A Right to Die for Children?

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
If, in my opinion, a parent's declared religious belief endangers a child I go to court, waking up a judge in the middle of the night if necessary. Fortunately, I don't practice in Idaho. If the judge agrees (and I've never had them disagree) the court appoints a guardian, and we proceed from there. I've done it many times. The most common situation is a child of Jehovah's Witness parents who needs a blood transfusion, but I've encountered others.
 

JimmyB27

Hoopy frood
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
925
Age
42
Location
In the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable e
Website
destinydeceived.wordpress.com
However, in cases where a baby is terminally ill and it's just a matter of watching them suffer until they die, I think euthanasia is an ethical choice. I wouldn't be okay with euthanizing a child just because they were disabled or sick, but if they're in agony and have a slim to none chance of survival? I don't see why not to allow that.
This is pretty much the point I was trying to make. I seriously doubt anyone is going to allow parents to euthanise their children because they look a bit peaky - even if they claim the aforementioned religious reasons.

And religious beliefs aren't whims. Plus they are specifically protected in The Constitution at federal as well as state levels.
Not exactly whims, no, but they have about as much to back them up.

If I start a new religion tomorrow that I say requires me to do things that would usually be illegal, I wouldn't automatically be granted first amendment immunity.
I still don't really understand why this is. Why should one unsupportable belief system get special treatment over another, just because it's old?
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,781
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Nothing to apologize for there. But your previous post made no such allowance.

Now I'm sorry, but inadvertant bigotry is still bigotry. And that's what I saw in your previous post. And if that's what you're apologizing for, I eagerly accept.

Sorry--whim was a poor choice of word. I was trying to differentiate between people really believe something as opposed to merely using religion (established or brand new) to prove a point or as an excuse to do something they wanted to do anyway, but I didn't make that clear.

I honestly hope no one would use their child in this fashion, but I'm afraid there are some disturbed people in the world.

I don't envy judges these cases, regardless of what the laws of their respective lands are.

I still don't really understand why this is. Why should one unsupportable belief system get special treatment over another, just because it's old?

In some cases, yes, they are. I'm guessing that it's harder to prove that one's belief is sincere and internally consistent if it's not part of a well-established belief system.
 
Last edited:

DancingMaenid

New kid...seven years ago!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
460
Location
United States
This is pretty much the point I was trying to make. I seriously doubt anyone is going to allow parents to euthanise their children because they look a bit peaky - even if they claim the aforementioned religious reasons.

Oh, I agree. What I was trying to get at is that even in justified cases, there are still special ethical considerations when the person being euthanized isn't an adult. Things are just simpler, IMO, when it's a baby and not an older child.

For example, say it's terminally ill a six-year-old who wants to be euthanized, and the parents support it. I think that should be allowed, too, but I think in that case more care has to be taken to evaluate the child and make sure it's what they want.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,781
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Oh, I agree. What I was trying to get at is that even in justified cases, there are still special ethical considerations when the person being euthanized isn't an adult. Things are just simpler, IMO, when it's a baby and not an older child.

I'd agree with you personally, but I'm not sure everyone would.

I'm thinking this situation is an example of the sort of thing that really squicks some people out about euthanasia of humans.

Equally loving, reasonable people can have very different reactions to the situation, with some wanting to do anything to extend their terminally ill baby's life by even a few days, while others will want to spare the child even a minute's more suffering when there's no hope of recovery.

I can understand both extremes, and all the gradations in between, and I honestly don't know where I'd come down for sure were this my baby. But the fate of the child (and how much life versus how much suffering it will have) lies in the hands of someone else who is not that child. There's no way around this, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
 
Last edited:

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
I still don't really understand why this is. Why should one unsupportable belief system get special treatment over another, just because it's old?

Because of the First Amendment. There's a pair of clauses that render the government (largely) hand-tied in dictating religious beliefs.

The government cannot act in such a way as to establish any kind of accepted or "allowed" religion. And it is specifically prohibited from enjoining the free exercise of religion.

It's not *just* because a belief is old that it gains protection. But it does help.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
Can we leave that "property" crap out of this, please? It's a real issue in some contexts. Not this one.

And religious beliefs aren't whims. Plus they are specifically protected in The Constitution at federal as well as state levels.
It's not believing specific things that's the problem, it's taking certain actions.