How would you end that sentence? Is there ever a circumstance in which it is okay to abuse your children? I’m not referring to the debate over spanking—I’m talking about laws that are currently enacted in certain states that allow parents to physically abuse and murder their children because of a specific circumstance: religion.
This AP article explores the challenges that face courts trying cases involving parents who neglect their children’s health and well-being because of religious beliefs. Many states have exemptions for these parents that absolve them of their sins because they once read a book that said thinking really hard in an upward direction would cure their children’s ailments.
Apparently, it was not enough to have Pentecostal and Jehovah’s Witness parents literally getting away with murder. According to the article, religious exemptions are only now being publicly questioned because more people are claiming these exemptions apply to their less-popular belief systems, such as those found online:
Gregory P. Isaacs, an attorney for [appropriately named Universal Life Church child-murderer] Crank, who’s out on bond, argues that Tennessee’s religious exemption law is untested and too vague.
“It really has a tremendous amount of problems,” Isaacs said. “What is an organized religion and what is an ordained minister? What illnesses can you attempt to heal by faith? Those are the two pitfalls in the statute. That’s not what’s really clear.”
That this question even needs to be asked is, to me, remarkable. It is never okay to neglect a child’s health. Crank’s daughter died with a “tumor the size of a basketball” on her shoulder. It does not matter what religion Crank is and how many other people in the world buy into the same delusion, and it doesn’t matter how long ago her holy books were written. If Jesus Himself descended from the heavens and knocked on Crank’s door accompanied by a choir of angels and the Pope and Moses and Bill Donohue and a crowd of paparazzi, and commanded her to withhold medical treatment from her daughter, it is Crank’s duty as a parent to kick Jesus in the sack and go to the hospital. If she doesn’t, she is not fit to be a parent or a free human being.
Luckily, there are those out there who have a rational outlook on the question of religious exemptions. The article mentions Rita Swan, director of Children’s Healthcare is a Legal Duty, an organization focused on abolishing those exemptions nationwide. She gets the best quote in the entire article:
In the wake of the Wisconsin case, Swan said legislators there are considering a bill that would repeal the state’s religious exemption to its child abuse and neglect law.
“In the U.S. under the First Amendment, we’re not supposed to be establishing religion or carving out any preferences for prestigious religions,” Swan said. “The courts should not be giving any kind of deference to established denominations and making any distinctions.”
I couldn’t agree more. Rita’s organization sounds like a fabulous one, and I hope she keeps up the good fight until no more states allow parents to legally abuse and murder their children in the name of superstition.
This is one of those topics that automatically gets me ranty. It.is.unacceptable. to deny anyone the benefits of science based health care because of one’s religious beliefs. *Especially* if that person is your child… Ugh. I could go on, but I won’t.
I will say that I’m glad to hear that someone is making an effort to abolish the religious exemption.
Am I alone in having read this headline and thought ‘Fuck me, this afternoon’s AI is dark…’?
PS – Didn’t want to sound like I was underplaying the seriousness of the post, just thought I’d point out my taken-aback train of thought!
The whole idea makes me sick.
Surrender your health, fine. Surrender your child’s health? No freakin way.
And lol @Marsh
@Marsh: Yes, it’s dark that we even have to consider this issue in the 21st Century. However, I’ve been exposed to some of these people’s “views.” There are some people out there that are just unfit to be parents. I certainly agree that there should be no “religious” exemption to health care, especially for children.
You have to remember that some of the most “anti-government” people out there are far-right wing church members. I’m not talking about the Southern Baptists, for example. There are some smaller churches that are far, far to the right of them. They see ANY government action as ungodly and an attack on their beliefs. Those that use government services, doctors, vaccines, etc. are viewed as lacking in faith.
I agree with Kaylia Marie: As far as I’m concerned, a person over the age of consent can do what they want with their own health. Their children, no.
@Marsh: No worries, I thought the same thing. Phew.
I’ve said my piece about this topic many times, and will repeat ad nauseam, that a personal religion or philosophy is no more of an excuse to harm or neglect a child than is stupidity or intoxication.
I admin this group of Facebook if anyone wants to join.
People Against Religion-motivated Medical Neglect of Children
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=9769202007
I agree with Rebecca re: these governmental ‘get out of jail free’ policies. I must point out, though, that while withholding medical care *is* a central part of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is not at all common in the Pentecostal movement, which was what the post seemed to imply. I was raised in the Assemblies of God – one of the largest pentecostal denominations – so I have a good bit of experience with the Pentecostal movement. They do believe in divine healing, but going to your doctor is not discouraged in my experience. There are obviously some sects out there that do advocate the refusal of medical care – and I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them self-identify as Pentecostal – but they are, in my experience, a small subset of Pentecostal people as a whole.
FWIW, I’m not a Christian now – I’m strong agnostic – but I think that a more complete understanding of people on the other side is a good thing.
@James Fox: Joined and invited
The line seems to be where faith ends and foolishness begins. You can have faith in God to heal you… but gor the sake fo your kids, don’t discount medical advice!
I was born with a very serious eye condition. My mother took me to church and they prayed, fasted, anointed with oil… she also took me to a specialist in SF and I had multiple operations.
Guess who gets most of the credit?
There was a case just last week where a teenage Jehovah’s Witness girl made the argument that she had the right to refuse treatment (a blood transfusion 2 years prior) on religious grounds.
In Canada, minors are officially wards of their parents, and in cases like this the law (usually provincial) can step in and take temporary custody of the child to approve medical care when their parents are unable to consent on religious grounds. The only exception is if the child demonstrates sufficient maturity to consent or refuse treatment on their own.
So a couple years ago, the province (Manitoba, I think) stepped in and ordered doctors to give her a blood transfusion, and she argued that her rights were violated because she was a mature minor who willingly refused treatment.
Another case in BC a few years ago concerned the couple with newborn sextuplets. Obviously, newborns can’t consent on their own, and the parents were Jehovah’s Witness. I think at least 2 of them died if I remember right. The province stepped in and took temporary custody of the children, and ordered blood transfusions which saved their lives.
According to Jehovah’s Witness beliefs, the parents are exempt from any repercussions from the church, because at that point the situation was out of their control. So while they might argue their rights were violated, I’d imagine they have some unspoken gratitude for the province saving the lives of their surviving children.
Another case was a little closer to home. A boy, a couple years younger than I was at the time, had leukemia, and would likely have survived if he or his family had consented to a blood transfusion. But he was Jehovah’s Witness, and it was years ago so I don’t remember the details. But I think he may have convinced someone that he was a mature minor so that he could refuse the blood transfusion, and the province (New Bruswick) was unable to step in.
I usually don’t like telling others what to believe. I tend to avoid it when I can. But the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the blood thing…. I would highly recommend that they take a good look at it. Examine it. Consider how it’s working out for them. Seriously consider if it’s something they really want to keep. Especially when it comes to children. Of course, an adult has the right to refuse treatment.
I don’t mean to pick on the Jehovah’s Witnesses specifically; It’s just that most of the cases I’m familiar with tend to involve them in particular. I know there are other groups who similarly withhold medical attention on religious grounds.
But children, even mature children can be cohered by their parents’ beliefs without truly understanding what it really means.
The law can and should step in whenever possible in cases like this. The Jehovah’s Witnesses exempt the parents and the children in cases where the law takes control. They may not like it, and they might even throw up a big stink in court about it. But in the end, a life is saved.
I hope I’m not dragging this off-topic too much, but this makes me think of circumcision. I had my sons’ genitals ritually mutilated back when I was a (semi-believing and ostensibly) practicing Orthodox Jew, but now I have a hard time understanding how we tolerate it at all.
But I doubt anyone would object to piercing a baby’s ears.
So where should we draw the line? It’s OK to puncture your kids if you can do it without going to medical school? Few Mohels do, so that isn’t a good criterion.
Hmmm….just throwing it out there.
@RedSeaRoadkill: “But I doubt anyone would object to piercing a baby’s ears.”
Ummm a lot of people would object to that.
/raises hand
Which is ironic, I guess since I wouldn’t personally object to circumcision…. the diff would of course be the medical benefits.
@RedSeaRoadkill: Circumcision boils my blood, especially that it’s not specifically for religious benefits, but for bullshit health and cleanliness benefits too. Anyone who uses the ‘it’s cleaner if there’s parts cut off’ argument should have it pointed out very clearly that it’s easy to keep any body part from getting dirty using amputation. Severed fingers don’t need to be washed, either…
@marilove: I bet you’re kinda glad you paused to read before you started your ‘circumstances under which child abuse is ok’ AI answer then…
Not that I had one. Obviously.
@Marsh: You have a point, but you’re logic is flawed, Skepchic doesn’t ALWAYS post an AI about an event in today’s news. It could just as easily been tomorrow’s AI.
@James Fox: Got an invitation, and joined.
@RedSeaRoadkill: I guess the criteria would include permanent damage. There is argument about what damage/benefit circumcistion offers.
@Peregrine: I’ve heard cases in the states about teenagers refusing treatment and the parents backing their ideals. One-that MN boy, which I was for the state taking custody, and the other, a VA boy-16, who was refusing treatment. This was not based on relgion, but prior experience. He had chemo before, and it nearly killed him, but then the cancer came back. So, he opted to refuse treatment. I was against the state taking ward of the child, since he was older and more mature, he had previous experience with this, and it didn’t work, and, if I remember correctly, he only had a 50% chance of survival WITH treatment. Once all those factors were considered, I chose the side of the child. While I disagree with his choice-he was looking into alternative medicine-I support his right to choose. Hey, it may be a placebo, but he knows the end is near already. I don’t think there can be one blanket rule, it has to be case-by-case. However, I do fully support the idea that religion is not an excuse or a reason to withhold treatments we know have a high probablity of survival.
@infinitemonkey: Absolutely. I didn’t even take non-religious reasons for refusing treatment into consideration. And I’m sure there are plenty.
“…it is Crank’s duty as a parent to kick Jesus in the sack…”
Thanks for that mental image. I’ll be having some sweet dreams tonight.
Mike.
If Jesus Himself descended from the heavens and knocked on Crank’s door accompanied by a choir of angels and the Pope and Moses and Bill Donohue and a crowd of paparazzi, and commanded her to withhold medical treatment from her daughter, it is Crank’s duty as a parent to kick Jesus in the sack and go to the hospital. If she doesn’t, she is not fit to be a parent or a free human being.
Rebecca FTW!
@justphoenix: FTW????
For the Win?
No, it isn’t okay. I get so angry. I feel so sick to my stomach. The two cases that I know of where the parents were convicted have both had one thing in common. When the parents families came out they always framed it as freedom of religion. No one seemed to give a damn about the dead children. These people are such fucking monsters.
I think we often assume that all sane, right thinking people value human life and, when doubly so when it’s their child’s life. I don’t think this is true for deeply religous people. They value souls.
Religous parents see their child as “god’s child” whose soul has been entrusted into their care. Within the framework of their belief system, the pain and suffering of this world is transitory and irrelevent compared to the perpetual, everlasting life promised to them in the hereafter.
They live in this world only as a necessary inconvenience before being reunited with god in the next life. In that context, the only criteria they employ when deciding what is best for their child is “will my actions be more likely or less likely to get this kid into Heaven?”
These parents are actually acting in their child’s best interest. Sadly, they believe their child’s best interest lies in protecting their soul, not their life.
@infinitemonkey: YES!
@Marsh: I was mostly just confused for a second! Then it became clear and I was relieved.
@marilove: Until tomorrow, when this IS the AI…
@Marsh: I agree with you 100%.
Still, it’s not quite the same because circumcision isn’t going to kill anyone (well, it’s unlikely to, though I know there are risks). Its’ not quite on the same level as refusing medical treatment, though I still think it’s 100% unecessary.
@SkepLit: Great Point.
The question is…. is there anything that can be done to combat such thinking?
@SkepLit: That is simultaneously the clearest and most depressing explanations I have ever seen to explain this sick phenomenon.
@marilove: Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong, it’s not up there with actual child-death, I think it’s the fact that it is so widespread and so accepted that gets my goat. I started (and never finished) writing a whole thing on it a couple of years ago, and in doing so happened to mention it to a few friends – and it totally shocked me how even here in England it’s much more commonplace than I thought.
Still, no sense getting into a huge rant here – preaching and converted and all that! At some point I’ll finish my ‘thing’ off and get all my ranting out on my blog that way!
I’ll chime in as another one against circumcision. If I would have requested that the doctor cut off my son’s earlobes shortly after birth, or even worse that a medically untrained community leader do it, they’d have spirited my child into protective custody before I could gather breath to object.
Sure, some males eventually require circumcision for valid medical reasons – but a far greater number of individuals eventually require a tonsillectomy and I don’t see anyone lining up their newborns for that surgery as a “preventative measure”.
Yeesh.
As for the religious lot…
Withholding or failing to seek reasonable medical attention for a minor (or animal) for whom you are, even temporarily, responsible is a crime. As “I couldn’t afford it”, “I couldn’t take time off of work”, “I didn’t know where to go”, and a thousand other excuses do not provide adequate defense against prosecution “[Insert god here] forbids it” shouldn’t stand as an adequate defense either.
On another note – there was a time when the only anti-vaccs around refused not on pseudoscientific grounds, but on religious grounds. Maybe, just maybe, if we had squashed them then we wouldn’t be dealing with the McCarthy bots now. *grumbles*
@SkepLit: COTW, just because it has never made me feel more comfortable about my atheism and my love for life, as apposed to a love of souls or what might be beyond this life.
“comfortable about” doesn’t seem to be quite right, but neither did “sure about” since I was already sure, but I think you catch my drift.
@marilove: “Happy” would work. So would “relieved”.
Since @SkepLit brought it up, that did occur to me before. Let’s see, where did I put those horns? Ah, here they are:
<devil’s advocate>
What if a “believer” accused us of neglecting our child’s “souls” by withholding religious upbringing and education the way we accuse them of neglecting their child’s lives by withholding medical attention?
From their perspective, we’re willfully standing by and letting our children burn in hell for eternity by not indoctrinating them into a spiritual way of life. Or, denying them potential benefits of a spiritual life.
If the law can step in to save their child’s life against their religious beliefs, could they, in some hypothetical jurisdiction where the laws are different, step in and save our child’s “souls” in contradiction with our beliefs, religious or otherwise?
</devil’s advocate>
I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why it’s an altogether different situation. I can think of a few myself, but I’m trying to do 3 things at once at the moment.
@Peregrine: That’s easy. Line up a bunch of denominations and ask them, “Which God?”
Then escape with your child during the ensuing argument… :-D
I was looking for something more along the lines of “the same laws they invoke to defend their right to belief also protect ours”, but any port in a storm, I guess. Even if you have to stir the tempest yourself….
@Peregrine: I think the biggest difference is I can prove the existence of a living child in open court and they cannot prove the existence of a soul, a god, a heavan or a hell (except for Kansas and Texas).
@Gabrielbrawley: Even in Texas and Kansas they’d probably agree that the child is still free to choose a spiritual life on their own when they become an adult.
amazingly, when I first read the title and nothing else I filled out the sentence with “unless they’re infants and you’re chopping off genital bits.”
Here in the west we tend to say obvious girls shouldn’t be cut in such ways, but the intersexed are routinely mutilated and boys? Well, that’s even more common. It disgusts me and hopefully as a society we will move QUICKLY away from the routine amputation of neonates.
Especially galling is the reason we in the US started this up in the first place, as a widespread, non-Jewish practice, it’s only around 150 years and was meant to reduce masturbation and sexual pleasure, because “masturbation caused blindness, madness, violence, dropsey, cancer, etc etc etc.”
It was very much a religiously motivated movement. I want it to end.
@jemand: Dr John Kellogg gave us Corn Flakes and took our foreskins. I somehow feel shortchanged.
@Kaylia_Marie: Yes. Both are good!
Because that description was spot on and CREEPY.
@jemand: Male circumcision is not the same thing as female genital mutilation, fy. I don’t agree with male circumcision, but it’s not the same thing. And the intersex thing is something else entirely.
Rebecca,
I love your vivid action description a fit parent would take, kicking Jesus in the sack for suggesting withholding medical treatment.
Though not a reply, it is one of the cleverest comments I’ve read here in some time, so get’s my vote for COTW.
@jemand: In my line of humanity, that barbarism has ended with me. Both my boys are perfectly intact, I saw no reason to welcome them to the world by cutting off a bit.
They aren’t the “same thing” but how can you argue with the commonality of “chopping off pieces of a child’s genital bits”? ‘cuz… they do share that particular aspect.
Even the intersexed, who may eventually want surgery, do best if allowed to grow up to determine which sex, in fact, they feel most comfortable with.
@jemand: It just bothers me when they are compared. Female Genital Mutilation is a horrible, horrible thing, and while male circumcision sucks and in my opinion is wrong, it’s still nowhere near as horrific or as life-changing.
I agree that it’s best to allow ADULTS to decide, but that doesn’t mean they are comparable.
@jemand: I must say, adults making decisions on intersexed children (ESPCIALLY doctors who don’t even consult the parents) because they think it’ll be “easier” does make me quite angry. Sigh.
@marilove: I think it’s comparable, but in the same way you can compare bumping into someone’s car at a red light with a head on collision – both are car crashes, but the severity is much much different.
@SkepLit: Excellent comment. One of the reasons Mormons have huge families is that they believe part of the path to heaven is that the soul possess a body, even if it’s for a short period of time. Better the baby dies at birth having had a body for two seconds than never to be born.
@marilove: Exactly… the list of way in which they are diff is a much longer list than the one that lists how they are the same.
@tiger kitty: Now THAT is a creepy thought
@Marsh: I guess that’s true, though I’m still not comfortable with the comparison. Removing foreskin isn’t going to be all that detrimental to a man’s sex life, and I know that it can sometimes grow back if you go through the right procedures (does someone know more about this?), and female genital mutilation 100% negatively affects a woman’s sex life and can cause many, many, many more medical problems.
And the intersex issue is just a whole ‘nother animal.
@Kaylia_Marie: Basically!
@James Fox:
Thanks James!! I was totally looking for something like this on facebook!
@marilove: Also, of course, male circumcision can have *some* positive results. It is technically “cleaner” (or rather, less work to keep clean) and there are some studies that show that it lessens the likelihood of passing on HIV (though I know those studies are still being debated/done), while female genital mutilation has no positive results and is used as a way to control women.
You can compare female genital mutilation to cutting off the head of a dick. I think that’s a much closer comparison. And just as ugly.
@Peregrine:
Unfortunately, this rationale has been successfully used in denying child custody and adoption requests.
@marilove: (To clarify, I don’t think those “some positive results” of male circumcision are a good excuse and I still disagree with circumcision.)
@marilove: Yeah, I believe it can be grown back of sorts, not 100%. The P&T Bullshit on it was pretty detailed, definitely worth a look (especially for the bit about the physical shock babies experiences during the procedure, deeply upsetting).
Essentially, circumcision won’t 100% affect a man’s sex life, but it will by xx%, something unquantifiable, but it’s seen as entirely normal and widely accepted – I think that’s what raises it beyond the ‘it won’t have too much of an effect’ position. If it has any effect, which it does, it’s 100% unacceptable to circumcise for no reason other than ‘so the other boys in the locker room accept you’ or ‘so chicks won’t think he’s weird’ (not my arguments – both arguments I’ve read and heard in many places).
Female circumcision is abhorrent, and shocking, and detestable in the extreme – fortunately it’s also isolated and vilified all round, and rightly so. No doctor will casually carry it out, there’s no social pressure to do it – I think that’s the thing that raises male circumcision beyond its physical effects, the level of social acceptance is just mind-boggling and disgusting, I think.
Damn, I think I said I wasn’t going to rant! sorry!
Kaylia Marie,
Actually the regional differences WITHIN FGM is far greater than the difference between it and male circumcision. Sometimes, only the clitoral hood is excised, in which case, it and male circumcision are excising pretty much the exact same tissue. That version of female circumcision (and some partial clitoridectomies) even were recommended in the US in the past 60 years, to “treat” masturbating girls.
The current view of FGM in our society is something that some barbaric “other” culture does, with focus on infibrilation, while male circumcision is happening just down the road in the neonatal unit every day. So we are innured to it. But– they really are not as “different” as our culture leads us to believe.
Where circumcision is concerned, I’m kindof ambivalent. Of course female circumcision is arguably worse, but we don’t do that in most western countries. But we do circumcise males, or at least are mostly complacent about the practice. In the vast majority of cases, male circumcision is medically unnecessary, and carried out without the child’s consent. And there are cases where it has lead to physical or psychological complications later in life.
The may not be directly comparable in magnitude, but I’d say it’s a little hypocritical to criticize other cultures while ignoring what’s going on in our own.
@marilove: Just a quick thing on the benefits – it’s cleaner, sure. But cutting off your little finger might mean you have less hand to wash – doesn’t mean it’s worth doing. Men are grown ups, we can keep clean, I’ve never found it too much of a hassle to clean really. As for the HIV benefit, that’s true in areas of widespread HIV infection and lack of contraception use. Put on a condom and the HIV benefits disappear completely.
Just thought I’d throw those points out there for discussion, I can tell you’re not pro-circumcision!
oh, and you can stretch the remaining skin, but you can never “grow it back.” There are delicate nerve and sensory structures in the foreskin that are not replicated by “growing it back” although the stretched skin can provide some of the function of the lost tissue, it cannot provide the sensation of it.
And every study of HIV protection I’ve ever heard about was about adult circumcision… and I’m totally unconvinced that a man dedicated enough to safety to have himself circumcised as an adult is going to be more focused on safety. And as there is a history of badly done research to prop up this practice, I don’t believe any of it.
oh, yeah, and the hygiene argument completely ignores the fact that you’ll have an open wound trying to heal in– a diaper setting! for a significant period of time. Don’t discount that either!
@jemand: What? Why was this directed at me?
/lost
The next time someone looks at me like I’m the most boring person on earth for being a skeptic, I’ll tell them, “But we can bring any conversation around to the topic of circumcision!”
@Marsh: Nope, I do agree with you! That’s why I don’t like comparing them, you know? It’s pretty awful that male circumcision is just accepted in our culture and thought of as normal.
@jemand:
You just proved my point. Even “female circumcision” isn’t used for cleanliness like male circumcision — it’s used to control women’s sexuality. And therefore it’s still not all that comparable.
Also, “partial clitoral removal” is still much more detrimental to a woman’s sex life than male circumcision.
Um. Of course they are different. The results are very different, and the reasonings behind the procedures are very different.
@Marsh: Nope, I agree with you! That’s just what people use as an excuse, and those ARE true benefits, even if those benefits aren’t necessary (does that make sense? lol).
Sorry Kaylia! You said: “Exactly… the list of way in which they are diff is a much longer list than the one that lists how they are the same.”
I said, FGM is different in different regions, and in some places pretty much indistinguishable from circumcision. among other things I branched off of that weren’t necessarily directed to you but I forgot what I’d said at the beginning of my post.
@marilove:
My ex researched the various procedures, so I know a bit about it. The most common method we found involved stretching the skin of the shaft with either a series of weights or with an implanted water balloon which is incrementally expanded.
It seems the “reversal” is merely cosmetic though… by the time a reversal procedure is attempted the head of the penis has already thickened and the original sensitivity and function can’t be regained.
Marilove… you haven’t looked into the history of why non Jewish people in the US circumcise. It began with moralists, such as Kellog, who advocated circumcision tightly enough to make masturbation painful. It WAS directed at controlling male sexuality. It has become entrenched in the culture and the original reason forgotten. But you might say the same thing of the particular women who cut their girls. They do not directly say they are controlling their daughters sexuality, when anthropologist talk to them they say it is “cleaner, and more beautiful and she’ll be more accepted this way.” Which are the arguments… IN our culture, for the continuation of male circumcision, which, again, started because of controlling masturbation– of boys.
@marilove: I get the feeling we’re all on the ‘stop cutting people’s privates against their wishes, seriously!’ page here, it’s maybe not worth ranking the procedures!
Another quick thing – non-religious male circumcision in the West was propagated by (amongst others) John ‘Cornflake’ Kellogg – a religious fundamentalist who put forward removal of the foreskin as a way of desensitising the head of the penis by exposing it to wear and tear, thus making it less fun to touch and therefore curbing masturbation. It was mainly an anti-masturbatorty act which is now explained with cleanliness and health benefits, but first and foremost it was to control sexuality. Kellogg’s recommendation at the time for women was to burn them with acid to achieve the same purpose. I’m sure I even read a quote of his on the topic (will try and find it).
(as I say, I did a fair bit of research for the thing I failed to finish writing!)
@Peregrine:
How did Jehovah’s Witnesses have sextuplets? I don’t think there’s ever been a case of natural sextuplets, and if they were willing to “interfere” with nature by using fertility treatments, I don’t understand why they couldn’t use treatments to save their children’s lives.
@sowellfan: “withholding medical care *is* a central part of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses”
just to clarify i used to be a JW and i can say that withholding medical care was not encouraged in the slightest except where blood transfusions were concerned. accepting whole blood was the only thing that i had ever heard of as being a “no-no”. i had been associated with them through my parents starting in the mid 80’s until the early 2000’s. accepting blood fractions was up to each individual’s conscience. the only time a procedure would be denied was when a dr. refused to attempt it without transfusion(s). my mom had one of her heart valves replaced and numerous breast cancer surgeries plus the follow up chemo and radiation. she survived a good fifteen years after detection. when it was detected she was at stage four and had three of the four different types of the cancer. the cancer was found in a couple lymph nodes when they were removed during the initial surgery.
i’m not trying to be combative but i often hear generalizations about witnesses and they are often not at all what i experienced and i sometimes feel the need to share what i experienced..
Dr John Kellogg, in his 1877 book, “Plain facts for old and young: embracing the natural history and hygiene of organic life”:
“Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his vice. (p 295)
In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement, and preventing the recurrence of the practice in those whose will-power has become so weakened that the patient is unable to exercise entire self-control. (p 297)”
Bit long, but I couldn’t find a piece to cut out that wasn’t 100% fucked up.
@catgirl: I don’t recall if it was ever explained in the news wires (confidentiality, and such) but from what I do recall, they had received fertility treatments. Apparently, fertility treatments are not in conflict with their religious beliefs.
They’re not generally opposed to “interfering” with natural processes as far as I know. They will seek medical attention and intervention when needed, just like anyone else. They just don’t like getting blood transfusions.
I don’t know. It’s their religion, not mine.
@I was thinking more along the lines of difference between circumcision and FGM like
Age of occurrence
Memory
Healing
Social pressures 9not past pressures, pressures of today)
Hygiene
Who does the cutting
Who the cutting is done to
General attitudes
Long term effects
Not that circumcision doesn’t have these things or that they should be igonored,, just that these areas (and more) are vastly different between circumcision and FGM
jemand:
@Peregrine:
Oh, so it’s just blood transfusions they don’t like. Well, I don’t know enough about the story, but I didn’t think that blood transfusions are standard care for premature babies, so it seemed to me like they were denying other types of care.
I think I clicked when I should havee clacked, sorry about the insanity of my last post.
@Marsh: Some of the early Quakers, Kellogg and Post all had some amazingly bazaar and outrageous beliefs back in the 19 Century. Odd how we start our day with their breakfast products when what we really want is good morning sex before we go to work.
@James Fox: I tend to start my day with sex when what I really want is good morning cereal…
Maybe not.
@catgirl: Yeah, I might have forgotten or omitted some details, but for some reason that I’m sure made sense to the medical professionals at the time, the babies needed blood transfusions and the parents refused to give consent.
Male circumcision and female genital mutilation are completely different. The only similarity is that they involve genitals. FGM is done to keep women sexually pure, to attempt to prevent them from having sex, and in many cases to actually make sex un-enjoyable for them. Aside from the wacko John Kellogg, male circumcision is not done for any of these reasons. Kellogg’s intent was to use it later in life as a punishment to make boys associate pain with sexuality. It wasn’t done to make sex permanently less enjoyable in a physical, which is why FGM is done. I’m not justifying male circumcision, just pointing out that it’s very different than FGM, both in intent and severity.
@Marsh: While I understand that circumcission is not really necessary, and can be somewhat detrimental to the newborn, I would rather have a relation with a cut man v. an uncut man. Is that somewhat hypocritical?
Being a skeptic, I feel its necessary to be skeptical of oneself, and, IMHO, hypocracy, in the skeptical world, should be a cardinal sin. So, I try to look at myself and try to make sure I’m not doing so.
Am I making sense, or am I over thinking things…again.
@Marsh: I’ve had some granolas but prefer a traditional English breakfast.
@James Fox, also funny is that those breakfast flakes are supposed to be “nonstimulating” so you don’t WANT sex. Seriously, it was based on the theory of “vitalism” that you only had a certain amount of energy and if you used it up on sex– well, your body would fall apart. Furthermore, meat and any seasoning (including sugar) was supposed to inflame the “animal passions” of the individual. Hence the Seventh Day Adventist obsession with diet. Kellogg was an Adventist (before he got kicked out because of pantheism… I know way too much about this as an ex-Adventist)
and Kaylia, I think those differences are more indicative of the current cultures we’re talking about than the practice itself– boys in cultures practicing FGM are circumcised at pretty much the same age as their female counterparts. Also, incrementally more developed countries like Egypt commonly perform FGM in hospitals by doctors, it’s only in societies with little to no official medical care that it’s done in the bush, for boys and girls, in that society.
@infinitemonkey: It’s hypocritical if you’re making a judgment about a man based on whether he’s cut or uncut and using that sole bit of info to determine whether or not you’re going to hook up, but not hypocritical if a cut penis is just what turns you on. The way a person looks has a lot to do with how physically attracted you are to them, and your preferences are very dependent on how you grew up and what you learned was “normal.”
@catgirl: I’m not so sure that’s true – Kellogg at the time put it forward as a way of desensitising the penis and to therefore make sex and masturbation less pleasurable. That we’ve moved on to pseudomedical and hygiene reasoning doesn’t excuse it, for me.
@Rebecca: I think I agree in part with that really – if it’s the sole basis of a judgement then it’s hypocrisy. I’d like to say it’s no different to a man only being attracted to, say, fake breasts, but I think it’s still a little greyer than that. If the circumcision was done at an age when the guy can give his full, informed consent, then the grey area goes away somewhat. While we’re still habitually performing cosmetic surgery on baby’s genitals, I don’t think it will ever really be OK.
@jemand: Aye… and so…?
My origial point (agreeing with Marilove) was that comparing the two is unfair because they are vastly differnt things.
I stand by that.
@infinitemonkey: I would have to agree… having been wiht both.
Not that it would be the only thing I would consider when dating, but ti would figure up there.
And if her were a guy who had gotten snipped later in life, when it was his own choice, well you can bet that would send a red flag up for me.
So, I guess I am a hypocrite along with you.
My last two comments I think got swallowed… apparently the format is telling me to go take a break! lol
Catgirl, if it weren’t for Kellogg (and his friends), circumcision rates in the US would be <1%!! I really don't think you can then dismiss his opinion as that of just a "wacko."
And please. WE, in the WEST look at FGM in African nations and say it's to "control sexuality" and… we are right, because we look at the history and effect. But… when you TALK to the people involved, their first argument for doing it is something along the lines of cleanliness and aesthetics. It is no different than someone looking at the history of male circumcision, seeing why it exploded in popularity (controlling sexuality) and then TALKING to the people involved, who say they do it for cleanliness and aesthetics.
And you women talking about wanting guys circumcised… I think it's really really really hypocritical, and it ignores the in-culture bias we all have, to ignore what the other cultures say about themselves, to dismiss men who want their women circumcised and giving stated reasons exactly the same as yours regarding your boyfriends… yes you're right the real baseline reason that FGM is practiced is horrible. But so is the reason male circumcision became common.
Wow, glad I was able to start a thread about circumcision.
So now that we’ve established that everyone here (it seems) would agree with me that we’d be better off illegalizing circumcision; what I really was curious about is the other end of the spectrum:
What *would* the skepchick crowd OK in terms of parents ‘abusing’ their children?
Apparently pierced ears are not univerally viewed as benign. I don’t think that we have much else. We don’t put those rings around girls’ necks to stretch their necks, and we don’t give children tattoos. I’m assuming this crowd would generally define those as a kind of abuse as well.
But it begs the question of where we draw the line. I like the suggestion someone gave of permanence, but wouldn’t we think its abusing a child to do something temporary, but painful?
I’m mostly asking this question coming from the perspective that outside of protecting the child, I’d generally prefer the government lets me do whatever I want.
@RedSeaRoadkillNo Gravatar
We endanger their immortal souls!!!! THe Horrorsss!!!!
Back to the original topic, I grew up in a Christian Science family (the religion famous for not going to docs or using meds). It wasn’t until I was 22 when I took my first pill (an advil to cure a hangover!) and I didn’t see a doctor until I was in my mid twenties. Today, I’m much more of a skeptic and don’t see any reason to use Christian Science to heal me. Modern medicine works just fine for me. That said, there is 100 years of literature with 1000s of testimonials of people who were healed using Christian Science of ailments from cancer to depression. Myself, I can only remember being healed of a toothache, but even then, I’m not sure if my memory is distorted by time or if it really happened.
Basically Rebecca, you are saying my parents should be jailed for child abuse because they didn’t take me or my four siblings to the doctor–ever. I just have a difficult time thinking my parents, who I love dearly, are child abusers.
With Christian Science in particular, it should be noted that the only time this subject comes up is when someone dies because they did not receive care, usually a kid. This happens so infrequently that when it does happen it sticks out. However, there are probably millions of Christian Scientists who never, ever saw a doctor and went on to live fulfilling lives.
My mom always told me there is just as good a chance that a doc will make a mistake and a kid will die than a kid who receives Christian Science treatment.
Hard to define “abuse”
1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one’s authority.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one’s eyesight.
3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4. to commit sexual assault upon.
5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead.
–noun
6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges.
7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men.
8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse.
9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime.
10. rape or sexual assault.
11. Obsolete. deception.
—Idiom
12. abuse oneself, to masturbate.
(dictionary.com)
I wonder about that line too…. how much of it is changed when you move from one society to another…. not just in terms of time but in location. Rings on the neck is a good example, it isn’t seen as abuse in that culture…. but it is in ours.
If the line can be changed, if the line can be moved…. where does that leave us/
Is there an absolute?
Should there be?
@RedSeaRoadkill: It’s actually collar bone and shoulder compression from what I’ve seen on the x-rays. Most states don’t allow piercing of children without parental consent but from what I’ve heard most business who provide piercing are happy to do any kid if a parent asks. Tattoos are a different matter in my state and a child under 18 can not be touched by a licensed tattoo artist.
Back on topic… , yes it is a good question about where we draw lines. I’m for the line being drawn concerning basis health and safety issues while giving parents lots of room to make their own decisions about how to parent. I do not think the government should be more involved in how you/I/we parent our children.
@hz:
If you don’t want to take your child to a doctor for check ups, well then fine. If your child gets really sick or has a displaced broken arm and you still don’t take the child to the doctor then off to jail with you.
@RedSeaRoadkill: Tough question, really it is. It would be easy if there were a cut and dry rule – if it harms the kid physically, if it’s going to leave a lasting psychological effect (then again, technically, what doesn’t?), or if there’s intent to harm present even if that intent isn’t successful.
Unfortunately those hard and fast rules don’t exist, so I guess the only answer is that the best way to protect a child is to keep it in a cardboard shoe box, half-filled with straw, with air-holes cut in it.
No, wait, that’s how to protect hibernating tortoises…
As I said, I am not a Christian Scientist. I haven’t even stepped foot in a church since I was in my early 20s. But I’m not sure if this is a black and white issue, as many commenters have pointed out. What about people who feed their kids crap and then the kids get sick? What about parents who keep their houses TOO clean and the kids develop allergies later in life?
I don’t have kids, but if I did, I would take them to the doctor and most definitely raise them as skeptics.