NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_he_me/newborn_blood_tests;_ylt=AhK5BUoeVKLIhPTh_h0hf0eKOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NW41NTlyBHNlYwMxNzAx

Scientology parents refuse to let their newborn child be tested for a slew of diseases which may be life-threatening and which, if caught in these tests, could bring about a much more positive outcome for all involved.

And all because they feel that drawing a few drops of blood from the child's foot would cause them unnecessary pain and Scientologists believe

The church teaches that words spoken during moments of pain and unconsciousness affect physical and mental health later in life, he said. The church encourages silent birth, in which those attending avoid talking.

These parents have extended it even further, to believing that

The Spierings, who apply some tenets of Scientology to their faith, took the silent birth concept a step further. They believe newborns are in pain for at least 3 1/2 days, and don't want blood drawn — which they believe would cause more pain — for at least that long.

I think this is blatant child abuse. Testing the newborn is in the best interests of the child.

1.) Scientology is weird.

2.) It raises the age-old question: Who should be responsible for the children-the parents or the State?

i agree

1) No argument there

2) I think that parents should be the primary caregivers and the ones that should be responsible for the welfare of their children. But I also think that in cases where the parents are too batshit crazy to take care of their kids properly, then the State should intervene.

So can the babies be tested after 3 and a half days?

Nope. They asked for a full 7 days to "avoid any unforeseen problems"

I used to work at a shelter for abused and negligent children, so I am a little biased in favor of the State, however many people I know say that state intervention in child-rearing is the source of many of our problems.

Truthfully, DCFS is greatly overextended and if the State was solely responsible for child-rearing, it would be quite awful, but then again, some people do very weird things to their kids...

what diseases do you have in mind that are not obvious at birth but can only be treated successfully if tested for in the first week of life?

It's not necessarily that, but these people would rather avoid the test altogether. They don't, for some reason, think that it's necessary.

Perhaps those who refuse to have their children tested should have the children taken away from them, if they don't know how to care for them properly? Same as those who refuse blood transfusions etc. on religious grounds.

As for 'ignoring that directive may shorten a person's life', if they did have one of these diseases, their life would be one hell of a lot shorter if it were obeyed.

I dunno, religious people seem to piss me off more and more these days. I know they're not all this crazy but some of the things you hear about...

I think this is blatant child abuse. Testing the newborn is in the best interests of the child.

I think you should save your cries of ABUSE! for parents who actually do abuse their kids.

I think you should save your cries of ABUSE! for parents who actually do abuse their kids.

How is this not actual abuse?

Didn't we already have precedent on this because of Christian Scientists?

How is this not actual abuse?

If this is anything, this issue at debate is more like negligence. I'm not saying this is acceptable, but it is definitely not abuse. There is a lot worse child abuse and negligence that needs to be addressed in the US.

If this is anything, this issue at debate is more like negligence. I'm not saying this is acceptable, but it is definitely not abuse. There is a lot worse child abuse and negligence that needs to be addressed in the US.
QFT, partially. While there are more pressing issues, this one is rectified easily.

If this is anything, this issue at debate is more like negligence. I'm not saying this is acceptable, but it is definitely not abuse. There is a lot worse child abuse and negligence that needs to be addressed in the US.

Okey dokey, I'll take negligence (but that is a form of abuse).

How is this not actual abuse?

The parents are not trying to harm the kid, or inflict physical, mental, or emotional pain upon the kid. I mean, they are doing this for the interest of the kid, even if their reasoning is wrong. They love the kid.

Taking the kid away and forcing him to live in a state-run foster care program would create a much higher risk for the kid, and this would be the result from crying child abuse.

Furthermore, by directing attention to this sort of "abuse" as opposed to the very real abuse going on, you divert the attention from kids who really do need help. Or worse, you are like the Boy who Cried Wolf, and no one will listen when you actually do have something to report.

Furthermore, kids were able to live healthy and happy lives before these tests were created. It is not a necessity to life, or happiness, or whatever.

If the child does have an illness or hereditary disease, then the kid can be tested after a week old, and it can be caught then.


At worst, I would say this is unreasonable on the parents' part. But certainly not abuse, in all the horrible connotations of that word.

There are many unseen problems that need to be treated right away, such as Cystic Fibrosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis), which doesn't appear to the naked eye, unless tested for. Many other diseases, including those which are hereditary...

If it goes untested and shows up later and it's evident that early testing would have ensured quicker access to the necessary medicine, then, yes, it is a form of abuse because the parents are obligated by law to ensure that the child has all the basic necessities of life provided. This included medical care.

Scientologists fail when it comes to ensuring that their members receive PROPER medical care.

The parents are not trying to harm the kid, or inflict physical, mental, or emotional pain upon the kid. I mean, they are doing this for the interest of the kid, even if their reasoning is wrong. They love the kid.

Taking the kid away and forcing him to live in a state-run foster care program would create a much higher risk for the kid, and this would be the result from crying child abuse.

Furthermore, by directing attention to this sort of "abuse" as opposed to the very real abuse going on, you divert the attention from kids who really do need help. Or worse, you are like the Boy who Cried Wolf, and no one will listen when you actually do have something to report.

Furthermore, kids were able to live healthy and happy lives before these tests were created. It is not a necessity to life, or happiness, or whatever.

If the child does have an illness or hereditary disease, then the kid can be tested after a week old, and it can be caught then.


At worst, I would say this is unreasonable on the parents' part. But certainly not abuse, in all the horrible connotations of that word.
Or they can just be forced to let the doctors do their job. This type of thing shouldn't be elective.

Okey dokey, I'll take negligence (but that is a form of abuse).

Not feeding your kid is negligence.
Leaving him alone for extended periods of time is negligence.
Leaving him in the car without the window cracked is negligence.

When these tests become necessary to survival, and legally enforced, then it will be negligent to not test your kid immediately after birth. Until then, it is a choice.

Not feeding your kid is negligence.
Leaving him alone for extended periods of time is negligence.
Leaving him in the car without the window cracked is negligence.

When these tests become necessary to survival, and legally enforced, then it will be negligent to not test your kid immediately after birth. Until then, it is a choice.

So, if it is not illegal than it is not negligence? I'm sorry but I hold myself and my opinions to a higher standard than that.

Or they can just be forced to let the doctors do their job. This type of thing shouldn't be elective.

The job of doctors does not include forcing patients to accept treatment.

But the fact remains that it still is elective. Until it isn't, it is not child abuse.

If it IS negligence, then so is the so-called "Christian Science".

You know, the ones who dont believe in hopsitals, and instead, believe that if "God wants you to get better....you will."

No whackjob religion should ever get in the way of decent healthcare.

If it IS negligence, then so is the so-called "Christian Science".

You know, the ones who dont believe in hopsitals, and instead, believe that if "God wants you to get better....you will."

No whackjob religion should ever get in the way of decent healthcare.

I don't care what adults do to themselves. Go be merry, get sick and not see a doctor. Whatever.

So, if it is not illegal than it is not negligence? I'm sorry but I hold myself and my opinions to a higher standard than that.

The higher standard of saying a loving family has bad parenting skills because they want to shield their baby from trauma?

I do not think this is child abuse. Child abuse involves removal of the basic necessities for life, or creating emotional or physical harm.

Waiting a week is none of these.

The job of doctors does not include forcing patients to accept treatment.

Not true.
Patients can be treated against thier wills if they are a danger to themselves or others.

Not having a child tested for diseases that could become critical IS negligence.

I don't care what adults do to themselves. Go be merry, get sick and not see a doctor. Whatever.

and what do you suppose happens to children of the aforementioned whackjobs?

The ones who arent allowed to decide for themselves.....

Not true.
Patients can be treated against thier wills if they are a danger to themselves or others.

Not having a child tested for diseases that could become critical IS negligence.

Doctors have to honor a living will. If that means letting them die, then that's what doctors have to do. What greater harm can a patient do to themselves than voluntarily opting to die? And yet this right is supported, legally.

Mental instability is a different matter, in regards to treatment, so I allow that if that sort of thing is what you were getting at.

Note that the parents are not saying "We will NEVER have our baby tested!!" They are simply waiting a week.

What of people who have no access to this sort of testing? Are they negligent too? If not, why not? What of the at-home births without all the technology the world has to offer? Are they negligent for putting themselves and baby at undue risks?

The higher standard of saying a loving family has bad parenting skills because they want to shield their baby from trauma?

I do not think this is child abuse. Child abuse involves removal of the basic necessities for life, or creating emotional or physical harm.

Waiting a week is none of these.

http://www.unicef.org/turkey/pr/mc6.html

and what do you suppose happens to children of the aforementioned whackjobs?

The ones who arent allowed to decide for themselves.....

Thats why I specifically said adults. Kids not taken care of should be taken away.

No whackjob religion should ever get in the way of decent healthcare.

That's why their's a 1st amendment for "... Freedom of Religion" so that they can do what they want and not be persacuted for their beliefs, yet it seems apparent that it is impossible to stop that.

http://www.unicef.org/turkey/pr/mc6.html

Neat.

But it never says anything about testing.

http://www.unicef.org/turkey/pr/mc6.html

why cant you just post what you think its the relevant part and save everyone the bother?

i didnt see anything there that pertains to scientologists not allowing blood tests on their well babies in the first week of life.

That's why their's a 1st amendment for "... Freedom of Religion" so that they can do what they want and not be persacuted for their beliefs, yet it seems apparent that it is impossible to stop that.

Your right to go about howling to Cthulu, or whomever, stops when your
spreading some disease about that could have been easily cured.

The same applies to anyone who denies others needed health care, in lieu of any religious beliefs.

If your not posing a danger to anyone else, i have no problem with any sort of cult, no matter how rediculous I personally happen to think it is.

In a case like this, I have no issue with preserving a religious ideal, UNLESS you put anyone else at risk.

Neat.

But it never says anything about testing.

"How Is Newborn Screening Performed?
Within the first 2 or 3 days of life, your baby's heel will be pricked and a small sample of her blood will then be applied to a filter paper. Most states have identified a state or regional laboratory to which hospitals should send the samples for analysis. (If your hospital offers expanded screening that uses the new technology, your baby's sample may be sent to a private laboratory. Some states use a private lab for all of their studies.)

It's generally recommended that the sample be taken after the first 24 hours of life. Some tests, such as the one for PKU, may not be as sensitive if they're done too soon after birth. However, because mothers and newborns are often discharged within a day, some babies may be tested within the first 24 hours. If this happens, the AAP recommends that a repeat sample be taken no more than 1 to 2 weeks later. It's especially important that the PKU screening test be run again for accurate results. Some states routinely do two tests on all infants.

PKU: When this disorder is detected early, feeding an infant a special formula low in phenylalanine can prevent mental retardation. A low-phenylalanine diet will need to be followed throughout childhood and adolescence and perhaps into adult life. This diet cuts out all high-protein foods, so people with PKU often need to take a special artificial formula as a nutritional substitute. Incidence: 1 in 10,000 to 25,000.
congenital hypothyroidism: This is the disorder most commonly identified by routine screening. Affected babies don't have enough thyroid hormone and so develop retarded growth and brain development. (The thyroid, a gland at the front of the neck, releases chemical substances that control metabolism and growth.) If the disorder is detected early, a baby can be treated with oral doses of thyroid hormone to permit normal development. Incidence: 1 in 4,000.
galactosemia: Babies with galactosemia lack the enzyme that converts galactose (one of two sugars found in lactose) into glucose, a sugar the body is able to use. As a result, milk (including breast milk) and other dairy products must be eliminated from the diet. Otherwise, galactose can build up in the system and damage the body's cells and organs, leading to blindness, severe mental retardation, growth deficiency, and even death. Incidence: 1 in 60,000 to 80,000. There are several less severe forms of galactosemia that may be detected by newborn screening. These may not require any intervention.
sickle cell disease: Sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disease in which red blood cells stretch into abnormal "sickle" shapes and can cause episodes of pain, damage to vital organs such as the lungs and kidneys, and even death. Young children with sickle cell disease are especially prone to certain dangerous bacterial infections, such as pneumonia (inflammation of the lungs) and meningitis (inflammation of the brain and spinal cord). Studies suggest that newborn screening can alert doctors to begin antibiotic treatment before infections occur and to monitor symptoms of possible worsening more closely. The screening test can also detect other disorders affecting hemoglobin (the oxygen-carrying substance in the blood). Incidence: about 1 in every 500 African-American births and 1 in every 1,000 to 1,400 Hispanic-American births; also occurs with some frequency among people of Hispanic, Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and South Asian descent.
biotinidase deficiency: Babies with this condition don't have enough biotinidase, an enzyme that recycles biotin (one of the B vitamins) in the body. The deficiency may cause seizures, poor muscle control, immune system impairment, hearing loss, mental retardation, coma, and even death. If the deficiency is detected in time, however, problems can be prevented by giving the baby extra biotin. Incidence: 1 in 72,000 to 126,000.
congenital adrenal hyperplasia: This is actually a group of disorders involving a deficiency of certain hormones produced by the adrenal gland. It can affect the development of the genitals and may cause death due to loss of salt from the kidneys. Lifelong treatment through supplementation of the missing hormones manages the condition. Incidence: 1 in 12,000.
maple syrup urine disease (MSUD): Babies with MSUD are missing an enzyme needed to process three amino acids that are essential for the body's normal growth. When these are not processed properly, they can build up in the body, causing urine to smell like maple syrup or sweet, burnt sugar. These babies usually have little appetite and are extremely irritable. If not detected and treated early, MSUD can cause mental retardation, physical disability, and even death. A carefully controlled diet that cuts out certain high-protein foods containing those amino acids can prevent these outcomes. Like people with PKU, those with MSUD are often given a formula that supplies the necessary nutrients missed in the special diet they must follow. Incidence: 1 in 250,000.
homocystinuria: This metabolic disorder results from a deficiency of one of several enzymes for normal development. If untreated, it can lead to dislocated lenses of the eyes, mental retardation, skeletal abnormalities, and abnormal blood clotting. However, a special diet combined with dietary supplements may help prevent most of these problems. Incidence: 1 in 50,000 to 150,000.
tyrosinemia: Babies with this disorder have trouble processing the amino acid tyrosine. If it accumulates in the body, it can cause mild retardation, language skill difficulties, liver problems, and even death from liver failure. A special diet and sometimes a liver transplant are needed to treat the condition. Early diagnosis and treatment seem to offset long-term problems, although more information is needed. Incidence: not yet determined. Some babies have a mild self limited form of tyrosiemia
cystic fibrosis: Cystic fibrosis is an inherited disorder expressed in the various organs that causes cells to release a thick mucus, which can lead to chronic respiratory disease, problems with digestion, and poor growth. There is no known cure - treatment involves trying to prevent the serious lung infections associated with it and providing adequate nutrition. Some infections may be prevented with antibiotics. Detecting the disease early may help doctors reduce the lung and nutritional problems associated with cystic fibrosis, but the real impact of newborn screening is yet to be determined. Incidence: 1 in 2,000 Caucasian babies; less common in African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians.
toxoplasmosis: Toxoplasmosis is a parasitic infection that can be transmitted through the mother's placenta to an unborn child. The disease-causing organism, which is found in uncooked or undercooked meat, can invade the brain, eye, and muscle, possibly resulting in blindness and mental retardation. The benefit of early detection and treatment is uncertain. Incidence: 1 in 1,000. But only one or two states screen for toxoplasmosis. "
http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/system/medical/newborn_screening_tests.html

why cant you just post what you think its the relevant part and save everyone the bother?

i didnt see anything there that pertains to scientologists not allowing blood tests on their well babies in the first week of life.

Because I suck? I don't know.

"How Is Newborn Screening Performed?


and what there must be performed before the 7th day of life in order to be successfully treated? how many are even mandated by a majority of states?

Point, mostly since we can't preserve other religions that sacrifice animals/humans. I'm just saying that they have a right to do this under the Bill of Rights, since Scientology is now (somehow) considered a religion.

Also, about testing this now being to determination of life and life w/ a thing like Cystic Phybrosis(sp?), it's not true. My good friend, John, and my little cousin Morgan have it, and at least Morgan was tested the day after she was born. They said that they don't have the medicine to treat her. So even if this child has it, from what I have seen it won't make a difference. Let the parents take care of their children, even if you don't agree with their methods.

Well now.

My sister in law got an amniocentisis because she was told it was in her and her child's best interest to do so.

The doctor subsequently told her her child had Down's Syndrome and that abortion should be seriously considered.

My sister in law and brother are pretty religious, and after a lot of soul-searching decided that they could not abort their child, and that whatever it took to raise their child in decent dignity, that's what they'd do....


..... and my niece is a perfectly normal four year old with not a trace of mental retardation nor of the characteristic features of a Down's Syndrome baby.


Science fucks up sometimes too. Had they listened to their doctor's suggestion, they'd have aborted a fetus that has proved to be a perfectly normal kid.


Were tests 100% accurate, I might agree to making them all mandatory, and prosecuting parents for not following their doctor's recommendations. But now? I think everyone needs to do as the government has chosen to do -- and let the parents decide.

"How Is Newborn Screening Performed?
/snip

That was definitely not on the page I read. Thanks for posting.

I can't help but notice the extreme rarity of most of these diseases, and also the fact that if the baby is at a higher risk for any them it would likely be known.

I also notice that the test for PKU needs to be taken after one week anyway. (This, indeed, was the test I knew of that was crucial to catch early-- however, it seems like the Scientologists will be right on time.)

I also note that it is 2-3 days that is the optimal time for these tests to occur. The parents' belief stipulated 3 days, so this also coincides nicely.

Also, most of these merely state that the disease needs to be caught "early". It does not state that thou must be tested the day of birth or thy baby shalt be damned for eternity. A week is early. Three days, as the parents originally stipulated, would be actually quite optimal.

I also note that for many they state something to the effect of " Early diagnosis and treatment seem to offset long-term problems, although more information is needed", and "The benefit of early detection and treatment is uncertain".

Yeah. So, thanks for the info, really interesting. But it does not support your hypothesis that getting tested at a day old will save a child from a lifetime of misery. Or that opting to get the test a little later is child abuse.

That was definitely not on the page I read. Thanks for posting.

I can't help but notice the extreme rarity of most of these diseases, and also the fact that if the baby is at a higher risk for any them it would likely be known.

I also notice that the test for PKU needs to be taken after one week anyway. (This, indeed, was the test I knew of that was crucial to catch early-- however, it seems like the Scientologists will be right on time.)

I also note that it is 2-3 days that is the optimal time for these tests to occur. The parents' belief stipulated 3 days, so this also coincides nicely.

Also, most of these merely state that the disease needs to be caught "early". It does not state that thou must be tested the day of birth or thou baby shalt be damned for eternity. A week is early. Three days, as the parents originally stipulated, would be actually quite optimal.

I also note that for many they state something to the effect of " Early diagnosis and treatment seem to offset long-term problems, although more information is needed", and "The benefit of early detection and treatment is uncertain".

Yeah. So, thanks for the info, really interesting. But it does not support your hypothesis that getting tested at a day old will save a child from a lifetime of misery. Or that opting to get the test a little later is child abuse.
I lose. You win. I still hold my opinion that no matter what the parent "thinks", that the doctor should be the one in charge of such a situation to a reasonable extent. Such as what Kat pointed out, the parents were right in their decision. Where that line is? I'm not really sure but I do know that I need to learn more on the subject.

I lose. You win. I still hold my opinion that no matter what the parent "thinks", that the doctor should be the one in charge of such a situation to a reasonable extent. Such as what Kat pointed out, the parents were right in their decision. Where that line is? I'm not really sure but I do know that I need to learn more on the subject.

my doctor works for me, I trust her to provide me with all the information I need to make good health decisions, but in the end it's my choice.

It's the same for my kids, I am their parent and it should be my choice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_he_me/newborn_blood_tests;_ylt=AhK5BUoeVKLIhPTh_h0hf0eKOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NW41NTlyBHNlYwMxNzAx

I think this is blatant child abuse. Testing the newborn is in the best interests of the child.

There are other religions that do not believe in medical, drawing blood, or transfusions. The courts have upheld their right to not have their children receive medical care.

I think it is stupid and irresponsible but I don't subscribe to their religious beliefs either.

my doctor works for me, I trust her to provide me with all the information I need to make good health decisions, but in the end it's my choice.

It's the same for my kids, I am their parent and it should be my choice.

Should the parent be held responsible for making a harmful choice based on faith?

Well now.

My sister in law got an amniocentisis because she was told it was in her and her child's best interest to do so.

The doctor subsequently told her her child had Down's Syndrome and that abortion should be seriously considered.

My sister in law and brother are pretty religious, and after a lot of soul-searching decided that they could not abort their child, and that whatever it took to raise their child in decent dignity, that's what they'd do....


..... and my niece is a perfectly normal four year old with not a trace of mental retardation nor of the characteristic features of a Down's Syndrome baby.


Science fucks up sometimes too. Had they listened to their doctor's suggestion, they'd have aborted a fetus that has proved to be a perfectly normal kid.


Were tests 100% accurate, I might agree to making them all mandatory, and prosecuting parents for not following their doctor's recommendations. But now? I think everyone needs to do as the government has chosen to do -- and let the parents decide.

both my neice and my cousin refused amniocentisis for that reason. if youre not going to have an abortion, why take the test?

Should the parent be held responsible for making a harmful choice based on faith?

Have you ever heard of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion? We may not agree with what these people do in the name of religion but in this case, they have the right to do it. The courts have upheld this right.

Should the parent be held responsible for making a harmful choice based on faith?

only if its an obviously harmful choice. like not getting a broken bone set or not treating leukemia.

Should the parent be held responsible for making a harmful choice based on faith?

define "harmful choice"

should I let my 9 year old suffer with chemo when it will give her 3 more months (on chemo) or is it okay refuse treatment if she is tired of being so sick?

is it okay for me to refuse to vaccinate my kids if the vaccine is dangerous to my household?

is it okay for me to refuse a medical procedure the doctor recommends but I find to be unnecessary?

I have done two of these and I know someone who did the first, none of us were "abusing" our kids, and none of us deserved jail time.....at least I don't think we did.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_he_me/newborn_blood_tests;_ylt=AhK5BUoeVKLIhPTh_h0hf0eKOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NW41NTlyBHNlYwMxNzAx

Scientology parents refuse to let their newborn child be tested for a slew of diseases which may be life-threatening and which, if caught in these tests, could bring about a much more positive outcome for all involved.

And all because they feel that drawing a few drops of blood from the child's foot would cause them unnecessary pain and Scientologists believe



These parents have extended it even further, to believing that



I think this is blatant child abuse. Testing the newborn is in the best interests of the child.

That's evil, man.

Screw Scientology.

define "harmful choice"

should I let my 9 year old suffer with chemo when it will give her 3 more months (on chemo) or is it okay refuse treatment if she is tired of being so sick?

is it okay for me to refuse to vaccinate my kids if the vaccine is dangerous to my household?

is it okay for me to refuse a medical procedure the doctor recommends but I find to be unnecessary?

I have done two of these and I know someone who did the first, none of us were "abusing" our kids, and none of us deserved jail time.....at least I don't think we did.


Sounds like you are a very responsible parent. You listen to the advice of doctors, probably do research on the matter at hand, possibly get a second medical opinion, consult with with your spouse, then arrive at a decision you feel is best for your child and family.

Sounds like you are a very responsible parent. You listen to the advice of doctors, probably do research on the matter at hand, possibly get a second medical opinion, consult with with your spouse, then arrive at a decision you feel is best for your child and family.

I do, second, third, fourth opinions.

On the vaccine, I had 5 doctors tell me "absolutely not" and one that said "you are a bad mom if you don't let me give them the vaccine"

hmm?

on the medical procedure I had 3 doctors say it was "unnecessary" and one that said "you have to do it"

only if its an obviously harmful choice. like not getting a broken bone set or not treating leukemia.

Who should decide if it is a "harmful choice?" The treatment of leukemia often involves blood transfusions, which some religions do not allow. Also, the success rate for the treatment of leukemia is not that great although it is improving. The treatment for leukemia often involves in making the child very sick with radiation or chemotherapy, which may or may not extend the child’s life for a few months. So, who should decide if refusing treatment for leukemia is "a harmful choice?"

P.S. St. Judes hospital in Memphis, TN specializes in the treatment of lukemia and other cancers in children. The treatment never costs the parents any money. If you want to donate money to a worthwile charity consider donating to St. Judes.

Who should decide if it is a "harmful choice?" The treatment of leukemia often involves blood transfusions, which some religions do not allow. Also, the success rate for the treatment of leukemia is not that great although it is improving. The treatment for leukemia often involves in making the child very sick with radiation or chemotherapy, which may or may not extend the child’s life for a few months. So, who should decide if refusing treatment for leukemia is "a harmful choice?"

P.S. St. Judes hospital in Memphis, TN specializes in the treatment of lukemia and other cancers in children. The treatment never costs the parents any money. If you want to donate money to a worthwile charity consider donating to St. Judes.

sometimes thats for court to decide.

as per smunkee above, if the child is on deaths door and chemo has very little chance of succeeding at this point, its acceptable to spare your child that suffering

if its just been diagnosed in an early stage where she has a 90% chance of a full recovery, the court needs to intervene for the life of your child.

Have you ever heard of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion? We may not agree with what these people do in the name of religion but in this case, they have the right to do it. The courts have upheld this right.

I think that right can be harmful to a minor if applied to their health. Not saying that it is not protected by the current system but am saying that in some cases it is not right.

Isn't it weird how scientology is anti-science?

define "harmful choice"

should I let my 9 year old suffer with chemo when it will give her 3 more months (on chemo) or is it okay refuse treatment if she is tired of being so sick?

is it okay for me to refuse to vaccinate my kids if the vaccine is dangerous to my household?

is it okay for me to refuse a medical procedure the doctor recommends but I find to be unnecessary?

I have done two of these and I know someone who did the first, none of us were "abusing" our kids, and none of us deserved jail time.....at least I don't think we did.

All those things may be necessary and maybe you should be the one making the final decision but should you be held accountable if your reasoning isn't sound?

Real life makes my head hurt.

All those things may be necessary and maybe you should be the one making the final decision but should you be held accountable if your reasoning isn't sound?
sound according to who?

Real life makes my head hurt.
mine also.

sound according to who?


mine also.

Let's say for argument's sake, when the child becomes an adult rather than talk about the state becoming involved. Not really asking if the child would have a right to sue, seems everyone has that right. But would it be right for the child to sue if let's say a treatment was available but denied for reasons religious.

sometimes thats for court to decide.

as per smunkee above, if the child is on deaths door and chemo has very little chance of succeeding at this point, its acceptable to spare your child that suffering

if its just been diagnosed in an early stage where she has a 90% chance of a full recovery, the court needs to intervene for the life of your child.

So you would not support the parents right to refuse medical treatment for their child if that refusal was based on religious belief?

Less scientologists are a good thing.

All those things may be necessary and maybe you should be the one making the final decision but should you be held accountable if your reasoning isn't sound?

Real life makes my head hurt.

You need to stock up on asprin or Tylenol if you want to continue to live in society then. :p

You need to stock up on asprin or Tylenol if you want to continue to live in society then. :p

Oh... I'm pretty much addicted. No, I'm not. I'm not. You can't have any. I ran out. There is none left. Don't look in my medicine cabinet. Get out of my house.

From what I gather the two congenital diseases normally tested for at birth in the states do not require a blood test to be diagnosed, nor does CF.

Hypothyroidism and Phenylketonuria can be diagnosed with a urine test, and CF can be diagnosed with a sweat test, or even before birth.

Mountain out of a molehill?

So you would not support the parents right to refuse medical treatment for their child if that refusal was based on religious belief?

religion doesnt come into it

if the parent is denying a child treatment that would clearly save its life it doesnt matter why they dont want to do it.

that probably goes for noncritical treatments that have to be done when the damage occurs or when the child is small in order to be effective. things that return a child to some semblance of normal. surgery for cleft palate for example.

From what I gather the two congenital diseases normally tested for at birth in the states do not require a blood test to be diagnosed, nor does CF.

Hypothyroidism and Phenylketonuria can be diagnosed with a urine test, and CF can be diagnosed with a sweat test, or even before birth.

Mountain out of a molehill?
I was pretty busy building one. But my concern remains.

There are many unseen problems that need to be treated right away, such as Cystic Fibrosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis), which doesn't appear to the naked eye, unless tested for. Many other diseases, including those which are hereditary...

If it goes untested and shows up later and it's evident that early testing would have ensured quicker access to the necessary medicine, then, yes, it is a form of abuse because the parents are obligated by law to ensure that the child has all the basic necessities of life provided. This included medical care.

Scientologists fail when it comes to ensuring that their members receive PROPER medical care.

And why do you think we have so many "hereditary" diseases which threaten the lives of children?

Because we treat the illness, which allows the child to grow up and breed children of his own, which carry the disease, and so on and so on.

I'm not advocating simply disposing of these children off hand. I'm not even advocating not giving them the treatment to live as long as they can with as much dignity as they can. I do advocate either the sterilization of individuals who carry these horrific diseases, or simply treating the symptoms and allowing them to pass away when nature intended.

Every year we hear about more and more medical problems children are having. This isn't because the world we've grown up in has changed, but because we've become better at treating diseases we can't cure or eradicate from our genes.

It's time to start culling the human ranks. We've taken the responsibility from nature, now it's time we took that ourselves.

Jennifer

I was pretty busy building one. But my concern remains.Oh yes, some concern remains in how the situation was dealt with. This should have been resolved amicablely between the hospital and parents without the media or courts needing to be involved.

The parents are religious wackos and the hospitals staff are stuborn idiots who can't contemplate resolving an issue in a way not set out by the rules.

I do advocate either the sterilization of individuals who carry these horrific diseases, or simply treating the symptoms and allowing them to pass away when nature intended.5% of all Europeans carry the CF gene. I believe this would extend to Americans of European descent as well. You want to sterlise them to stop any chance of them producing kids with CF?

There's no point in just treating the symptoms of diease if you can do more than that. That logic can extend on to the whole of medicine. Some guy gets hit by a speeding car and needs surgery to save his life? Don't bother to give him the surgery just some morphine for the pain and let him die naturally. It means his genes or type of thinking that lead to not looking properly when crossing the road are removed from the genepool.