Refusing Medical Treatments

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robertsxxx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robertsxxx

Guest
I hope this is the right section:

**What are your opinions on people refusing medical treatments on the basis of religious, ideological beliefs? **
Examples: Jehovah Witnesses – no blood transfusions; Christian Scientists – healing through prayer, etc over drugs/surgery; AIDS deniers – posted a thread here ; people that refuse vaccination (or to vaccinate their kids).

What about when these people extend their “practices” onto their children. Lately in the media, at least I’ve been seeing about how kids are dying because their parents do not give them basic drugs.

**Should these people be forced to receive treatments? What about their children? **
Provide a rationale for your answer.
If the common answer is: yes for kids, this is still a violation of their religious (in many cases) practices, which, according to their ideas, perhaps might get them & their offspring a ticket to an eternal hot spot, & so on, if not followed accordingly.

**Are there any people here that practice refusing medical treatments due to certain beliefs? ** It would be interesting to hear their perspectives.
 
There is nothing in the bible that forbids medical treatment. As far as the JW’s and blood transfusions they use Acts 15, I believe it is, that forbids the drinking of blood. But this verse is taken out of contex because the bible also says that everything (food) created by God is good and nothing is forbidden. In contex, Acts 15 was to appease some Jews that were having heartburn about the practices of the Gentiles. So the council agreed to ask the Gentiles in certain areas to refrain from those practices. To continue, God gave us intelligence to do good or evil. The field of medicine is certainly good and has saved many lives and improved the lot of not a few. Some say that by using medicine you are denying the healing power of God. That is pure nonsense. By using medicine along with a healthy dose of prayer you are using everything in the arsenal provided to you by God. Shame on those who as parents deny medical aid to their children. Everybody is different and will have varying results with the same drug but that is not the fault of the drug. One type of antibiotic may kill a person but will save others. The smallpox and polio vaccines killed a few but saved millions of lives. Science is now working on mapping a persons genetic makeup to see in advance what drugs will work and which ones would be harmful. But before that comes into wide spread use there will always be a slight danger (less than 1%). A small risk compared to endangering a childs life to death from whooping cough, smallpox or tetanus or a host of others.
 
So… you didn’t really answer about what should be done to those people or their children
 
Should these people be forced to receive treatments? What about their children?

In the case of communicable diseases, yes, the children should be forced to receive vaccinations for their sake and all whom they come in contact with. In cases where the quality of life or life itself of the child may be in danger, yes again. Example, insulin injections.

Adults are a different matter as they are of legal age but there can always be exceptions.
 
Robertsxxx said:
I hope this is the right section:

**What are your opinions on people refusing medical treatments on the basis of religious, ideological beliefs? **
Examples: Jehovah Witnesses – no blood transfusions; Christian Scientists – healing through prayer, etc over drugs/surgery; AIDS deniers – posted a thread here ; people that refuse vaccination (or to vaccinate their kids).
Click to expand...

JWs misapply Leviticus 17.11, which is the verse behind their refusal.** That is where Fundamentalism gets one.**​

What about when these people extend their “practices” onto their children. Lately in the media, at least I’ve been seeing about how kids are dying because their parents do not give them basic drugs.

**Should these people be forced to receive treatments? What about their children? **
Provide a rationale for your answer.
If the common answer is: yes for kids, this is still a violation of their religious (in many cases) practices, which, according to their ideas, perhaps might get them & their offspring a ticket to an eternal hot spot, & so on, if not followed accordingly.
Click to expand...

**Parents do not have the right to deny treatment to their children. The problems come in applying this principle. :cool: **​

 
Re parents refusing medical treatment for their children. How long before this is applied to force parents to consent to abortions, birth control etc for their children? Where is the line on what can be forced and what cannot be? And who gets to draw the line?
 
Joe_Kelley said:
Re parents refusing medical treatment for their children. How long before this is applied to force parents to consent to abortions, birth control etc for their children? Where is the line on what can be forced and what cannot be? And who gets to draw the line?
Click to expand...

**Two words: Moral Theology. **​

**Issues can be thorny & complex, as this is, without being insoluble - it doesn’t follow that all are well-equipped to talk about such matters; most people are not, in the nature of the case. That’s why moral theology & those skilled in it are necessary. “Yes we can” may be applicable to some things - but not to theology; any more than it is to the sciences. Annoying as that may be to anyone who imagines that anyone is competent to hold forth on anything; a nice idea, but not realistic. Slogans & instant answers that can be applied to all cases are not delicate enough for as delicate & difficult a subject as moral theology - anymore than a spanner is useful for surgery. **

**That’s why the moral theology of Germain Grisez , instead of being a mere notebook, extends to three very long & very solid volumes. **
 
When I encounter people who, because of their particular religious affiliation, refuse some types of medical treatment, I point out 1 Timothy 5:23 “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities”. It seems to me that Paul is advising Timothy to treat his medical issues with the medicine available at that time.

As to what to be done to parents who refuse any and all medical reasons… there isn’t a cut and dried answer. I sense that many people get hung up on the need for a black and white answer that covers all of the bases. This situation (or crisis as I see, especially with children who are severely sickened or even die as a result of illnesses that have been irradicated years ago with the use of vaccines), I think, needs to be looked at and taken care of on a case by case basis. Because once there are specific laws dealing with one aspect of forcing parents to treat children, then, well, I am frightened by how those very laws to treat those children can be perverted and used for evil. As another poster pointed out before me, where does it stop? Does it stop with forced birth control? Maybe even forced sterilization?

God Bless!
Ericka
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

**Two words: Moral Theology. **​

**Issues can be thorny & complex, as this is, without being insoluble - it doesn’t follow that all are well-equipped to talk about such matters; most people are not, in the nature of the case. That’s why moral theology & those skilled in it are necessary. “Yes we can” may be applicable to some things - but not to theology; any more than it is to the sciences. Annoying as that may be to anyone who imagines that anyone is competent to hold forth on anything; a nice idea, but not realistic. Slogans & instant answers that can be applied to all cases are not delicate enough for as delicate & difficult a subject as moral theology - anymore than a spanner is useful for surgery. **

**That’s why the moral theology of Germain Grisez , instead of being a mere notebook, extends to three very long & very solid volumes. **
Click to expand...
How much attention has the US government paid to moral theology lately? :rolleyes:
 
Because once there are specific laws dealing with one aspect of forcing parents to treat children, then, well, I am frightened by how those very laws to treat those children can be perverted and used for evil. As another poster pointed out before me, where does it stop? Does it stop with forced birth control? Maybe even forced sterilization?
Click to expand...
How about circumcision?
How much attention has the US government paid to moral theology lately?
Click to expand...
How can there be moral theology, if there are many different religions in he US & all want to practise what THEY think is right?
 
Robertsxxx said:
I hope this is the right section:

**What are your opinions on people refusing medical treatments on the basis of religious, ideological beliefs? **
Examples: Jehovah Witnesses – no blood transfusions; Christian Scientists – healing through prayer, etc over drugs/surgery; AIDS deniers – posted a thread here ; people that refuse vaccination (or to vaccinate their kids).

What about when these people extend their “practices” onto their children. Lately in the media, at least I’ve been seeing about how kids are dying because their parents do not give them basic drugs.

**Should these people be forced to receive treatments? What about their children? **
Provide a rationale for your answer.
If the common answer is: yes for kids, this is still a violation of their religious (in many cases) practices, which, according to their ideas, perhaps might get them & their offspring a ticket to an eternal hot spot, & so on, if not followed accordingly.

I’m sure there are people who look at Catholics’ refusal to use IVF, abortion, stem cells from fetuses, etc, and think that we should avail ourselves of the latest med. tech.

If someone is making a decision for himself, I have no problem with it, no matter what his reasons are. His health is his own business.

If someone is making the decision for a kid, well, I don’t know.

I know that I don’t want anyone telling me that I have to let my daughter have an abortion or get stem cell treatment because a doctor recommends it.

It’s a question of protecting children vs parental rights, I guess.

I have no answer, but look forward to reading the rest of the posts.

**Are there any people here that practice refusing medical treatments due to certain beliefs? ** It would be interesting to hear their perspectives.
Click to expand...
 
If someone is making a decision for himself, I have no problem with it, no matter what his reasons are. His health is his own business.
Click to expand...
**So if somebody is attempting suicide, we should ignore?

What if somebody wants an assisted suicide or similar, is that ok as well since it’s “someone making a decision for himself”? **
 
This is a really tough question.

No matter how wrong I believe they are, refusing blood transfusions is an article of faith for the JWs. To force someone to violate an article of faith is to practice religious discrimination, even if that article is unhealthy.

But what about the children? I believe most states have legal processes in place where the state can take temporary custody of a child in need of blood. But even then… I know there have been faithful JW kids who have been deeply traumatized by being forced to accept blood. In that way, it’s like rape.

I’m afraid I don’t have an answer; just more questions.

If we assist the state in taking parental rights away because their faith disagrees with our definition of the common good, haven’t we just given permission for the state to take away our right to act in agreement with our faith, if the state decrees it is against the common good?

Are we setting ourselves up to be forced to refer to abortion clinics, to be forced to sell contraceptives?

A JW that dies because they refused blood knows that they die for their faith. So did our Catholic saint who died because she refused treatment that would save her but kill the child she carried. Should both be forced to receive life-saving treatment?

It’s a dilemma. God bless us all.

Ruthie
 
I think people should refuse vaccines which have been cultured on the bodies of aborted babies.
 
Robertsxxx said:
**So if somebody is attempting suicide, we should ignore?

What if somebody wants an assisted suicide or similar, is that ok as well since it’s “someone making a decision for himself”? **
Click to expand...
Wow! Stay away from cliff edges. 😉

Choosing not to have radiation and choosing to kill yourself are two different things.

You may think that radiation is a good idea and that no one has the right to refuse - ever - but others have different ideas about handling their healthcare.

Killing yourself isn’t “handling” anything.

Assisted suicide. That just makes 2 people wrong.

FWIW, giving patients high doses of certain pain meds makes them more comfortable, and it also speeds the dying process. Do you consider that assisted suicide? How far are you going to leap off that cliff?

I’m glad that things are the way they are, and that you can’t tell me what treatments I have to accept. People are ecstatic about what they think embryonic stem cell treatments might be able to do in the future. I have one of the diseases that they say might be treated with ESTC. Are you going to force me to take that treatment?

If ESCT becomes common, it will be cheaper to treat the disease with ESCT than the life-long treatment (which they say can reach a million) that is the only thing available today. I hope no one thinks that I should submit to ESCT because it’s cheaper and better.

Who gets to decide which treatments should be mandatory?

What if those decisions are something that you won’t accept?

Who, if not the individual, should have the right to decide what happens to his body?

Communicable diseases are another story. IMO, you don’t have the right to refuse treatment and knowingly spread disease.
 
Robertsxxx said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
There are several different kinds of vaccines. Some vaccines (flu shots, for example) are not actually live viruses, the micro-organisms are killed before they are put in your body.

In other vaccines, often the more permanent ones (chicken pox, rubella, measles, &c.), a living virus is actually injected. Obviously the actual dangerous virus is not injected, but rather an attenuated form of it. Attenuation is causing a virus or bacteria to become non-virulent, or at any rate less virulent, by means of mutation, while yet keeping it alive.

Attenuation is accomplished by introducing the virus to a foreign host in the hope there is a mutation that causes the virus to become less virulent.

The “foreign host” through which the virus has passed in order to become attenuated varies from vaccine to vaccine. Sometimes it is an animal, sometimes it is just tissue culture, and sometimes it is the body of an aborted baby.
 
Ethan_Enoch said:
There are several different kinds of vaccines. Some vaccines (flu shots, for example) are not actually live viruses, the micro-organisms are killed before they are put in your body.

In other vaccines, often the more permanent ones (chicken pox, rubella, measles, &c.), a living virus is actually injected. Obviously the actual dangerous virus is not injected, but rather an attenuated form of it. Attenuation is causing a virus or bacteria to become non-virulent, or at any rate less virulent, by means of mutation, while yet keeping it alive.

Attenuation is accomplished by introducing the virus to a foreign host in the hope there is a mutation that causes the virus to become less virulent.

The “foreign host” through which the virus has passed in order to become attenuated varies from vaccine to vaccine. Sometimes it is an animal, sometimes it is just tissue culture, and sometimes it is the body of an aborted baby.
Click to expand...
Alright, thanks for the explanation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top