Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Save the Child First
What should be done when parents rely on religion instead of medicine to heal sick children?
I am glad Daniel Hauser is back home and will get the chemotherapy he needs to stay alive. And I am sure God is OK with it.
It must sound arrogant for me to say that I am sure that God is OK with a person receiving medical treatment. After all, who knows the heart and mind of God? Who, ultimately, knows what is most pleasing and acceptable to God, and what is not?
I base my statement, though, on my belief that God created us and blessed us to bless others. My reasoning goes like this: In the beginning, God created human beings, with the most outstanding difference between us and other creatures being our cognitive ability.
In other words, God created our brains to be able to figure things out, to augment, if you will, the already magnificent work of creation God began.
I read this morning how Imhotep, an Egyptian genius who is credited with building the pyramids, was also way ahead of everyone in the practice of medicine. I read how, thousands of years before Jesus the Christ was born, Imhotep performed "sophisticated medical procedures," including brain surgery.
It seems that the magnificent brain God created began at once to augment and improve upon this world, making it better for all who lived. I think God would want for things to be better, yes?
The more our brains question, the more we probe; the more we probe, the more answers we get which also lead to more questions. As a result of that, we have moved from primitive medical procedures which were once called progressive or sophisticated, to truly remarkable procedures which are saving thousands of lives and reducing suffering.
I think God likes that.
Now, as to what should be done to parents who refuse medical treatment for their children based on medical beliefs, I am not sure. I mean, I hate it when the religion of people keeps them from doing something which seem perfectly harmless, and which in fact seem downright necessary for the life and health of a child. I do not think God condones unnecessary suffering, especially if it is done in God's name.
But in this country, where freedom of religion is one of our rights, I do not know how that protected freedom plays into these scenarios. There seem to be two diametrically opposed values tussling with each other. On the one hand there is freedom of religion and on the other hand there is the medical profession which is pledged to save or at least improve lives.
They run parallel courses. In my mind, freedom of religion means just that: one can choose to be whatever religion one wants, with no interference from the government, but on the other hand, the water is muddied if a religious person goes to a doctor for a diagnosis and then refuses a treatment which the doctor is bound to give, based on the Hippocratic Oath he or she takes.
When the waters are muddied, then, does the parent dilute his or her right to religious autonomy?
I think so. One cannot have it both ways. There is responsibility and risk which comes with freedom, and if one is going to be stubbornly religious in this, a law-governed society, he or she has to be ready to suffer consequences, if it comes to that. The state absolutely has the right to prosecute or punish parents who try to straddle the fence.
As a parent, I cannot imagine just sitting by and letting my child die of an illness for which I know treatment is available. I would think that if I were ever in that type of situation, that my religion was wrong. God does not will suffering on people, especially when it doesn't have to be.
But know this: either way I decided, whether or not to let my child die or seek medical help, I would be prepared to accept the consequences. Religions are so wrong on so many issues. Given this situation, I would rather risk going to hell as I went against the tenets of my religion than let my child die.
But if I chose to let him or her die, then I'd expect and accept the state's pronouncement of punishment.
By
Susan K. Smith
|
May 27, 2009; 1:45 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: If Ruth Came to America |
Next: Use Every Available Means To Save A Life
Posted by: Jamila1 | May 30, 2009 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you,
Opposite pole perspective.
We discuss option/parental responsibilities for one child dying of "cancer"?...
I say , the true "Cancer" of our society is the thousands,of our children, who are polluted unnecessarily of presciption drugs.
Where is the cry for Justice from the "Society of Law" for them?
James David Whitall II
Posted by: James210 | May 29, 2009 8:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You are on my porch today Rev Sue! I have always been irritated by those who stand in the way of healing anyone in order to posture for their "religion" especially a parent. I heard a pastor say that there is no such thing as illegitimate children, but there seem to be a few illegitimate parents. Why should a child suffer because of an adult need to proof-text a point about their "religion?" People like Imhotep must have had a legion of lazy lab-challenged critics, but he did pave the way for modern medicine. Modern medicine is flawed, but has made living with health challenges doable.
I too believe God placed us here "very good" to make sure that others get along "very good." The minds and persons God uses to devote attention and intention to research are powerful reminders that we and our "religion" really don't know it all or have all the answers. I am glad the young lad is at home getting the treatment that he needs. I wonder what that "religious" parent is thinking now?
You have made an outstanding point about the consequences of "religious grandstanding" versus the well-being of innocent and deserving life. Thanks for stirring the pot again.
Ozzie Smith
Posted by: jr4111checkitout | May 29, 2009 8:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You bring up some very good points. I am of the belief that there are times when people truly believe they are doing the right thing in refusing medical treatment for their religious beliefs. HOWEVER, when in relationship with Christ it goes deeper than a belief, it becomes a relationship. Scripture is full of those who sought out Christ's help after they had literally exhausted all other human measures. But the key is they exhaustd all other human/medical measures. In the case with this particular mother, she and her husband had not exhausted all measures. God has given each of us a reasonably portion of good common sense, and that must be used, especially when we are speaking to the welfare of our children. The doctors said that the child's cancer was treatable. Instead of denying the child treatment, they should have been praying for the wisdom of the physicians and the clarity of knowledge for them to know what to do with same. At the very best, when you deny your child medical care you are guilty of "child endangerment."
Posted by: rev_angie | May 28, 2009 11:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Great column!
I think I really know what my Grandmother meant by six in one hand, 1/2 dozen in the other! Religious freedom on one hand and a parent's right to refuse medical care for a child on the other.
Tough one for sure, the comforting thing is this, God is the judge of us all, and we have to only answer to Him/Her, not each other, not doctors, not courts, not the law of the land.
At the end of the day, it will be just you and God.
Thank makes me feel better about so many things!
Posted by: tyson41 | May 28, 2009 8:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Thanks for this excellent article. I believe that a lot of what passes itself off as "religious" teaching has absolutely nothing to do with God, God's will or what God wants for those made in God's image.
Your artcle is right on point.