To want to punch this woman?

[ShouldaWouldaCoulda]

She developed slapped cheek syndrome during pregnancy, baby born anemic needed blood transfusion and she refused,(JW) doctors overruled and her life was saved.
Baby is now 5 months old and she has openly said she resents the docs who saved her DDs life because she wont go to heaven or whatever shit she believes.
(I tend to stop listening whenever she opens her trap)
twat

[MichaelaS]

How helpful MrsBethel.

Because anyone who doesn't believe exactly the same as you is wrong and should be prevented from having children, right?

Kalisz I remember that too, and yes I think the parents probably did think they were doing it in the best interests of that child. I am glad they were prosecuted.

Trouble is, "society" does not have one cohesive idea of what is damaging or neglectful. Those voodoo parents are a part of society too. Who gets to decide what's allowed? There's should definitely be boundaries and there is a lot of debate at the moment about some issues e.g. Circumcision. But we should not kid ourselves there is an easy answer. Think about some other examples such as the great breast vs bottle debate. We know breast is best for baby, it is medically proven. No faiths (to my knowledge) disapprove of bf. so shouldn't a society which is trying to legislate for the welfare of its children force mothers to bf?

No. Because our society is liberal and we weigh the benefits to the child against the mothers rights too. We allow the pants to choose, and we focus on education as a means to enable better choices.

[MichaelaS]

Pants = parents. Freudian slip!

[MrsBethel]

You can believe what you want.

Just don't expect people to automatically respect what you choose to believe. Or to respect crazy decisions based on your beliefs.

Tom Cruise is a scientologist. He's perfectly entitled to believe that. And I am perfectly entitled to believe that anyone who believes such nonsense is a dickhead.

[Halfway]

I have no religion, and am what most people call agnostic. But have a lot of firsthand knowledge/experience of the JW religion.

JWs do not believe the child is 'banned from heaven', or marked in any negative way whatsoever.

They don't believe good people go to heaven when they die, and they don't believe in hell at all. They believe you lie dead/unconscious in the ground until Armageddon (God steps in and wipes out the wicked world) and then the vast majority of good people are resurrected and live forever on the earth in perfect health.

They believe that accepting blood is a sin, but not that the blood itself 'dirties' you, or makes you 'less before God' etc.

The blood is seen as 'sacred', representing life, and should not be used in any way except poured out on the ground (when slaughtering animals for meat for example). This comes from the bible.

JWs are medically allowed the right to refuse blood for themselves. Medicine does not allow them to refuse it for their children (at least in the UK, not sure about elsewhere).

[Halfway]

Hmm, for clarity, they do believe a tiny percentage (144,000) pre-chosen people go to heaven (most of them are already there), and everyone else (nonwicked) gets resurrected.

[atacareercrossroads]

YANBU and if she isnt on a SWs radar then she should be. If I didnt give treatment to my DC that could save his life he would probably be, rightly, taken off me and put into the care of someone who would look after him, or at least Id become well known to SS. I dont see why just because religion is involved it should be any different.

Poor little baby

[MichaelaS]

Yes MrsBethel you are entitled to your beliefs too.

All I'm trying to say is don't assume the parents should agree with you or thank the state when the majority view is forced on their family. I definitely do think the state should intervene for voodoo killings or blood refusal for a newborn. I am less certain about circumcision, preaching a faith to minors (including atheism).

My personal belief is that people who put life above all else whilst ignoring the eternal afterlife are just like people who don't immunise children because the needle upsets little johnny. I completely understand those who don't believe in an afterlife disagree with me, just like I understand those who don't immunise because they believe it's all a government conspiracy to profit the drug companies have their right to believe too. Each thinks the other a fool. But a liberal society allows each to act on the basis of their own conscience, up to a point where the law draws a line. The law of the country that is, rather than the law of any deity or deities you might follow.

[MrsBethel]

What if there is an eternal afterlife but god only lets in people who have used their god-given capacity to think for themselves, and have lived good lives purely by personal choice, so that anyone just blindly following magic books is barred?

Not likely, I'll grant you, but probably more likely than the god described in the bible.

[MrsBethel]

The ethical thing to do regarding circumcision question is easy. Wait and ask the child when they are old enough to choose.

The difficult question about circumcision is what to do when parents do not do the ethical thing. Should we simply chide them for their unethical behaviour? Is that enough? Getting criminal law involved seems a bit heavy handed to me - but as a society does not our duty to protect the child come before the right of the parents to practise their religion by mutlilating their child?

[ICBINEG]

michelaS but it is only by the power of current majority view that we determine that beating your child with a stick everyday is overall detrimental. some parents may yet believe that it is in the childs best interests to beat them.

I don't really think that ethics are subjective. I think it is scientifically/medically provable that physical and sexual abuse damages children in a manner that outweighs any potential benefits.

I think it has already been proven that feeding crap to children is damaging over their lifetime.

I think it will be proven in the future that indoctrination into faith when young is net damaging over a lifetime (because it seems obvious to me that telling a child they are only a good worthwhile person if they believe in a specific godlike entity is absolutely devastating when you realise that you just don't believe and there is not a thing you can do about it.)

And if you can prove that someone's parenting 'choices' are damaging their child then don't you have a moral obligation to intervene?

The afterlife question is much harder as it seems unlikely that the non-existence of the afterlife will ever be proven.

I personally find the evidence that you can make an atheist believe in god, have visions of god/angels etc. and know in their heart that god exists simply by applying a magnetic field/electric current to the correct part of the brain, and that they then return to lack of belief the moment you stop zapping them, fairly compelling evidence that faith in god is the product of brain chemistry and not the product of the existence of a god.

Such experimental data will undoubtedly increase with time until such point as the likelihood of the existence of god will be considered very low by society as a whole.

[MichaelaS]

So then we should force all mothers to breastfeed? There is clear evidence it is in the child's best interests. The ethics are clear, right?

The ethics of circumcision are only clear if you presuppose God does not exist or does not require circumcision in early childhood. If you believe God does then the only ethical thing to do is to circumcise.

We will not all agree on questions of faith. To me the interesting question is to what degree a liberal society intervenes in parental choice. Personally I conclude that it sometimes must, but should generally refrain.

[SirBoobAlot]

A friend of mine was injured badly a few years ago. Both parents were called from the hospital. Dad got there first, and signed for a blood transfusion. My friend recovered, having been saved by the transfusion.

Had the JW mum got their first, she would have died.

The mum often reminds friend of how she shouldn't be here :(

[MrsBethel]

Hell doesn't exist, but if it did, that mum would be on the list.

[MrsBethel]

MichaelaS
The ethics of circumcision are only clear if you presuppose God does not exist or does not require circumcision in early childhood. If you believe God does then the only ethical thing to do is to circumcise.

A god that would punish a child for not being circumcised would be a wicked entity indeed. I know plenty of people who believe in god, but I know of no one who believes in such a wicked god. How depressing would that be?

[ICBINEG]

MichelaS it isn't the case that BF is always in the best interests of the child let alone the mother plus the child. There are many corner cases including mental health impact, or drugs needed by the mother and even certain illnesses that would mean that for an individual mum baby combo BF is not best. Certainly it isn't comparable to physical abuse or smoking or something where there will be almost no circumstances under which this is in the best interests of the child.

You should also consider the amount of difference a parenting choice is likely to make. Depriving a child of medical care is likely to make a far bigger impact than depriving a child of BM.

[ICBINEG]

Also with circumcision, there are so many cases where people are essentially doing it to make their kids the same as them. I mean can you even imagine the conversation?

"yes son, we chopped a bit off you dick so you would always be marked out as one of us"

eurgh...seriously? In the 21st century?

And then there are medically required cases.

It is perfectly possible to use science/medical trials to establish a subset of activities which either are blatantly in the best interests of a child or blatantly not in the best interests of a child. Parents should be stopped from doing the things that are blatantly not.

[MichaelaS]

ICBING some interesting points and yes bf is not always in the best interests of the child although in the vast majority of cases it is.

I'm afraid I don't agree that it's possible to use the scientific method to determine things that are blatantly in the best interests of the child. It can definitely inform though. I think first you have to start with a list of what you deem to be good aims. E.g. Keeping the child alive is good. Pain free is good. Not abused physically is good. Some people's lists might include entry into a heaven or afterlife. Sometimes these aims conflict, so perhaps to prolong life it is necessary to cause pain. For some families the best decision is to cause pain to prolong life, e.g. By administering chemo to a cancer sufferer. For other families the best decision is to allow life to end and avoid pain, e.g. Withdrawing care from a critically ill child. No amount of certainty about outcome percentages can make that decision for that family. Knowing how much pain, how many years extra life, chances of treatment failure, these things do inform the debate.

Overall I still think it should be a rare thing for the state to directly intervene in parenting choices. I agree that the likely degree of impact on the child is important.

[MrsBethel]

MichaelaS
"I'm afraid I don't agree that it's possible to use the scientific method to determine things that are blatantly in the best interests of the child."

The scientific method is evidence-based. If you accept that, then it is possible to form concrete guidance on some issues, and leave other issues open until more evidence is available.

If you abandon evidence, you abandon reason.

[ICBINEG]

Yes I agree that it is often far from clear what constitutes least harm when considering the horrible options for some medical issues. Personally I think the current medical profession are guilty of two things: firstly not taking into account mental harm as being anywhere near as important as physical harm (like they apparently think it's okay to be in terrible pain as long as it doesn't last that long - while a lot of mental damage can be done in a very short time). Secondly they have a tendency to go to the general case rather than the specific people involved too much. Different people will rate quality of life in totally different ways...and the answer for one person genuinely may be different to the answer for another.

But I still believe that as time goes on and science's understanding of mental processing of trauma etc. increases it will be more and more possible to determine the actual best course of action for a specific person under a specific set of conditions.

Certainly there are already cases in which the damage done by parenting choices is known well enough to be applied logically to individuals, and it is morally right for society to step in an intervene in those cases.

[MichaelaS]

Absolutely, but that path leads to most issues having no guidance at all. Scientific evidence with a decent sample size and firm conclusions is extremely rare. Most decisions we make in everyday life are a based on a hybrid of personal experience, culture, advice from experts and friends, and assumption. Scientific evidence also tends to prove correlation but not causality.

Where it can come to a firm conclusion it is extremely powerful. In most everyday circumstances it is next to useless and incredibly open to the beliefs of the interpreting scientist or lay reader. This is why no one trusts statistics quoted in newspapers. Generally they are true statistics IF you read the small print about how they were generated.

[MichaelaS]

X posts there sorry

[ICBINEG]

sadly I can't really disagree....but the point (waaaay back down the page) was that society will evolve in this direction as science becomes more knowledgeable and such distinctions gain their causal proof and become concrete.

I think it is inevitable that one day many of the parenting choices discussed on MN in this day and age will go the same way as choices like "beating some respect into the little bastard" and no longer be considered choices at all.....

[DesperatelySeekingSedatives]

If you take the religion aspect out of it and the JW bashing too this is a mother who appears to be very down and is failing to bond with her baby. That is tragic (been there myself). She needs help, understanding and support. She does not need or deserve imo, a punch in the face or being called a twat.

So yes, YABU.

[Wickerman11]

Denying your child necessary medical treatment because of your wacko religious beliefs is child abuse.