Fear of western medicine claims another victim

[Pangloss]

There's a law and they're being prosecuted. So I'm guessing you're thinking more along the lines of prevention?

 

There's always more that can be done in that area. But as long as we operate on the basis of parents serving the dual (and sometimes conflicting) roles of primary caregiver and primary watchdog, there will always be this potential.

[Sayonara]

There's a law and they're being prosecuted. So I'm guessing you're thinking more along the lines of prevention?

Any useful form of prevention would pretty much require people like the Neumanns to understand that legal protection of life trumps legal protection of religious freedom every time.

[ParanoiA]

Any useful form of prevention would pretty much require people like the Neumanns to understand that legal protection of life trumps legal protection of religious freedom every time.

 

Legal protection of life is at question since by forcing medical treatment you're also forcing violation of the body. You're forcing them to let you cut them, stick them, inject drugs in them, strip them and observe them naked - we put people in jail for those things.

 

Oh, I realize you're going to object and claim your cutting and sticking and violations are not criminal nor malevolent - and I'm sure there are some serial killers that would claim the same thing. As long as medical treatment carries the risk of death and injury, then forcing someone to go through it is absolutely immoral - no question.

[Royston]

As long as medical treatment carries the risk of death and injury, then forcing someone to go through it is absolutely immoral - no question.

 

Doesn't the patient still have a say whether they recieve treatment though (I know this applies to adults...despite a lot of legal ramifications), or doesn't this apply to children ? In any case, I don't follow your comparisons, the motivation of a serial killer, (somebody who is mentally ill) whatever they argue, is not comparable to the motivation of a surgeon or doctor.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Snail

[ParanoiA]

Doesn't the patient still have a say whether they recieve treatment though, or doesn't this apply to children ? In any case, I don't follow your comparisons, the motivation of a serial killer, (somebody who is mentally ill) whatever they argue, is not comparable to the motivation of a surgeon or doctor.

 

Well, for this discussion, I believe we're talking about forcing parents to get medical treatment for their kids, despite their religious (or non-religious) objections.

 

My comparison with a murderer, is that from the point of view of a common citizen, you're forcing them to let another human being cut them, inject drugs into them, objectify and humiliate them. Remember, we don't have issues with all that, we're quite comfortable giving perfect strangers complete power over our lives - and death. They also make mistakes, remember. Again, you're forcing the common citizen to risk their lives - you've taken away their freedom to weigh risk.

 

It's not fair to presume our judgment over theirs. How about we just force you to lob off your foot, rather than treat it? I know you think Athlete's foot is no big deal, but we're doctors and we say you don't need that foot. And since you're 16, we're just going to do it. And your mom and dad, sorry, they can't help you either.

 

To them, that's what forced medical treatment looks like. It's a basic right that the rest of us take for granted and don't have aversions to, so it's automatic.

 

Doctors are not gods, and they're not perfect, so while I enthusiastically concede to their judgement unreservedly, I cannot empower them with law in this way to force others to do the same. Absolutely immoral and way beyond the authority of government.

 

I know we read this stuff on parents and shake our heads. If we're not careful, we'll start reading stuff on doctors killing patients in the process of going against parental wishes. How's that going to compliment freedom and democracy better than our current parental primacy?

 

Remember, there's a price for freedom. You can't stop every act of stupidity and maintain a free state.

[D H]

Well, of course many of these people being religiots

My, that's mighty tolerant of you.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the action of any parent indoctrinating their child into any religion treated as child abuse

My, that's mighty tolerant of you.

 

Be careful what you wish for. I'll ignore that this wish is highly unconstitutional. Suppose your wish comes to pass. If this doesn't result in a coup, the very next election will involve a coalition of Christians, Muslims, and Jews who will oust every legislator who voted for this atrocity. A new law will be passed in lieu of yours that treats failure to indoctrinate children into some religion as child abuse.

 

Since we've opened a full can of worms

Yeah. 'Nuff said. I'll go on to slightly less controversial grounds.

 

 

Some voices of reason:

I think telling parents they cannot have a say in their children's medication is a dangerous and ill-advised proposition. And I don't think there would be as many objections to it here if "religion" weren't a factor in this case.

 

Exactly. What if your doctor recommended injecting your child with hydrogen peroxide as an alternative treatment for multiple sclerosis?

 

Not that I'll ever use it myself, but how do alternative medicines such as naturopathy, homeopathy, Ayurveda, acupuncture, herbal therapy, Reiku, ... differ conceptually from religious-motivated treatments? The alternative medicine industry is a very strange admixture of left and right, encompassing new age mysticism to Christian fundamentalism. The US Institute of Medicine undertook a study on alternative medicine. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11182 One of the first hurdles: Defining what constitutes alternative medicine. Medicine that has not been adequately tested? Medicine that has been shown to be ineffective? A significant portion of conventional medicines are either ineffective or inadequately tested, and some alternative medicines have been tested and some even apparently work. They found distinguishing between conventional and alternative a rather difficult task.

 

 

 

Finally,

There's a law and they're being prosecuted. So I'm guessing you're thinking more along the lines of prevention?

 

Remember, there's a price for freedom. You can't stop every act of stupidity and maintain a free state.

 

More voices of reason. Kudos to both of you.

[iNow]

Yeah, my intolerance toward religion is something that I know is not one of my better traits, but it is strong in me all the same. I accept the negative mark it brings to my otherwise positive abilities and characteristics.

 

Either way, alternative medicine is a bit of a falsehood, for semantic reasons alone. The moment the treatment is found to work, it is no longer "alternative" medicine, it's just "medicine."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You know what, though? Tolerance is not some postive thing in and of itself. We're not tolerant of people who believe any other random silly things, nor do we show any degree whatsoever of respect for those beliefs, so why should religion be treated ANY differently? What has it done to deserve its exemption from critique and ridicule?

 

This is especially so when kids with diabetes are dying b/c their parents thought that prayer would be enough to save them, when insulin was available just a few short steps down the street. Yes, you're god damned right I'm intolerant of that. I'm also intolerant of trying to treat cancer with Oreos. It's criminally negligent. Sure, natural selection will eventually weed these people out and I should be happy with that, but not when kids are dying. I have to draw that line, and that motivates my passion like no other.

 

I am not necessarily arguing for or against any laws. I don't really think my stance should be codified, and I know the constitution protects free practice. That does not mean that I have to be tolerant of stupidity, or respectful of people who are letting their kids (who can't care for themselves) die due to childish belief systems.

 

 

Are you tolerant of virgins being raped before they are killed since Sharia law says it's unlawful to kill a virgin? Are you tolerant when people fire bomb the house of doctors who perform abortions? Are you tolerant when people teach their children that it's mandated by god kill homosexuals? Of course you're not, so don't act like I'm somehow morally inferior for the strength with which I stand on this issue.

 

Tolerance is not in and of itself a good thing, and the subject of my intolerance is rightly deserving of it.

Edited January 22, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive post/s merged.

[D H]

Either way, alternative medicine is a bit of a falsehood, for semantic reasons alone. The moment the treatment is found to work, it is no longer "alternative" medicine, it's just "medicine."

Not true. I'll use chiropractic as an example. You won't find chiropractic techniques used in conventional practice because the underlying teachings are pretty much pseudoscience. However, chiropractic may well be effective for some ailments, particularly lower back pain. While conventional medicine doesn't use chiropractic techniques, some general practitioners will refer a patient complaining of recurring back pains to go to a chiropractor. Is chiropractic, with all its pre-scientific incantations, "medicine"?

 

Alternative medicine occasionally does becomes "medicine". Some natural remedies do work. After identifying the active ingredient, scientifically explaining why it works, and testing it to death the chemical that makes a natural remedy work will make its way onto pharmacists' shelves and into the Physician's Desk Reference. OTOH, an alternative medicine that cannot be explained scientifically and is not markedly more effective than conventional medicines does not become "medicine". It remains alternative medicine.

 

Yeah, my intolerance toward religion is something that I know is not one of my better traits, but it is strong in me all the same. I accept the negative mark it brings to my otherwise positive abilities and characteristics.

 

You know what, though? Tolerance is not some postive thing in and of itself. We're not tolerant of people who believe any other random silly things, nor do we show any degree whatsoever of respect for those beliefs, so why should religion be treated ANY differently? What has it done to deserve its exemption from critique and ridicule?

To begin with, it has allowed our non-religious beliefs to exist. Try expressing your markedly anti-religious sentiments in a less tolerant society. You should be thankful for the First Amendment rights. Things could have gone down a different path. The Pilgrims didn't come to America to establish a country replete with religious freedom. They came to America to set up a society that had zero religious freedom, something they weren't free to do in England.

 

 

Are you tolerant of virgins being raped before they are killed since Sharia law says it's unlawful to kill a virgin?

Straw man.

Are you tolerant when people fire bomb the house of doctors who perform abortions?

Another straw man.

Are you tolerant when people teach their children that it's mandated by god kill homosexuals?

And yet another straw man. That's three strikes, iNow.

[Mr Skeptic]

Remember, there's a price for freedom. You can't stop every act of stupidity and maintain a free state.

 

I'd agree with that. Parents in general try to do what is best for their kid. I'd say that it shouldn't be only the parents making the decision -- their child should have the right to side with the doctors, especially for life-threatening conditions. But if both parent and patient choose to go without treatment, I don't think we should force treatment on them.

 

I remember doing a calculation, that you could save a life in Africa for about $5.00, based on vaccination success rate, percentage of people the disease kills, and cost. And these are people who want help, and of course includes those precious children.

[iNow]

DH - A strawman is when someone misrepresents your true position, then argues against that misrepresentation instead of your actual position, and finally claims victory, despite never having addressed your actual argument. I did not do that. I asked a few questions to suggest that you too were intolerant of things like I am. Please note the difference.

 

As per the difference between alternative medicines and those with demonstrable efficacy, I ask that you please take some time to view the presentation I supplied in post #2 of this thread, as it really exemplifies the foundation of my stance on that particular topic.

[D H]

DH - A strawman is when someone misrepresents your true position, then argues against that misrepresentation instead of your actual position, and finally claims victory, despite never having addressed your actual argument. I did not do that.

The heck you didn't. You implicitly equated tolerating the rape of virgins before killing them, firebombing birth control clinics, and teaching violence toward homosexuals with religious tolerance. Enthymemes are a rather nasty form of straw man argument.

 

As per the difference between alternative medicines and those with demonstrable efficacy, I ask that you please take some time to view the presentation I supplied in post #2 of this thread, as it really exemplifies the foundation of my stance on that particular topic.

Can't/won't do. I don't do videos. For one thing, my speakers are toast. For another, even my speakers weren't toast, I view videos as an utter waste of my time. My reading speed is many times faster than speaking speed. Have anything in writing?

[Royston]

Hope nobody minds if I sway slightly off topic...

 

Remember, there's a price for freedom. You can't stop every act of stupidity and maintain a free state.

 

Nicely put, I certainly don't disagree with you in principle (i.e including the rest of your post), but I'm still not sure if forced medical treatment is strictly true, or stating it as such, is glossing over the details. I'm not sure of the situation in the US but have a look at this article...

 

Article from the Telegraph...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564450/Children-to-overrule-parents-on-GP-treatment.html

 

So refusal for treatment is based on mental maturity rather than age in this instance. What I'm having problems with reconciling, is if the patient is not adequate to make the decision e.g I don't want the treatment because needles scare me, then surely it's the obligation of the health service to ensure that patient is treated, based on the fact they're inadequate to make that decision. I don't think freedom is applicable in this context. Note, within this context it's solely the child making the decision, not the parents.

 

Wouldn't it be less moral to let someone die, over an argument whether the treatment is forced or not, if that person is unable to make that decision for treatment ?

 

Here's an example of the reverse, despite the decision was clearly swayed by the situation itself, ultimately the child made the decision, and would have received treatment, had she so wished...

 

Article from the Guardian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/12/health-child-protection#send-share

 

Sorry for going slightly off topic, I just found the statement of 'forced medical treatment', pretty interesting.

[iNow]

The heck you didn't. You implicitly equated tolerating the rape of virgins before killing them, firebombing birth control clinics, and teaching violence toward homosexuals with religious tolerance. Enthymemes are a rather nasty form of straw man argument.

I say again. I was not suggesting that toleration of religious practice is the same as tolerating rape, fire bombing, or teaching violence. I was suggesting that there are a great many religiously motivated acts which you would not tolerate, so it was unfair of you to suggest I was somehow morally inferior for my own intolerance of other religiously motivated acts.

 

 

Can't/won't do. I don't do videos. For one thing, my speakers are toast. For another, even my speakers weren't toast, I view videos as an utter waste of my time. My reading speed is many times faster than speaking speed. Have anything in writing?

Well, to be fair, it really sets the tone for my position here, so if you want to understand my position, you would need to watch the video. However, maybe this will be a start to assist in finding again that common ground which seems (at present) to be lost:

 

 

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264223

This interview contains a lot of very important information, regardless of how one feels about CAM [Complimentary and Alternative Medicine]. Professor Baum starts by explaining the difference between complementary and alternative medicine. For him, complementary medicine is everything that improves the quality of life of a patient undergoing medical treatments, possibly for life-threatening diseases such as breast cancer. Alternative medicine, on the other hand, seeks to replace scientific medicine. Says Michael Baum:

I'm obviously against alternative medicine, because to me, alternative, by definition, means it does not work. If it works, we would use it.

 

As an example of that, he cites a few medicines of herbal origin that are being used for cancer therapy such as vinca alkaloids form periwinkle and taxanes from yew trees.

 

<...>

 

Later on, they talk about what Baum politely calls "post-modern relativism," the idea that everything is but an opinion. I have an opinion, but you have read some other books and you have therefore another opinion and both opinions are equally valid. As a result, we have now alternative medicine, alternative teaching methods, alternative legal advocates, "but," he says "we haven't yet come up with an alternative Boeing 747 pilot".

 

He links this to the MMR vaccine crisis where people are being told by alternologists and are convinced that there is a conspiracy of the medical establishment and the government that, in order to protect themselves, they were willing to sacrifice countless children to autism. "This is simply a lie," he says, and he adds that even among his closest friends, there are people who are not immunizing their children and that these children are now unprotected as a result.

 

<...>

 

Dawkins asks Baum if he can cite a few examples of complementary/alternative therapies for which he does have time. Baum cites art therapy as an example of complementary therapy in which he has invested quite some time. He also cites acupuncture, which is bonkers as an alternative complementary medicine belief system but which does have some value as a complementary therapy, for example in pain management. Still, his belief doesn't seem to go very far.

 

He goes on giving an example of the importance of clinical trials and tells a story about how he was chairing a meeting in Florence, Italy on the role of CAM in the treatment of breast cancer. He was in serious pain at the time, so much so that he was limping. An acupuncturist offered him a treatment. The next day, he was completely without pain, and even visited the Uffizi gallery for a few hours. The interesting part is that she offered the treatment, but that he didn't accept it. Had he accepted it, the result would have been so spectacular that he would have become a convert. A nice illustration of the importance of controlled trials.

 

Baum is also telling Dawkins about how many alternologists always go back to some "golden age" of medicine, and argues that there is no such thing as a golden age of medicine in the past, that the golden age is now, and that it will become more golden if only science can continue. He gives the example of Victorian England where life expectancy was not much more than about 40 years and where 30% of the children died shortly after birth whereas now most children survive, and that we now have life expectancies of close to 80 years, leading us to work longer than in the past.

 

Dawkins and Baum talk about the importance of science education. Baum tells Dawkins that we have a scientifically illiterate population, a scientifically illiterate house of commons and, worse, that they actually take pride into their scientific illiteracy. Scientists have an important task here, he says, and children should be taught the scientific method from early secondary school in order to have a scientifically literate population. <

more at the link

>

[ParanoiA]

You know what, though? Tolerance is not some postive thing in and of itself. We're not tolerant of people who believe any other random silly things, nor do we show any degree whatsoever of respect for those beliefs, so why should religion be treated ANY differently? What has it done to deserve its exemption from critique and ridicule?

 

I don't know that it deserves exemption from critique and ridicule. Only that it doesn't persuade the indoctrinated, but rather empowers their them-against-the-world romantic illusion. Essentially, it's the same reason why we don't think that war in Iraq will reduce terrorism. Agitating your opponent, and thus validating their propoganda, isn't always the best option.

 

The main reason why I believe religion has earned the tolerance it demands though, is simply because of the numbers.

 

If half the country thought the earth was flat and the other half knew better but flat earthers couldn't be convinced then you'd eventually have to face the reality that half of you disagrees with the other half - and neither of you are the tie breaking authority. They're just as convinced it's flat as you are that it's round (yeah, yeah, don't get picky with me now, it's freaking round!).

 

So you either accept their stupidity and entertain it in law - and thereby gain their productive output in all of its forms in your society. Or, you refuse to let it go, and fight wars - or at the very least you become two smaller societies, both the poorer for their refusal to accept each other.

 

I think we tolerate religion and religion tolerates us because we are more alike than we are different. We need each other more than we don't. We gain by accepting each other's stupidities, moreso than if we didn't.

[Mr Skeptic]

Wouldn't it be less moral to let someone die, over an argument whether the treatment is forced or not, if that person is unable to make that decision for treatment ?

 

In the example you gave where someone might refuse treatment because they are afraid of needles, it would seem that they want treatment but not the execution of the treatment. Maybe they could be offered anesthesia so they don't need to worry about needles? I don't think I'm comfortable with arbitrarily deciding someone is incapable of deciding their own treatment.

 

Let me bring up something else. We have a right to life, but does that mean we have a responsibility to live? Generally it is commended when someone gives their life for refusing to compromise their morality. I guess that doesn't apply when we disagree with the cause they are dying for? What if someone feels that the quality of their life will be so low they do not want to live, such as someone who will live in constant pain?

 

A final thought. Medicine cannot "save" your life, only prolong it. They might prolong your life for 100 more years, but you are still going to die. Many times people have multiple conditions, and medicine can "save" their life for another 3 years, yet this is considered similar to "saving" someone's life for several decades. So I think that it is better to talk about medicine "prolonging" someone's life than "saving" it, especially when they are not expected to live long afterward.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not sure of the situation in the US but have a look at this article...

 

Article from the Telegraph...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...treatment.html

 

So refusal for treatment is based on mental maturity rather than age in this instance.

 

And I like that. Children aren't the delicate' date=' incapacitated boobs, we tend to treat them in these discussions. They can be damn smart and way ahead of the adults.

 

Wouldn't it be less moral to let someone die, over an argument whether the treatment is forced or not, if that person is unable to make that decision for treatment ?

 

Yes, it would be less moral. I agree with you on this. My take on forced medical treatment is based on the government overriding parental consent to treat a child - that's what I'm against.

 

Here's an example of the reverse, despite the decision was clearly swayed by the situation itself, ultimately the child made the decision, and would have received treatment, had she so wished...

 

What a gut-wrenching story. I'm really shocked. I'm not sure if I'm impressed or disappointed.

 

I think this definitely highlights the flaw in using age to determine capacity for informed choice. Clearly this girl made an impression that I doubt most 13 year olds could match. Mental maturity definitely seems the better option.

 

Interesting Snail. I hadn't really thought much about children's say in these matters. Would be interesting to see a kid demand treatment in the face of his parents objections. I'm sure it's happened, and I'm surprised there hasn't been an episode of "House" on it.

 

Let me bring up something else. We have a right to life, but does that mean we have a responsibility[/i'] to live?

 

Nice post, and no, I don't think you do.

[Royston]

In the example you gave where someone might refuse treatment because they are afraid of needles, it would seem that they want treatment but not the execution of the treatment. Maybe they could be offered anesthesia so they don't need to worry about needles? I don't think I'm comfortable with arbitrarily deciding someone is incapable of deciding their own treatment.

 

My point was, that the reason for not receiving treatment was a trivial one, and outweighed by the necessity to live, which a child might not see i.e looking ahead.

 

These are two separate arguments...

 

Let me bring up something else. We have a right to life, but does that mean we have a responsibility to live?

 

I would hope we have a responsibility to live, for all we know we're unique, which throws up a lot of philosophical arguments, which aren't applicable to the discussion.

 

What if someone feels that the quality of their life will be so low they do not want to live, such as someone who will live in constant pain?

 

Then such situations are thrown into court, like I said, forced medical treatment seems to be a misnomer. There are plenty of channels a patient can go down, if their decision is not duly considered, whether the court are qualified to ultimately make that decision is another matter.

 

A final thought. Medicine cannot "save" your life, only prolong it. They might prolong your life for 100 more years, but you are still going to die. Many times people have multiple conditions, and medicine can "save" their life for another 3 years, yet this is considered similar to "saving" someone's life for several decades. So I think that it is better to talk about medicine "prolonging" someone's life than "saving" it, especially when they are not expected to live long afterward.

 

Well that entirely depends on the situation, life is obviously finite.

[D H]

A final thought. Medicine cannot "save" your life, only prolong it.

Well, in some cases, medicine can drastically shorten your life. Medical errors kill from 44000 to 98000 Americans each year .

[Royston]

Interesting Snail. I hadn't really thought much about children's say in these matters. Would be interesting to see a kid demand treatment in the face of his parents objections. I'm sure it's happened, and I'm surprised there hasn't been an episode of "House" on it.

 

It would make for a good episode.

 

There are several times I objected to certain treatment, that outweighed my parents decision, but it was still based on the agreement of the doctor. Which is an important point, sometimes the child really does know best, especially when bolstered by the knowledge of the doctor treating them.

 

My take on forced medical treatment is based on the government overriding parental consent to treat a child - that's what I'm against.

 

So, if I had the incapacity to make that choice, who should make it, the doctors, or my parents ?

[iNow]

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. I went into a coma when I was 10 years old, and I know just how sick and aweful one can feel when their blood glucose levels climb due to lack of insulin. I look at this situation and think, "What if that were me? What if my parents were so far down the rabbit hole of religion that they didn't treat me?" That's part of what fans the flames of my passion on this one. I've lived an amazing life during the two decades since then, and I hope to have many more decades in front of me.

 

None of it would have been possible if my parents had relied on the "power" of prayer to save me.

[Royston]

Well, in some cases, medicine can drastically shorten your life. Medical errors kill from 44000 to 98000 Americans each year .

 

That's clearly tangent from Mr Skeptics point though.

[ParanoiA]

Then such situations are thrown into court, like I said, forced[/i'] medical treatment seems to be a misnomer. There are plenty of channels a patient can go down, if their decision is not duly considered, whether the court are qualified to ultimately make that decision is another matter.

 

Well it's only a misnomer if it doesn't become action. Maybe I'm the odd one out here, but I only characterized "forced medical treatment" as a proposed preventative measure where we, the state, force the parents to get medical treatment for their children over depending on god to do it. Presumably, the children are too young to make their own decision, and the parents are overridden by the state.

 

In that scenario, that's forced medical treatment.

 

At the very least, that's forcing the parents to give up their right to weigh the risk of medical error, as D H provided numbers for above, not to mention the level of personal violation required for many medical treatments. Again, it's just common for us, it's not common for all and their capacity for fear and trauma obligate us to respect that.

[Mokele]

Something to think on for those favoring parental rights over government intervention: what about child abuse? Including religiously motivated child abuse?

 

Clearly the rights of parents have limits, otherwise it would be legal to kill your kid at any time for any reason. The question is where those limits lie, and at what point do the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the parents.

 

I'd also like the point out that just because the situation is complex doesn't mean it's legally intractable. Judges and DAs have broad lattitude in deciding what to prosecute and try, and generally are not going to waste time, money and effort on prosecuting folks who clearly did not display egregious neglect and willful subservience of their child's life to their own views.

 

Mokele

[D H]

Something to think on for those favoring parental rights over government intervention: what about child abuse? Including religiously motivated child abuse?

Child abuse is child abuse. Parental rights are not absolute. There is no reason to invoke thought crimes (religiously-motivated child abuse is not inherently worse than other forms of child abuse) nor is there reason to invoke special privileges (religiously-motivated child abuse is not protected by the Constitution).

 

 

I'd also like the point out that just because the situation is complex doesn't mean it's legally intractable.

I agree. Parents who withhold easily attainable (i.e., not overly expensive) and universally recognized (i.e., crackpots don't count) medical treatments for whatever reason are guilty of child abuse. No reason to invoke thought crimes. They harmed their children in a way that any "reasonable person" would recognize as harmful.

[Sayonara]

Legal protection of life is at question since by forcing medical treatment you're also forcing violation of the body. You're forcing them to let you cut them, stick them, inject drugs in them, strip them and observe them naked - we put people in jail for those things.

 

I should have been more specific. My apologies.

 

I meant that the preservation of their child's life trumps the Neumanns' right to withhold treatment from her due to their own religious beliefs. Or at least it should.

 

In the case where a person capable of legally consenting to medical treatment declines the same due to their own religious beliefs, in spite of the known outcome being their own death, then it is a different matter entirely.