Religious excuses for negligence removed!

[theVOID]

Epic win!

"The Oregon House approved a bill Thursday that would remove legal protection for parents who choose faith healing over medical intervention when treating their children.

The bill passed unanimously, though two Republican representatives raised concerns that the legislation was taking the issue away from juries and sending the state down a slippery slope."

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index..._exce.html

[Violet]

Good news in the wake of the nonsense in wisconsin

[HeyItsZeus]

This is good, since the child has no choice really.

[Godscreated]

I do not know what the bill says in it's entirety, I do think this is a good idea to a point because children can't protect themselves. It should state that a childs situation must be life threating or disabling and at least two doctors agree. The parents should have to pay all the expenses, this would keep people from trying to freeload on the government in the name of religion. What does bother me is the right of individuals to believe as they see fit and the government not interferring, this could lead to laws passed that restricts belief that is protected by our constitution, that government will not make laws against religious belief that is resonable. As I stated I can agree with this law to a point because it does help those who need protection against over zealous religious parents who have been misguided by their leaders.

[Minimalist]

What does bother me is the right of individuals to believe as they see fit and the government not interferring,

"Belief" is one thing and, silly though it may be this act does nothing to change what these clowns "believe."

What the act regulates is "conduct." They may not kill their kids in order to prop up their silly beliefs.

[Godscreated]

What does bother me is the right of individuals to believe as they see fit and the government not interferring,

"Belief" is one thing and, silly though it may be this act does nothing to change what these clowns "believe."

What the act regulates is "conduct." They may not kill their kids in order to prop up their silly beliefs.

Yes Min I agree but it's only a short jump to the next step.

[lilphil1989]

What does bother me is the right of individuals to believe as they see fit and the government not interferring, this could lead to laws passed that restricts belief that is protected by our constitution, that government will not make laws against religious belief that is resonable. As I stated I can agree with this law to a point because it does help those who need protection against over zealous religious parents who have been misguided by their leaders.

The belief that you have the right to refuse medical treatment to your child because he/she is being treated by your imaginary friend is not reasonable, whether that treatment is for cancer or an ingrown toenail.

[theVOID]

I do not know what the bill says in it's entirety, I do think this is a good idea to a point because children can't protect themselves. It should state that a childs situation must be life threating or disabling and at least two doctors agree. The parents should have to pay all the expenses, this would keep people from trying to freeload on the government in the name of religion. What does bother me is the right of individuals to believe as they see fit and the government not interferring, this could lead to laws passed that restricts belief that is protected by our constitution, that government will not make laws against religious belief that is resonable. As I stated I can agree with this law to a point because it does help those who need protection against over zealous religious parents who have been misguided by their leaders.

Negligence trumps beliefs, period.

[Captain Scarlet]

I do not know what the bill says in it's entirety, I do think this is a good idea to a point because children can't protect themselves. It should state that a childs situation must be life threating or disabling and at least two doctors agree. The parents should have to pay all the expenses, this would keep people from trying to freeload on the government in the name of religion. What does bother me is the right of individuals to believe as they see fit and the government not interferring, this could lead to laws passed that restricts belief that is protected by our constitution, that government will not make laws against religious belief that is resonable. As I stated I can agree with this law to a point because it does help those who need protection against over zealous religious parents who have been misguided by their leaders.

These parents are not misguided by their leaders necessarily. If you really believe, then the logical conclusion is that you should eschew invasive medical treatments and trust in a deity. However, we all know full well that this would be child abuse or in ones own case suicide or some form of masochism. What this really goes to show is that parents do not have the right to inculcate such beliefs or adopt such practices within or on their children.

[tackattack]

I would say action trumps belief.. regardless of it's positive or negative social impact. When religious beliefs are used to affect government or social structure from a top down method, I feel it's incorrect. Changing society's concensus which then affects government is one think but government should have no control over belief, only when that belief moves to action. I hate politics.. I must be very tired..