[Brenda]

Although I do not agree with the Jehova's Witnesses refusal of (non flowing) blood (meaning, that if it was given directly, without the bloodflow being stopped, it would have been okay, we just cannot accomodate that), I wouldn't say religion is a psychosis.
With that, you say religion is an illness, and thus treatable. I don't think someones beliefs are an illness, or needing treatment. It is a choice, and everybody can make their own choices.
What does surprise me however, is that when you choose to believe in neo-nazism, your kids are taken away from you, and when you believe that this treatment doesn't suit your religion, it's ok.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Well there have been a lot of good comments on this posted and to be honest I haven't really formed a solid opinion on the matter as of yet. I've experienced having someone close to me go through chemotherapy and am quite familiar with pain and suffering that has to be endured both physically and mentally by the patient and I won't hesitate in saying that it is something that is very hard to watch someone close to you go through. Also, being the father of two children I can't really say I'd ever want to see either one of my kids go through something like that, but if it meant saving their lives and there were no alternatives, ya I probably would do it.

One thing I question here though is the fact that we will let children die due to their parents beliefs but at the same time we have a case where children are being taken away from their parents because the parents were teaching them about white supremacy. No it's not exactly the same but it's based on the same principles is it not? The parents right to impose their beliefs onto their children even if it's to the detriment of the children's well being, be mental or physical. We will take children away from parents for teaching them to hate but not for refusing treatment to children which will result in the child dying? I know a lot of people will say that they are two different thing because one has to do with religion but what about if a parent just honestly doesn't want to put their kid into treatment because they don't believe in it on personal grounds? Then what? What if a parents religion teaches hate? Does that then make it all right to do so? Where do we draw the line? I think it's a pertinent argument.

Some did raise the point about the girl being 16, I think that is also a good point that needs to be looked at and taken into consideration. Should the same rules apply to someone under 12 who doesn't understand the repercussions of the decisions being made on their behalf as they do to a 16 year old? Personally on that issue I think it would be wise for the courts to decide as that decision should be made on a case by case basis based on the persons maturity level when they are over the age of 12 but again it should be taken onto consideration.

[Proculation]

Brenda Brenda:

Although I do not agree with the Jehova's Witnesses refusal of (non flowing) blood (meaning, that if it was given directly, without the bloodflow being stopped, it would have been okay, we just cannot accomodate that), I wouldn't say religion is a psychosis.
With that, you say religion is an illness, and thus treatable. I don't think someones beliefs are an illness, or needing treatment. It is a choice, and everybody can make their own choices.
What does surprise me however, is that when you choose to believe in neo-nazism, your kids are taken away from you, and when you believe that this treatment doesn't suit your religion, it's ok.

Well, hate is not protected by the charter of rights while freedom of religion is.

[Brenda]

Proculation Proculation:

Brenda Brenda:

Although I do not agree with the Jehova's Witnesses refusal of (non flowing) blood (meaning, that if it was given directly, without the bloodflow being stopped, it would have been okay, we just cannot accomodate that), I wouldn't say religion is a psychosis.
With that, you say religion is an illness, and thus treatable. I don't think someones beliefs are an illness, or needing treatment. It is a choice, and everybody can make their own choices.
What does surprise me however, is that when you choose to believe in neo-nazism, your kids are taken away from you, and when you believe that this treatment doesn't suit your religion, it's ok.

Well, hate is not protected by the charter of rights while freedom of religion is.

Hate? When you teach your kids white people are the best, or you teach your kids our god is the best, wth is the difference?
At least when you teach your kids white people are the best, you ain't killing them...
(and before you say that when you teach your kids that, you are teaching them to kill the rest, THAT is not what I am saying...)

[dino_bobba_renno]

Proculation Proculation:

Brenda Brenda:

Although I do not agree with the Jehova's Witnesses refusal of (non flowing) blood (meaning, that if it was given directly, without the bloodflow being stopped, it would have been okay, we just cannot accomodate that), I wouldn't say religion is a psychosis.
With that, you say religion is an illness, and thus treatable. I don't think someones beliefs are an illness, or needing treatment. It is a choice, and everybody can make their own choices.
What does surprise me however, is that when you choose to believe in neo-nazism, your kids are taken away from you, and when you believe that this treatment doesn't suit your religion, it's ok.

Well, hate is not protected by the charter of rights while freedom of religion is.

So what happens when someones religion teaches hate? Or for that matter what happens when someones religion contravenes Canadian law such as in Bountiful? Strange that we'll take kids away from white supremacists but not protect them from pedophiles or to save their lives.

[Proculation]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Proculation Proculation:

Brenda Brenda:

Although I do not agree with the Jehova's Witnesses refusal of (non flowing) blood (meaning, that if it was given directly, without the bloodflow being stopped, it would have been okay, we just cannot accomodate that), I wouldn't say religion is a psychosis.
With that, you say religion is an illness, and thus treatable. I don't think someones beliefs are an illness, or needing treatment. It is a choice, and everybody can make their own choices.
What does surprise me however, is that when you choose to believe in neo-nazism, your kids are taken away from you, and when you believe that this treatment doesn't suit your religion, it's ok.

Well, hate is not protected by the charter of rights while freedom of religion is.

So what happens when someones religion teaches hate? Or for that matter what happens when someones religion contravenes Canadian law such as in Bountiful? Strange that we'll take kids away from white supremacists but not pedophiles or to save their lives.

Usually, it accepted. Just look at the kirpan that is accepted in school.

[ridenrain]

Maybe it's because I'm gun mad but the Kirpan really hasn't been shown to be the murder weapon of choice. If that's because the Sihk kids are better diciplined or they know that crappy littke movie prop is a terrible weapon is open to debate.
What bothers me is thre's little difference between death by inaction and death by action. If one would doom their child by with-holding medical treatment to their child to die because of religious belief, is that really different between murdering their child because of their religious belief? Isn't the end result the same thing?

[kenmore]

Hmmmm not quite there ... psychosis is a mental illness, auditory hallucinations no matter the source is a symptom of that illness. Religion has nothing to do with it. People with delusional ideations are presenting with symptoms of mental illness as well. Some present with religous delusions who have never been involved with organized religion and do not belong to any Church groups.. So no religion is not a psychosis of its self.

[kenmore]

The child protection act is in place to do just that protect a child from abuses and to remove the child from families when their actions or judgement are skewed. In the case of religous beliefs, when it puts the child in danger, then the state has the right to intervene. Most children while in the custody and care of the parent follow the wishes of the parents. I know from first hand information (brother is Jehova's Witness) that the pressure put on children is severe and the ramifications of non compliance is shunning.. You make your own conclusions.

[Choban]

Fact is too that these parents did seek alternatives to the transfusions, and it appeared that there was some sucsess with the treatments they opted for. Given this stance they did indeed try to seek medical help that did not go against their religion. I'd argue the point that courts should decide in certain cases but where there was clearly an attempt to seek alternatives and with this child that was of consenting age according to the Supreme Court then we can't really fault the system here.

[Brenda]

Choban Choban:

Fact is too that these parents did seek alternatives to the transfusions, and it appeared that there was some sucsess with the treatments they opted for. Given this stance they did indeed try to seek medical help that did not go against their religion. I'd argue the point that courts should decide in certain cases but where there was clearly an attempt to seek alternatives and with this child that was of consenting age according to the Supreme Court then we can't really fault the system here.

In Holland (yeah, I know, different country, just hear me out...) a comedian died of breastcancer.
She was in denial, pretented it was "just an infection", and she turned to alternative measures. In the end, she died. The alternative healer (or whatever you want to call it... ) is now sued with negligence. She should have told her client to seek real medical help, ie chemo, because her alternative "healing was not going to make it better.

[Choban]

Brenda Brenda:

Choban Choban:

Fact is too that these parents did seek alternatives to the transfusions, and it appeared that there was some sucsess with the treatments they opted for. Given this stance they did indeed try to seek medical help that did not go against their religion. I'd argue the point that courts should decide in certain cases but where there was clearly an attempt to seek alternatives and with this child that was of consenting age according to the Supreme Court then we can't really fault the system here.

In Holland (yeah, I know, different country, just hear me out...) a comedian died of breastcancer.
She was in denial, pretented it was "just an infection", and she turned to alternative measures. In the end, she died. The alternative healer (or whatever you want to call it... ) is now sued with negligence. She should have told her client to seek real medical help, ie chemo, because her alternative "healing was not going to make it better.

In this article, the parents and child attended a reputable clinic for recognized treatments that didn't involve blood transfusions (I believe I read that it was actually a form of chemo sans transfusions, will have to reread though). As far as "alternative medicines" go, I agree with you.
Who sued the healer in the case you mentioned? Probably the deceased's family (looking for someone to blame) whereas they should accept the fact that this person made the choice and paid for it ultimately.
The argument can be made either way though in this girls case I do believe that they tried everything in their power within the bounds of their religion to cure her.

[Brenda]

The state sues her.

[Wada]

Either we have seperation of Church and State or we don't and it's time the Church and the State come to terms with this. When it comes to Freedom of Choice I think we could really do without both.

[kenmore]

You can separate church and state, but it doesn't take away the facts. The child need a transfusion. The Jehovah's Witness translate the passage that refers to blood literally. Until a child is of legal age and has the capacity for informed consent based on their own knowledge and research into the risk benefit of receiving a transfusion or not the state should have the right to intervene. The Jehovah's Witness is a cult .. end of story.