3 ms·
>That sounds like it falls under government protection for child endangerment. On the other hand parents can legally refuse all kinds of life saving treatments
by throwaway_tech 7y ago
>That sounds like it falls under government protection for child endangerment.
On the other hand parents can legally refuse all kinds of life saving treatments for their children...for example refusal of blood transfusions on religious grounds occurs all the time.
- em-bee 7y agothat's certainly not legal everywhere. it doesn't appear to be the case in canada where courts have overruled parents on this, and it definitely is not the case in germany, where, if a childs life is at risk, doctors have not only the right, but the duty to override the parents, and do whatever they need to save the child.
- throwaway_tech 7y agoIts US based on Constitutional Right of Freedom of Religion. However, your points about the law in Canada/Germany where a doctor can force treatment gets to the original comment I replied to...which called such forced treatment by a government or doctor...tyranny.
- em-bee 7y agothe problem here is who gets to make the decision. people can make the decision for themselves. they just can't make that decision for others. it's a question of where to draw the line. people make different decisions when their own life is on the line vs others. if it's your own life and you still refuse help, fine. that's on you. but if it's your childs life then you don't get free reign. in new zealand it is illegal to hit your children, while some groups advocate such acts as appropriate punishment. more generally, in many countries it is illegal to allow your children to come to bodily harm. in germany, the view is that this trumps freedom of religion. that is, freedom of religion is limited to yourself, but does not allow you to make choices that can hurt others, even if they are your own children. there is no tyrrany in that.