State interference in religious freedoms, or responible secular intervention?

[LazyGun]

This case in Belfast brought to mind some similar cases in recent years, one where the mother of a child diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma went on the run with him in an effort to avoid the recommended chemotherapy, and the other where a couple in Oregon USA who believed in faith healing allowed their 9 hour old son to die rather than seek medical aid.

The question is, i think, should parents have the right to harm or even kill their children in the name of their religion? What is their motivation?


http://www.belfasttel...-battle-16120495.html

http://newsflavor.com...to-have-chemotherapy/

http://www.newsytype....ing-couple-sentenced/

For myself, the question is a no-brainer, and court intervention is absolutely warranted, but i suspect some of the posters here might argue differently.Personally, I just cannot understand what is going through the minds of these parents...........

[FredPuli43]

Seems to be a literal, if erroneous, interpretation of holy books coupled with the belief that only God should decide when we die. It follows that we should not do anything to prevent death; that fatalism is odd, since God could decide to end a life at any time, whatever doctors did to try to defer or prevent the death. Declaring that this or that procedure alone is not to be allowed is only another way of expressing this belief.

[jomifl]

It is an extension of the nasty side of religion. Brainwashing and indoctrinating children into the parents religion is bad enough in my opinion. A parent not allowing a child to live because of that parents beliefs defies comprehension. I made a passing reference on another thread to people with 'vegetarian' dogs, not that the dogs had any choice in the matter. I think that this stems from a subconcious doubt in the believers mind which they try to resolve by acquiring fellow believers to endorse their beliefs.

[ludwig]

They believe they're doing the right thing for their children, so in a sense you've got to admire that.

On the minus side, they're tw&ts.

I'm all for people believing what they want and living their lives accordingly, as long as no-one else is affected. In these cases the children are the hapless victims of their parents strange beliefs, so I'd agree that intervention is warranted to protect the innocent.

[naomi24]

I don’t know what’s going on in these parents’ minds either, but no, they have no right whatsoever to harm or kill their children. Society is morally bound to protect those who cannot protect themselves – and so it should.