Fear of western medicine claims another victim

[ParanoiA]

I am not making the case that people should have treatment forced on them - we have not even got onto discussing the details of any system that might be used to prevent future cases such as Kara's. The reason I have never broached this is that I never intended to propose it; I think you misinterpreted my position. When I originally stated that the right to life trumps the right to religious belief' date=' I meant that the former would take precedence over the latter in a court of law.

 

I am making the case that a person's status as a parent does not necessarily mean that they have the right to impose negligent or harmful decisions on their child.[/quote']

 

You're correct, I did misinterpret your position. It is a good angle too, actually, since like you say, you're not forcing medical care but rather forcing an alternative to waiting on god. You are leaving them free to choose. The market may have little choices for them (from their perspective of course), but that's not the fault of government. When they choose Medicine, they do so like any patron.

 

At least, I think I'm reading you correctly here. If so, I like the distinction.

 

One thing I never mentioned, is that I don't see how it's impossible to prove prayer and god ineffective. It would seem rather easy to show prayer as appropriate as a rain dance. When that becomes an established reasonable fact, if it hasn't been already, then one can objectively dismiss prayer and then indict parents for child abuse / endangerment / neglect.

 

My main contention is resolved if this is the tack used and my apologies to anyone who argued this angle while I entirely missed it. Sorry.

 

What I want to know is whether Kara wanted medical treatment, or whether she wanted just prayer. I suspect an answer to that would be enough to determine the parents' guilt/innocence when it goes to court. My belief in personal liberty applies equally to underage people, even if some of it is shared with the parents.

 

Yeah, I want to know the same thing.

 

What do you think about the limited nature of condemning theological care rather than forcing medical care? The idea being that we don't force medical care, but rather prosecute for using a form of care that is proven worthless and ineffective? I'm visualizing a scientologist that reads Hubbard novels to his little one to treat their food poisoning. It would seem, at some point, we must be able to objectively conclude harm by negligence. I'm still chewing on it, but I don't see any fundamental issue with it on the surface.

Edited January 23, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Saryctos]

Sorry if this has been covered already in the thread(it sort of just popped into existence on page 4 today >_>, but I did go back to find the original post on the Neumanss).

 

With an undiagnosed, untreated condition, what level of medical knowledge was expected of the parents to know that something life threatening was going on? For all they know it could have been faking, or perhaps a form of temper tantrum. I'm not suggesting that's what they thought, but I'm more interested in how the line is drawn in respect to innate medical knowledge before a parent is considered negligent of a condition or illness?

[insane_alien]

Sorry if this has been covered already in the thread(it sort of just popped into existence on page 4 today >_>, but I did go back to find the original post on the Neumanss).

 

With an undiagnosed, untreated condition, what level of medical knowledge was expected of the parents to know that something life threatening was going on? For all they know it could have been faking, or perhaps a form of temper tantrum. I'm not suggesting that's what they thought, but I'm more interested in how the line is drawn in respect to innate medical knowledge before a parent is considered negligent of a condition or illness?

 

people getting close to going into a diabetic coma definitely look like they should be in a hospital. its not as if they are only feeling a bit sluggish.

[Sayonara]

So now medical personnel are more powerful than an omnipotent god?

By definition, an omnipotent god is more "powerful" than medical staff. However that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not one can reasonably expect that repeatedly asking god to cure a serious illness is likely to be as successful as the proper medical procedure, on a comparable number of occasions.

 

Or are you saying that it is unreasonable for people to believe in god, and are legally liable for such belief?

This is two separate questions.

One: are you saying that it is unreasonable for people to believe in god? No, of course not.

Two: are you saying people who believe in god are legally liable for such belief? Not exactly. They are legally liable for the consequences of any actions which they carry out which are based in that belief. Just as they are liable for the consequences of actions they carry out which are not based in that belief. You do not get to disavow responsibility for your actions by saying "I thought God would make it all better".

 

And the Neumanns did call for real help when they realized Kara was dying, but unfortunately it was too late by then.

As iNow said, "it's amazing how quickly people relinquish their faith when reality sets in". The key word there is reality.

 

The fact that the Neumanns finally called 911 will actually work against them in court because it demonstrates that when they actually confronted the reality of the situation, they knew precisely who they should turn to for help. So any appeal to the tenets of religious belief in their defence will be severely undermined.

 

But the aunt has even less right to decide about medical treatment (though I think she did the right thing calling for help regardless of the parent's wishes -- at that point Kara was truly unable to ask for help).

The aunt is not so much "deciding" about medical treatment as alerting other responsible parties when she perceives that the appropriate adults have not done so. If you were walking through a park and saw a child with a broken leg trapped under a bicycle, and the parents nearby taking no notice, you would phone for an ambulance. You would not wring your hands and hop from one foot to the other debating whether or not you had the right to decide about that child's medical treatment.

 

 

What I want to know is whether Kara wanted medical treatment, or whether she wanted just prayer. I suspect an answer to that would be enough to determine the parents' guilt/innocence when it goes to court. My belief in personal liberty applies equally to underage people, even if some of it is shared with the parents.

Kara's wishes will not be relevant in the courtroom because the parents had a legal responsibility to maintain the welfare of their child, and it is their negligence in shouldering that responsibility which they are being tried for. The culpability of the parents in Kara's death will be determined by whether or not they could have reasonably foreseen the consequences of praying for a solution instead of seeking medical assistance.

 

And for those of you wanting to override the parents' (and possibly child's) decision about medical treatment because religion makes them incapable of deciding for themselves, I must ask...

You keep mentioning the rights of the child to choose. However you are also defending the rights of the parents to choose for them. What about the scenarios where you can't have it both ways? What if the child wants to be cured of leukaemia by being catapulted into an Arctic crevasse? Does their own personal wish trump that of the parents? I don't think you have thought this through at all.

 

Giving someone a right always damages someone else's right. You argue as if you are just trying to protect everyone's rights, even though the content of your arguments invariably shows that this is not possible. I don't understand what your objective is.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My main contention is resolved if this is the tack used and my apologies to anyone who argued this angle while I entirely missed it. Sorry.

Reading back I am partly responsible anyway, because I earlier discussed the idea of "treatment after circumventing the parents" without pointing out that it was distinct from my original position.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

With an undiagnosed, untreated condition, what level of medical knowledge was expected of the parents to know that something life threatening was going on? For all they know it could have been faking, or perhaps a form of temper tantrum. I'm not suggesting that's what they thought, but I'm more interested in how the line is drawn in respect to innate medical knowledge before a parent is considered negligent of a condition or illness?

As insane_alien pointed out in the case of the Neumanns, they definitely would have realised that something was seriously wrong with their daughter.

 

Of course, not all illnesses present such obvious symptoms, and any prosecution for negligence would - like any other court case - be brought only in the light of the facts of the individual case. However if you are prosecuting someone for negligence because they prayed instead of seeking medical advice, then one has to assume that there was a certain level of recognition of a threat to life, otherwise they would not have been praying in the first place.

 

Although there may also be sects who pray to god to get rid of colds and grazes. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

[iNow]

But the aunt has even less right to decide about medical treatment

 

Irrelevant to the context in which I shared my comment. You wondered whether the parents "refused" to take the child to a doctor, or whether they simply "didn't" take the child to the doctor.

 

I responded that it seems they refused since the aunt had to call a sheriff to make it happen.

 

You then shared the 911 call, which further supported my assumption, since the aunt (in California, which is why she didn't go to the house personally) stated that she'd been trying to convince them to take the daughter to the doctor for over a week. This was (at least circumstantial) proof that the parents had flat out refused to seek medical treatment, as opposed to "just not knowing" it was necessary (i.e. they dismissed the numerous requests to do so from the childs aunt).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

One thing I never mentioned, is that I don't see how it's impossible to prove prayer and god ineffective.

You should check this out:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

 

 

 

It is quite possible to prove/disprove, and someone is looking for volunteers to take part in such an experiment:

 

http://sunnyskeptic.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/sunnys-great-amputee-experiment-volunteers/

 

Why Won’t God Heal Amputees has some great information and video that will tell you why god is imaginary. It’s pretty fun and there are good points.

 

In spite of all of this information, I was told today on the Minnesota Atheists forum that god actually does heal amputees, and thus I have offered up a challenge to that person and anyone else who agrees with him or her to take part in my Great Amputee Experiment.

 

If you are a christian, and would like to prove that god does in fact heal amputees, sign up here, and I’ll help you out with that. I will admit, I don’t have any practice cutting limbs off of people, but I’m sure I could figure something out to assist. Then I’ll pour you a cup of coffee, we’ll sit together, and just wait for them to grow back in, no worries.

 

 

That's sorta off topic, though. Sorry.

 

 

 

Yeah, I want to know the same thing [whether Kara wanted to be healed by prayer alone or seek help through other channels].

One could easily argue against and call into question Kara's ability to make this choice due to her living under the roof of parents of this nature. Earlier in the thread, youtube videos of child preachers with fiery brimstone-esque sermons were shared, and it's possible that Kara was similiarly indoctrinated and didn't know any better than them. Children are like lumps of clay to be molded, and we as humans have a powerful proclivity to simply do what our parents do and tell us. It's helped us survive, and teaching/learning are powerful in our species.

 

Of course, we'll never know how Kara wanted to be treated, just that she likely wanted to get better. She's dead now. Either god is hateful and merciless child hater who wanted to see the family suffer, or prayer is not a viable treatment method (okay, false dichotomy, but the second option is really the only one with any veracity anyway.)

Edited January 24, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

You should check this out:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

 

It is quite possible to prove/disprove' date=' and someone is looking for volunteers to take part in such an experiment:

 

http://sunnyskeptic.wordpress.com/20...nt-volunteers/[/quote']

 

That's hilarious. It would appear Kara's prayer didn't work since the ambiguity wasn't present.

[Mr Skeptic]

By definition, an omnipotent god is more "powerful" than medical staff. However that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not one can reasonably expect that repeatedly asking god to cure a serious illness is likely to be as successful as the proper medical procedure, on a comparable number of occasions.

 

I think that that is the teachings of their church.

 

This is two separate questions.

One: are you saying that it is unreasonable for people to believe in god? No, of course not.

Two: are you saying people who believe in god are legally liable for such belief? Not exactly. They are legally liable for the consequences of any actions which they carry out which are based in that belief. Just as they are liable for the consequences of actions they carry out which are not based in that belief. You do not get to disavow responsibility for your actions by saying "I thought God would make it all better".

 

What I am saying is that, if you grant that people can reasonably believe in a caring and omnipotent god that responds to prayer, they you must grant that it is reasonable to suppose that this god can provide better medical care than people. It then follows, what they did is what a "reasonable" person would do, so they should not be liable. Now if you want to say it is unreasonable for them to believe in such a god, and that they are legally liable for their belief in that god, then you have trouble that the constitution grants them rights to choose their own religion.

 

I know that you are trying to say that they are liable for their actions rather than their beliefs, but you must deny their religious beliefs if you are to consider what they did unreasonable. Therefore without denying their religious beliefs, they are not legally liable since what they did would be reasonable given their religious beliefs.

 

Finally, a law attempting to force diagnosis and treatment on people is unenforceable, and so a bad idea (what positive effect would it have?) even if it wasn't taking away a liberty.

 

As iNow said, "it's amazing how quickly people relinquish their faith when reality sets in". The key word there is reality.

 

The fact that the Neumanns finally called 911 will actually work against them in court because it demonstrates that when they actually confronted the reality of the situation, they knew precisely who they should turn to for help. So any appeal to the tenets of religious belief in their defence will be severely undermined.

 

Maybe, but it is little different than deciding that one "doctor" isn't doing a good job and switching doctors too late.

 

The aunt is not so much "deciding" about medical treatment as alerting other responsible parties when she perceives that the appropriate adults have not done so. If you were walking through a park and saw a child with a broken leg trapped under a bicycle, and the parents nearby taking no notice, you would phone for an ambulance. You would not wring your hands and hop from one foot to the other debating whether or not you had the right to decide about that child's medical treatment.

 

The context was that I was asking whether Kara wanted to go to the hospital and her parents were refusing her. I see a shared responsibility for both parents and the child for the decision, and the aunt's place is not to decide for them. However, I do think that she did the right thing in deciding that they were deluded and needed help. It seems the Neumanns realized they needed help shortly afterward, as they called while the police were en-route.

 

Kara's wishes will not be relevant in the courtroom because the parents had a legal responsibility to maintain the welfare of their child, and it is their negligence in shouldering that responsibility which they are being tried for. The culpability of the parents in Kara's death will be determined by whether or not they could have reasonably foreseen the consequences of praying for a solution instead of seeking medical assistance.

 

On this we might agree to disagree. I think the individual has some responsibility, whether or not they are underage. I think the court will care what Kara wanted, but because Kara was unconscious near the end, the full responsibility would then fall on the parents.

 

You keep mentioning the rights of the child to choose. However you are also defending the rights of the parents to choose for them. What about the scenarios where you can't have it both ways? What if the child wants to be cured of leukaemia by being catapulted into an Arctic crevasse? Does their own personal wish trump that of the parents? I don't think you have thought this through at all.

 

I think that the child has a right to the doctor's opinion, and the doctor can be the tie-breaker. I don't think there is an age where all the responsibility rests on the parents and the next second all the responsibility rests on the child.

 

Giving someone a right always damages someone else's right. You argue as if you are just trying to protect everyone's rights, even though the content of your arguments invariably shows that this is not possible. I don't understand what your objective is.

 

I'm saying that the child has rights, IMO whether the state grants the rights to the child or not. It matters a lot whether the parents were doing exactly what the child wanted or the opposite. Or at least it should.

[ParanoiA]

What I am saying is that' date=' if you grant that people can reasonably believe in a caring and omnipotent god [b']that responds to prayer[/b], they you must grant that it is reasonable to suppose that this god can provide better medical care than people. It then follows, what they did is what a "reasonable" person would do, so they should not be liable. Now if you want to say it is unreasonable for them to believe in such a god, and that they are legally liable for their belief in that god, then you have trouble that the constitution grants them rights to choose their own religion.

 

I know that you are trying to say that they are liable for their actions rather than their beliefs, but you must deny their religious beliefs if you are to consider what they did unreasonable. Therefore without denying their religious beliefs, they are not legally liable since what they did would be reasonable given their religious beliefs.

 

This would work if it weren't for the qualifier "that responds to prayer". This took much of the steam out of my argument as well. It is reasonable to believe in deity, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to believe that god responds to prayer. Too bad too, it was a beautiful argument.

 

On this we might agree to disagree. I think the individual has some responsibility, whether or not they are underage. I think the court will care what Kara wanted, but because Kara was unconscious near the end, the full responsibility would then fall on the parents.

 

I think that the child has a right to the doctor's opinion, and the doctor can be the tie-breaker. I don't think there is an age where all the responsibility rests on the parents and the next second all the responsibility rests on the child.

 

I'm saying that the child has rights, IMO whether the state grants the rights to the child or not. It matters a lot whether the parents were doing exactly what the child wanted or the opposite. Or at least it should.

 

I like this triad distribution of child rights approach you're advocating here. Would make an interesting thread of its own.

Edited January 24, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Sayonara]

I think that that is the teachings of their church.

Yes, it is. Their church teaches them that only prayer can heal. This is a patent falsehood and there must have been a point before they became members of the church when they did not hold this belief, much less allow it to override their common sense or knowledge of medical science.

 

It will be interesting to see if any other member of the church is called as a witness or co-defendant.

 

What I am saying is that, if you grant that people can reasonably believe in a caring and omnipotent god that responds to prayer, they you must grant that it is reasonable to suppose that this god can provide better medical care than people.

No. This is a false premise, and as you know a false premise gives a faulty argument.

 

If I grant that other people can believe in a god with particular abilities, the belief in those abilities is for them to hold - it does not extend to my belief.

 

It then follows, what they did is what a "reasonable" person would do, so they should not be liable.

It does not follow. I have only granted that they may choose to hold that belief if that is what they wish. I have not magically transmuted that belief into a rational and well-informed basis for making decisions that affect people's lives.

 

I know that you are trying to say that they are liable for their actions rather than their beliefs, but you must deny their religious beliefs if you are to consider what they did unreasonable.

This is not strictly true. They are perfectly entitled to hold those beliefs but that in itself does not grant them the privilege of disregarding the law, nor does it somehow undo all of the other working knowledge they have of the world which screams at them "medicine saves dozens of children every second".

 

Therefore without denying their religious beliefs, they are not legally liable since what they did would be reasonable given their religious beliefs.

You are equivocating reasonable acts with acts that are commensurate with their beliefs. The two are not the same thing.

 

Finally, a law attempting to force diagnosis and treatment on people is unenforceable, and so a bad idea (what positive effect would it have?) even if it wasn't taking away a liberty.

I thought we were done with this spurious notion of forcing diagnosis and treatment on people. But since you asked, such a law would save many people who would otherwise have died.

 

Maybe, but it is little different than deciding that one "doctor" isn't doing a good job and switching doctors too late.

I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance

 

The context was that I was asking whether Kara wanted to go to the hospital and her parents were refusing her. I see a shared responsibility for both parents and the child for the decision, and the aunt's place is not to decide for them.

Consider the situation. You have an 11 year old girl, 11, who has type-1 diabetes and does not know it. As far as she is concerned she just feels a bit poorly. Her parents maintain a religiously-centred household which eschews medicine in favour of prayer, and that is the environment she has been brought up in. If you had to pick the major contributing factor for her not asking to go to hospital, and we are just assuming she didn't, what would it be? Would it be that she didn't really mind dying on the floor while her parents came to their senses? I suspect not.

 

I could not disagree more regarding the aunt. Any adult should hold themselves responsible for summoning medical aid on behalf of a child when their guardians have so blatantly and visibly failed to do so themselves. It is 'the place' of all adults to safeguard the lives of children.

 

On this we might agree to disagree. I think the individual has some responsibility, whether or not they are underage.

And where do you stand on 'individuals' who have their ability to exercise that responsibility obstructed by the very people whose charge they are in? How does your opinion change in the case of 'individuals' who are slipping into a coma the nature of which severely impedes those faculties they require in order to summon help?

 

I think that the child has a right to the doctor's opinion, and the doctor can be the tie-breaker. I don't think there is an age where all the responsibility rests on the parents and the next second all the responsibility rests on the child.

Physically, there probably is no such line that can be drawn. But legally there is, and the Neumanns have fallen foul of it.

 

I'm saying that the child has rights, IMO whether the state grants the rights to the child or not. It matters a lot whether the parents were doing exactly what the child wanted or the opposite. Or at least it should.

As far as this case goes, it only matters in a visceral sense. Regardless of what Kara wanted her parents are legally responsible for her welfare.

[Mr Skeptic]

My point is that, to consider what the Neumanns did unreasonable, you must say both that their religious belief is unreasonable, and that they are legally liable for unreasonable religious belief. Not actions, but belief. While their actions (rather, inaction) is what they are "in trouble" for, it is calling their religious belief unreasonable which makes them legally liable for these actions. I don't think that will play very well with religious freedom.

 

Incidentally, would not a cure of Kara's condition have been considered, by medical personnel, a "miracle"? Says wiki:

As of 2009, there is no known cure for diabetes mellitus type 1 in modern clinical use.

 

I thought we were done with this spurious notion of forcing diagnosis and treatment on people. But since you asked, such a law would save many people who would otherwise have died.

 

Don't you mean, such a law would put a bunch of grieving parents in jail? How do you plan to enforce it so that it will be preventative? Force all children to visit a doctor weekly?

[Sayonara]

My point is that, to consider what the Neumanns did unreasonable, you must say both that their religious belief is unreasonable, and that they are legally liable for unreasonable religious belief. Not actions, but belief. While their actions (rather, inaction) is what they are "in trouble" for, it is calling their religious belief unreasonable which makes them legally liable for these actions. I don't think that will play very well with religious freedom.

Believing in something and acting on that belief are not the same thing, so the requirement you stipulate there is false.

 

Incidentally, would not a cure of Kara's condition have been considered, by medical personnel, a "miracle"? Says wiki:

As of 2009, there is no known cure for diabetes mellitus type 1 in modern clinical use.

If there is no cure and she somehow gets cured, then presumably there would be some medical staff who would call that miraculous. Although whether or not they mean a "miracle" in the sense of divine intervention is of course entirely up to their own individual imaginations.

 

I suspect that given the chance, Kara would take good old insulin over alleged magic.

 

Don't you mean, such a law would put a bunch of grieving parents in jail?

One would assume that given the necessary conditions for a trial to even be brought, much less concluded in favour of the prosecution, that the ones being jailed would be the ones who deserved it.

 

How do you plan to enforce it so that it will be preventative? Force all children to visit a doctor weekly?

I don't "plan" to do anything. This is your proposal, not mine. You raised it so that you could disagree with it.

[insane_alien]

My point is that, to consider what the Neumanns did unreasonable, you must say both that their religious belief is unreasonable, and that they are legally liable for unreasonable religious belief. Not actions, but belief. While their actions (rather, inaction) is what they are "in trouble" for, it is calling their religious belief unreasonable which makes them legally liable for these actions. I don't think that will play very well with religious freedom.

 

yes because they should be allowed to prevent medical attention getting to anyone because of their religious beliefs. perfect sense.

 

Incidentally, would not a cure of Kara's condition have been considered, by medical personnel, a "miracle"? Says wiki:

As of 2009, there is no known cure for diabetes mellitus type 1 in modern clinical use.

 

we aren't talking about a cure, she wasn't cured(except in a really morbid sense as she techinically no longer has diabetes) but we were talking about a treatment that would have allowed her to live a healthy and normal life. not die with parents refusing to get help until it was already far too late.

 

Don't you mean, such a law would put a bunch of grieving parents in jail? How do you plan to enforce it so that it will be preventative? Force all children to visit a doctor weekly?

 

grieving parents who LET THEIR DAUGHTER DIE! do not forget that part.

 

what you do to enforce it is if you get a report in from someone where they suspect a child/otherwise incapable person need medical attention and it is not being sought by people caring for them then you send out a doctor and if it is necessary, take them into care.

[ParanoiA]

My point is that, to consider what the Neumanns did unreasonable, you must say both that their religious belief is unreasonable, and that they are legally liable for unreasonable religious belief. Not actions, but belief. While their actions (rather, inaction) is what they are "in trouble" for, it is calling their religious belief unreasonable which makes them legally liable for these actions. I don't think that will play very well with religious freedom.

 

Believing in something and acting on that belief are not the same thing, so the requirement you stipulate there is false.

 

Sayo, I don't think you're really absorbing his point here. How can acting on a reasonable belief be bad? What makes the act "bad" if the belief is reasonable? Medicine is also reasonable, but you wouldn't say acting on that belief is wrong if my child died from a medical accident. Why? Because we believe medicine is effective. Our belief has justified the action.

 

You must say that medicine is not reasonable to believe in, in order to say that acting on that belief is therefore wrong.

 

 

 

The problem with his argument is not what you're pointing out. It appears to be the appendage "answers to prayer". It may be reasonable to believe in god, but it may not be reasonable to believe god acts on prayer. Therefore belief in god by itself does not justify the action, or inaction.

[insane_alien]

Sayo, I don't think you're really absorbing his point here. How can acting on a reasonable belief be bad? What makes the act "bad" if the belief is reasonable? Medicine is also reasonable, but you wouldn't say acting on that belief is wrong if my child died from a medical accident. Why? Because we believe medicine is effective. Our belief has justified the action.

 

there is no requirement for a belief to be reasonable for people to act upon it. believeing that medicine does not work despite the frankly astounding amount of evidence that it does IS unreasonable. just as the belief the sky yellow with luminous green polka dots would be considered unreasonable.

 

You must say that medicine is not reasonable to believe in, in order to say that acting on that belief is therefore wrong.

 

medicine does not require belief as there is plenty of evidence for it, it trancends the problem of belief entirely.

[ParanoiA]

there is no requirement for a belief to be reasonable for people to act upon it. believeing that medicine does not work despite the frankly astounding amount of evidence that it does IS unreasonable. just as the belief the sky yellow with luminous green polka dots would be considered unreasonable.

 

Yeah, I don't think you're getting what we're saying either, nothing you've stated here contradicts my argument.

 

Let's put it this way:

 

1) Belief in medicine = reasonable

2) Acting on belief in medicine = ethical

 

2 can only be ethically correct if 1 = reasonable. Belief determines if the action is bad.

 

1) Belief in god = reasonable

2) Acting on belief in god = unethical?? WTF?

 

How can 2 be ethically wrong if 1 = reasonable?

 

I think you have to declare that 1 = unreasonable in order to say that 2 is ethically wrong.

 

Otherwise, tell me how we conclude that acting on belief in medicine is ethically correct. From what I've experienced my entire life, it's our beliefs that determine when action is ethical or unethical.

 

medicine does not require belief as there is plenty of evidence for it, it trancends the problem of belief entirely.

 

So why would any belief be "reasonable" if it were not supported by evidence?

 

See, my issue is an inconsistency with belief and acting on belief. To say something is reasonable to believe in, but not reasonable to act on, is equivocal.

[Sayonara]

Sayo, I don't think you're really absorbing his point here. How can acting on a reasonable belief be bad? What makes the act "bad" if the belief is reasonable? Medicine is also reasonable, but you wouldn't say acting on that belief is wrong if my child died from a medical accident. Why? Because we believe medicine is effective. Our belief has justified the action.

You are quite right, I have missed a point here. But it is not the one you point out.

 

Stating that we acknowledge the right of a person to hold a belief does not make any statement about how reasonable we ourselves find that belief to be. Nor does it mean that actions carried out on the basis of that belief must be reasonable, just because the believer finds them to be so.

 

If this were in fact the case, there would be little legal recourse against people who - for example - find it religiously acceptable to throw stones at adulterers. Whereas in the real world of course, that belief is not a defence against charges of assault.

 

If Mr Skeptic wants to make the case that a person's reasonable belief extends to other people without that belief excusing any actions that come from it, then he must actually make the case.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

1) Belief in god = reasonable

2) Acting on belief in god = unethical?? WTF?

 

How can 2 be ethically wrong if 1 = reasonable?

 

I think you have to declare that 1 = unreasonable in order to say that 2 is ethically wrong.

You have made a mistake in your reasoning.

 

The Neumanns did not "act on their belief in god" when they allowed Kara to die. They acted on their belief that only prayer can heal and that medicine has no effect, which is patently wrong.

[ParanoiA]

You are quite right' date=' I have missed a point here. But it is not the one you point out.

 

Stating that we acknowledge the right of a person to hold a belief does not make any statement about how reasonable we ourselves find that belief to be. Nor does it mean that actions carried out on the basis of that belief must be reasonable, just because the believer finds them to be so.[/quote']

 

No, you just moved the goal posts. I made no mention of "right of a person to hold a belief". We're not talking about the right to believe something. Remember, this was all started by Skeptic asking you if belief in god was reasonable, not if granting the right to believe in god was reasonable. See your post #79 for your answer. I think that was what he was building his argument off of.

 

Sketpic's verbiage was specifically about whether or not that belief was reasonable. Entirely different. I am free to believe the earth is flat. No question. But that's not a reasonable belief.

 

Now that we have that straightened out, let's go back...

 

Is belief in god a reasonable belief or not? If it's reasonable, then it follows that acting on reason is ethically sound. If it's not reasonable, then acting on it is not ethical.

 

You have made a mistake in your reasoning.

 

The Neumanns did not "act on their belief in god" when they allowed Kara to die. They acted on their belief that only prayer can heal and that medicine has no effect' date=' which is patently wrong.

[/quote']

 

Actually I haven't because I did not mention the Neumann's in that context. I specifically used the phrase "acting on belief in god" to distinguish this argument from the main subject. Not terribly clear I guess, but that was my intent.

 

And the reason why is because of Skeptic's flaw in including god answers prayers. For it to work, one must say that it is reasonable to believe that god answers prayers, not just believing in god. Believing in god, by itself, says nothing about whether or not Kara was expected to receive healing powers from him.

[Mr Skeptic]

And the reason why is because of Skeptic's flaw in including god answers prayers. For it to work, one must say that it is reasonable to believe that god answers prayers, not just believing in god. Believing in god, by itself, says nothing about whether or not Kara was expected to receive healing powers from him.

 

I'd like to point out that the freedom of religion granted by the constitution, is not limited to "reasonable" religious beliefs, nor to religious beliefs wherein the religion has no effect on the real world. This might not be reasonable, but it is the law. I think that the Neumanns have a legal right to believe in a god that will do what is best for them (sorry for the change, this is what I should have said rather than healing or prayer, since it is closer to christian teachings), even if it is not reasonable to believe in such a god.

 

Given that the Neumanns believed in such a god and also that their church taught that prayer was better than medicine, what they did (or rather didn't do) is reasonable given that belief. To prosecute them, you have to call their belief wrong and unreasonable, and I don't believe that is allowed given freedom of religion. If all three agreed with faith over medicine, that is their choice IMO. If Kara were to disagree, then the parents would be forcing their religious beliefs on her in a fatal way, a big no-no.

 

Yet another thought: action vs inaction. I see what Sayo is saying about the dangers of allowing religious beliefs to justify actions. But the Neumanns are being prosecuted for their inaction, not their actions. I think that it is very dangerous to make people liable for their inaction.

[ParanoiA]

I'd like to point out that the freedom of religion granted by the constitution, is not limited to "reasonable" religious beliefs, nor to religious beliefs wherein the religion has no effect on the real world. This might not be reasonable, but it is the law. I think that the Neumanns have a legal right to believe in a god that will do what is best for them (sorry for the change, this is what I should have said rather than healing or prayer, since it is closer to christian teachings), even if it is not reasonable to believe in such a god.

 

No worries on the change (I actually wondered if maybe "belief in god" would imply the dynamics that go with it anyway, like healing through prayer, or doing what's best...)

 

In terms of the constitution though, the 'reasonable' qualifier is codified in actions - such as it not being reasonable to kill innocent people on the street. I'm free to believe that they should die, but I'm not free to execute it. In that case, belief does not justify action.

 

So, I don't dispute the constitution grants everyone freedom of belief of the reasonable or unreasonable, but I dispute that it grants us freedom to act on unreasonable beliefs that cause harm to others.

 

The Neumann's have a legal right to believe that god will do what's best for them, absolutely. I believe that's unreasonable, because I think they must prove such a thing as god since they're making the charge of his existence. Therefore, I don't think they have a right to act or inact on that unreasonable belief when it causes harm to others. When they can provide evidence of god's efficacy, like medicine has, then it would no longer be unreasonable and they can let all of their kids die if they want to.

 

And if the constitution doesn't agree, then we should make it agree.

 

Yet another thought: action vs inaction. I see what Sayo is saying about the dangers of allowing religious beliefs to justify actions. But the Neumanns are being prosecuted for their inaction, not their actions. I think that it is very dangerous to make people liable for their inaction.

 

I agree to a point. I would think that would throw out most negligence laws since they're generally about not doing something we believe is required by the parent or else equates to abuse. I absolutely appreciate your apprehension, but there's too much legitimacy to negligence charges. Is it really ok to sit on the porch and watch your 3 year old walk into the street and get smashed by the trash truck?

[Sayonara]

No, you just moved the goal posts. I made no mention of "right of a person to hold a belief". We're not talking about the right to believe something. Remember, this was all started by Skeptic asking you if belief in god was reasonable, not if granting the right to believe in god was reasonable. See your post #79 for your answer. I think that was what he was building his argument off of.

 

Sketpic's verbiage was specifically about whether or not that belief was reasonable. Entirely different. I am free to believe the earth is flat. No question. But that's not a reasonable belief.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh. That explains things. I am less inclined to think that Mr Skeptic is quite quite mad now.

 

I generally agree with much of the last few posts from the both of you.

[Mr Skeptic]

In terms of the constitution though, the 'reasonable' qualifier is codified in actions - such as it not being reasonable to kill innocent people on the street. I'm free to believe that they should die, but I'm not free to execute it. In that case, belief does not justify action.

 

So, I don't dispute the constitution grants everyone freedom of belief of the reasonable or unreasonable, but I dispute that it grants us freedom to act on unreasonable beliefs that cause harm to others.

 

The Neumann's have a legal right to believe that god will do what's best for them, absolutely. I believe that's unreasonable, because I think they must prove such a thing as god since they're making the charge of his existence. Therefore, I don't think they have a right to act or inact on that unreasonable belief when it causes harm to others. When they can provide evidence of god's efficacy, like medicine has, then it would no longer be unreasonable and they can let all of their kids die if they want to.

 

What about people who's religious belief causes harm to themselves? Am I not free to refuse medical attention even when it would save my life? It would be different if the Neumanns found someone in a coma, said a prayer, and moved on. But this was with their own daughter, for whom they are expected to make some decisions. If all three of them agreed that prayer was preferable to medicine, I think prosecuting any of them for acting on that belief with respect to themselves violates their religious rights, in exactly the same way that forcing medical treatment on one person who is religiously opposed to medicine would violate their rights.

 

And if the constitution doesn't agree, then we should make it agree.

 

True but in the meantime we still need to do what it says. While we're at it we could change it so it says when life starts and what an "arm" is.

 

I agree to a point. I would think that would throw out most negligence laws since they're generally about not doing something we believe is required by the parent or else equates to abuse. I absolutely appreciate your apprehension, but there's too much legitimacy to negligence charges. Is it really ok to sit on the porch and watch your 3 year old walk into the street and get smashed by the trash truck?

 

But how much can we outlaw inaction? What if someone's life was in danger, but you would have to risk your life to save them? What if you fail to donate a few dollars, which would save the life of some poor person in Africa (clean water, vaccines, etc)? What if you fail to work hard enough so you would have enough money to donate to save the life of several poor people in Africa? What if you fail to choose medicine as your profession so that you can save peoples' lives?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ahhhhhhhhhhh. That explains things. I am less inclined to think that Mr Skeptic is quite quite mad now.

 

Its much easier to understand someone if you work from the assumption that they are not mad. Of course on the internet you can never count on that

[Sayonara]

Its much easier to understand someone if you work from the assumption that they are not mad. Of course on the internet you can never count on that

Thanks - I have been looking for a new signature!

[Mr Skeptic]

Thanks - I have been looking for a new signature!

 

You're welcome I learned that in a semantics course. The prof basically said that if something is ambiguous or ridiculous, you go with the interpretation that doesn't require the person you are talking to to be crazy. Eg someone who says they "hung up their goat" probably meant 'coat'.

 

My dad also said a similar thing to my mom: "Honey, if I say something ambiguous and one of the interpretations makes you angry, I meant the other one."

[iNow]

Jerry Coyne commented on this issue recently:

 

 

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/another-child-killed-by-religion/

It’s chilling: this report in the January 20 New York Times details the death of an 11-year-old girl, Kara Neumann, who died from diabetes because her parents refused medical care, believing that prayer would heal her. They are going on trial next week.

 

But what is even more chilling are these two facts (verbatim from the article):

1. About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it.
   
   
    
   
   
   and
   
   
    
   
   
    
   
   
2. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes. (See Wendell’s comment below for an explanation of how this works in Tennessee.)
   
   

I’m not sure exactly what “forms of protection” are involved here, but

any

protection is too much. So it’s ok to kill your kid by withholding treatment, but not through more intentional abuse? One child dead is too many; three hundred is a national tragedy. (The Times describes several other horrifying cases.) This would not have happened in a secular society, for there would be no reason to withhold medical care.

[JohnB]

About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds,

Do you think this number is more or less than the number of children killed because some psychologist believed the child was "safe" if returned to their parents?

 

I mean, if you're going after people for acting on "wrong" beliefs, why not go the whole hog?