervasive in all of us the only difference being in type and degree - and that degree being far more perceptible from a human perspective rather than a divine one.
I’m tempted to say at this juncture I would have to come down on the side of parental autonomy, difficult as it may be to stomach in cases such as this.
I wonder how many of the folks who would force medical treatment on these unwilling parents would at the same time condone the slaughter of those same children in the womb. (Not asserting mind you - just wondering.)
If freedom of religion is a free pass to do whatever someone wants to do, with no limits, then jihad is a protected practice too.
Not providing basic medical care to children is no different then making them a human sacrifice.
I would object to the govt forcing unwanted care on an adult in most cases.
” I defend this couple’s right to pursue healing of their children as they see fit.”
We have neglect laws for a reason. No child should suffer the neglect of a parent and die. They have the right to chose their healing but neglect is not tolerable. Pray, sure, but when that is not effective it is time to try something else, otherwise, that is neglect. Might as well just do nothing.
I’m not sure, but I don’t think ‘Gunsmoke’ was actually representative of real life back then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.