Freedom versus safety of children

This story has sparked some interesting discussion on another board I frequent:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/ap/pennsylvania/pa-couple-violated-prayer-term-with-2nd-death/nXTTr/

This is a good example of how complex the freedom versus safety conflict is to discuss.

Do you have the freedom to refuse medical treatment for yourself on the basis of freewill and/or religeon?
Do you have the right to die from your own stupidity and/or religeous beliefs?

Do you have the freedom to refuse medical treatment for your children on the basis of freewill and/or religeon?
Do you have the right to cause your children to die due to your stupidity and/or religeous beliefs?

Who do your children belong to; you, society, themselves?

Who owns your children; you, society, themselves?

#1 Yes
#2 Yes
#3 Yes with a big caveat. I routinely refused antibiotics that were prescribed as a prophylactic measure for my kid, because I knew they would not help her, but I would never venture to think I was all knowing and refuse medical treatment for my kid when a real health crisis hit.
#4 No
#5 Themselves first, me second.
#6 Themselves first, and until they reach maturity, me.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?”

That's about all the rights that are left.

Obligatory (I laugh every time I hear this):

Good question, my $.02

A mentally capable grown up has the freedom to do whatever he/she likes even if it kills them as long as it doesn't harm other people.
(So 1 & 2 is yes, unless they are actually proved to be mentally incapable.)

However until children reach maturity they are not mentally capable. Therefore it is the parents responsibility to make the key decisions regarding the health and well being of the child. Society assumes those decisions are in the best interests of the child but if they are proved not to be or worse will likely harm the child then society can step in.
(So the answer to 4 is no & for 3 it is no for religion but it depends for 'freewill' - you are free to seek a second/third opinion and where there are mulitple 'reasonable' options, you are free to weigh up the pros and cons of each and make the choice.)
If you choose an option which a doctor (who has responsibilty of care for his patients) believes is not medically reasonable then he has a duty to challenge that.

For 5 & 6, I think your children belong to themselves but until they reach maturity, you are responsible for them unless you are proved unfit to carry out that responsibility then society can step in.

The trouble here is who does the deciding, and where they are coming from, the devil as usual, is in the details. I know of one case where *adult* protective services was as guilty of malfeasance as any CPS has been - tossed a woman out of her home, and displaced (out of a job) the man who was living there (a distant relative, a good guy, and personal friend) who was taking care of her - the trigger? Her own frigging kids who wanted her declared incompetant so they could inherit her home and money - she was paying my friend pizza money and a room, he was taking good care of her - we talked frequently on G+ vid chats and she was fine and not incompetent - but kids with a lawyer and a paid doctor...

As far as kids go, I kinda was involved as a substitute parent for a couple of kids whose parents were pretty "out there" - one just a slob, the other a health-freak of the worst kind (eating nothing is better, eating stupid stuff to flush you out is good, and so on). You know what? They are grown now and are just fine, though one parent, the slob, wound up cooking meth and more or less killed himself with his own product (the man), while the woman, finally freed to live her dream, did kill herself with her weird ideas of nutrition. Kids are fine. You could have made a great case for CPS to take them, and what I've seen of that - the new "parents" ruin any kid with initiative who is a little wild.

I've also seen CPS take kids because of a fairly normal party behavior by parents. We all know drug users who merely chip away and do no harm, and those who are just doing the slow (or fast) suicide thing - I think we take kids from the latter, but sure as hell not the former, heck, they are practically a majority. The way it's going, if you smoke tobacco, they'll take your kids, that's totally, utterly, out of line with any idea of freedom, and I really object to that sort of thing. It's fucking none of their business. I do NOT believe in forcing everyone into a mold - diversity is a GOOD THING (tm). We don't know what new challenges the next generations will face, therefore it's merely our vanity that says we know best how to prepare them for the mess we've made, and the next messes.

Kids are in fact very resilient and adaptive. I say let them, they'll need the practice going forward.

Yeah that's the thing. I think there should be a system that can step in and protect kids from violent and very abusive parents but yeah at the same time who defines what that it is and who is protecting the parents and the kids if that system becomes violent and abusive.

ancona said:

#1 Yes
#2 Yes
#3 Yes with a big caveat. I routinely refused antibiotics that were prescribed as a prophylactic measure for my kid, because I knew they would not help her, but I would never venture to think I was all knowing and refuse medical treatment for my kid when a real health crisis hit.
#4 No
#5 Themselves first, me second.
#6 Themselves first, and until they reach maturity, me.

Click to expand...

wow. Exactly the same page.

Aubuy said:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?”

That's about all the rights that are left.

Click to expand...

the old man said "you're rights end at the end of your fingertips. You have the right to remain silent."

Unbeatable said:

Yeah that's the thing. I think there should be a system that can step in and protect kids from violent and very abusive parents but yeah at the same time who defines what that it is and who is protecting the parents and the kids if that system becomes violent and abusive.

Click to expand...

the last conversation I had ten years ago with my ACORN employed Obama loving brother, he explained to me that he lived down the hall from a man who believed in stoning his children to death for disobedience. He told me this to help me to understand how tolerant he is. Since I have children (and he hates children) and his agenda is to promote homosexuality and fight family values and religion (both of which he says are used by the government in order to control people) we haven't talked in a while. He makes twice as much as me, though.