Fear of western medicine claims another victim

[bascule]

Western medicine is medicine based on science. The state of the art is constantly changing as new papers are published on new techniques and old techniques become outmoded or are debunked and abandoned.

 

Certain religions state, without evidence, that western medicine is inherently flawed. John Travolta ascribed to a religion which instructed him to take his son off seizure medicine. His son subsequently died following a seizure.

 

In such a case, is there are moral imperative to adhere to western medicine? Is it morally wrong to take someone off a medication for which there is a science-based reason to taking it? If someone dies of a seizure because they were taken off an anti-seizure medication, shouldn't those who take them off the medication be held accountable?

[iNow]

I don't see why that's not negligence, or manslaughter even.

 

I watched a good interview recently talking about this very subject. It's from a professor of medicine, and his passion on this topic is inspiring. Watch here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=13C076E8CE7FCD4D

 

 

 

Description: This is the full, uncut interview with Professor Michael Baum which was filmed for Channel 4's "The Enemies of Reason." Michael Baum is Professor Emeritus of Surgery at University College London. The discussion covers alternative and complimentary medicines, and how they interact with scientific medicine. This video is provided free online by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and

http://richarddawkins.net

Edited January 5, 2009 by iNow
Added description of link

[ecoli]

According to the site, the claim is that the medicine (depakote) stopped working so they took him off of it. That Travolta took him off the meds due to his scientology religion is still rumor. Though, knowing about scientology, it wouldn't surprise me if it's true.

[padren]

Many Jehovah's Witnesses have been preventing their children from receiving transfusions for some time, even under life threatening conditions unless faced with legal action.

 

While it is very hard to get "objective" data on such a vague topic, a great many suicides have been attributed to Scientology's hostility towards mental health professionals, insisting their followers resist western psychiatric medicine and "audit" their way through depression and such conditions.

 

I can't say much about the Travolta case, other than it's high profile - but I would like to have an idea of some solid ground rules when it comes to religion, medical practices, and children.

 

Personally, I am neutral on male circumcision, but strongly against what is called female circumcision, and generally think a parent can be considered negligent if they allow a child to die because they expected prayer to cure them.

 

But something as simple and common as male circumcision - it is a one way procedure and robs the child of making that choice later in life, so technically it is on the same slope, just closer to the top than the bottom. I have a hard time thinking that the government should be in people's business to that degree, but at the same time I very strongly oppose (and consider it mutilation) female circumcision - but I can't really articulate where the line is drawn.

 

It's definitely a good question.

[npts2020]

The state usually allows a lot of leeway for religious practice. AFAIK snake handling (usually rattlesnakes), peyote use, and refusing medical treatment are all legal for religious practice. The state is less interested in regulating religion than religion is interested in regulating the state for the most part.

[swansont]

The state usually allows a lot of leeway for religious practice.

 

OTOH, there are a lot of actions that are defended as religious practices that would otherwise be disallowed or decried.

 

AFAIK snake handling (usually rattlesnakes), peyote use, and refusing medical treatment are all legal for religious practice.

 

I thought the ruling about peyote said that there was no constitutional right to peyote use — the government may allow otherwise illegal activity, but are not required to do so. Was there a later ruling?

 

http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/psychedelics/bbros_number_09.html

 

Refusing medical treatment is not necessarily an exercise of a religious viewpoint, and any adult can make that decision — for themselves. The question arises when you make that decision on behalf of a child.

[iNow]

Personally, I'd like to see the action of any parent indoctrinating their child into any religion treated as child abuse, but I suppose that's a subject for another thread altogether.

[ecoli]

Personally, I'd like to see the action of any parent indoctrinating their child into any religion treated as child abuse, but I suppose that's a subject for another thread altogether.

 

That's silly, though. Your definition of 'indoctrinated' is probably completely different than someone elses. Certainly there's nothing wrong with exposing a child to the religion of their culture and heritage.

[Sayonara]

I think iNow is thinking more in the region of this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdI8ag1k0A

 

The lord called me to preach when I was four years old.

 

It gets really sick about 03:50.

[iNow]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1686869996332081185&ei=k2NiSduzG5C8rALn9v27BQ&q=jesus+camp+trailer&hl=en

 

 

http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/01/religious-indoctrination-as-child-abuse.html

http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins

 

 

It's all sick.

[john5746]

Western medicine is medicine based on science. The state of the art is constantly changing as new papers are published on new techniques and old techniques become outmoded or are debunked and abandoned.

 

Which makes decisions for one's healthcare all the more difficult and subjective. Most medications come with side effects, so popping pills in hopes that it might work is not always the best path.

 

Lots of speculation at this point about the boy's situation. It appears he may have had autism, which apparently comes with seizures in many cases. I find it hard to believe that no doctor would have thought of different medications for the seizures that might have worked, but It seems like Travolta had no problem with medicine, but maybe did not want to have psychiatry involved. I would also expect people of that wealth to have a traveling nurse, but not sure that would have made a difference.

 

In such a case, is there are moral imperative to adhere to western medicine? Is it morally wrong to take someone off a medication for which there is a science-based reason to taking it? If someone dies of a seizure because they were taken off an anti-seizure medication, shouldn't those who take them off the medication be held accountable?

 

This is a really tough question, especially in light of all the high sugar foods given to kids in front of TV's. That isn't a religion, but it sure is leading to disaster and "western" medicine just adds a heap of cost to the problem.

[padren]

Since we've opened a full can of worms, lets flip it over and tap the bottom:

 

What about vegan pet owners that keep their dog on a vegan diet, and 'discipline' their dog for trying to snag a bit of bacon off the side walk?

 

It likely isn't a religious belief, but a moral one all the same.

 

I don't know of any instances, but theoretically, I could see a vegan refusing treatment that involved animal (especially primate) testing, and possibly refusing it for their children.

 

 

There was a time in our history that if we could have (had the technology medically speaking) we would have accepted sacrificing a slave's life to save a white child's life, and considered it our moral duty to do so even against the protests of the parents.

 

I think we've come a long way since then, but if a person truly believes using genetically modified pig organs (a current medical reality) to save their child is equally morally abhorrent as using organs of a slave, is it our duty to the child to do what we think is best anyway?

 

It's definitely an interesting issue and I am usually quick to have a view on one side of an issue or another, but this one really gives me pause to think.

[npts2020]

Well if we want to give a blastocyst rights, why not children as well? (Am I the only one who thinks it is probably the same people who want to do the first don't want to do the second?)

[DJBruce]

In my opinion until children are old enough to chose for themselves whether they wish to follow a religion their parents should be unable to refuse reasonable life saving medicine. Until a child reaches the age, lets say 14, their parents should not be able to refuse medical treatment, such as blood transfusions or similar procedures that are common. To withhold treatment from a child resulting in their death is completely wrong and the parents involved should be tried for abuse or negligence.

[Sayonara]

Well if we want to give a blastocyst rights, why not children as well? (Am I the only one who thinks it is probably the same people who want to do the first don't want to do the second?)

Well, see, if they advocated rights for children, then they might feel a bit guilty while terrorising the families of people who don't like blastocysts as much as they do.

[Pangloss]

I think telling parents they cannot have a say in their children's medication is a dangerous and ill-advised proposition. And I don't think there would be as many objections to it here if "religion" weren't a factor in this case.

[iNow]

Well, of course many of these people being religiots plays a role in my personal consternation ("No, my sacred book says thou shalt not use the best way to help your child survive the syphillis..."). I think that's abhorrent and ignorant, and 90% of the time motivated by ridiculous fairy tales and constantly/consistently reinforced worldviews that have no grounding in reality.

 

With that said, however, I agree with your point to an extent, and think it's a very difficult boundary to find. Where's the line? Parents (as a general rule) don't know enough about medicine to make the most informed decision. It's the doctor who is formally trained and who does this every single day that will generally have the best suggestions and most likely course of action to make improvements.

 

You will notice, though, that even here the parent has the option to choose, to seek out multiple opinions, and work from advice of experts, but the decision is still theirs. This is fine. No problem with that.

 

Where it gets a bit funkier IMO is when western doctors are not being consulted at all. When the "faith healer" or the "tribal doctor" gives blatantly fraudulent advice and the child gets sicker. ("Oh, your son has cancer? Have him chew beef jerky every day for one month, then switch to leather.")... I mean, really? Are you mentally challenged? This is where "letting the parents" decide is questionable... when they themselves are not able to make rational decisions based on evidence and science, but instead choose the magic 8 ball and scented candle approach.

 

 

With the case of the OP, the kid was having siezures. Due to religious based beliefs, the parent took the kid off the the siezure medications. Now, tell me this... When you take religion completely out of the equation, what good reason was there for following this course of action? I'm not seeing ANY.

[Pangloss]

Not to digress too far, but it's worth noting that it's not just Scientologists who have concerns about medication on young people. Doctors have expressed time and again how understudied the issue of dosage determination is, and we've seen a number of recent bans and warnings applied to medications because of this problem. Just the other day another one cropped up regarding the use of Vick's VapoRub. No, really.

 

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=vick%27s+vapor+rub&btnG=Search+News

 

It gets even worse when we talk about psychiatric treatment, but I'll just leave it at that because I think we're all familiar with this issue in general. The problem, of course, is that there's a difference between "having concerns" and "taking children off medication entirely". Therein lies the vapo-rub.

 

(Boy that was a long way to go for that joke.)

 

With that said, however, I agree with your point to an extent, and think it's a very difficult boundary to find. Where's the line? Parents (as a general rule) don't know enough about medicine to make the most informed decision. It's the doctor who is formally trained and who does this every single day that will generally have the best suggestions and most likely course of action to make improvements.

 

I agree with those wholeheartedly, and I would add that it's the parents who have the best observational knowledge of their child's behavior, and the parents have a greater degree of reliability in terms of keeping the child's best interests in mind. Doctors have to make huge decisions based on very little evidence, and they typically write prescriptions on a challenge-and-response basis -- apply the medication, then wait and see what happens. Why run thousands of dollars of tests for a tummy ache?

 

All of which of course emphasizes the importance of responsible parenting. But I think it also makes the point that parents shouldn't necessarily assume that the doctor always makes the right call. Getting a second opinion or at least reporting back to the doctor that the plan doesn't seem to be working is critical. (Taking matters entirely into your own hands, however, is a completely different thing, I agree.)

 

But there's no particular reason to think that religious people aren't capable of working with doctors in this manner, and since most of the country has a declared religion and most parents seem capable of this, obviously most of the time it works just fine.

 

 

With the case of the OP, the kid was having siezures. Due to religious based beliefs, the parent took the kid off the the siezure medications. Now, tell me this... When you take religion completely out of the equation, what good reason was there for following this course of action? I'm not seeing ANY.

 

I'm not either. And I see your point -- if their pseudo-religious beliefs prompted them to conclude that modern medicine would not be unable to aid their child, and they had to therefore take matters into their own hands, then indeed a crime may have taken place. Hypothetically speaking, of course (innocent until proven guilty, etc).

[ParanoiA]

I think the parents should retain the right to refuse medical treatment for whatever voodoo reason they believe is right. And, I don't believe they should be in any trouble for negligence. This should all depend on whether or not the parents truly believe that is the right thing to do. Homocide by "pretend ignorance" should not be an option, tough as that may be to actually prove.

 

The inverse that jumps out at me is when parents listen to doctors and move forward with medical help and the kid dies. By the logic of negligence, shouldn't the parents be punished then too?

 

Information is "free" - we're not required to know stuff. So, someone is entirely free to be stupid about medicine and religion. Since you can't make people know certain things, how can you really punish them for not knowing medicine is the only sane response to certain health conditions?

 

People have a right to refuse other people from cutting them and injecting things into their bodies. I see a dangerous precedent in forcing people to comply with the government's demand to allow some stranger to practice life and death on their children.

 

It's the ole "force" thing again...over and over...it's all we seem to know.

[Sisyphus]

The reason it's a gray area is because it's not just about people being stupid about medicine and religion, since we're talking about children. An adult obviously should be allowed to refuse any treatment they want for any stupid reason whatsoever. But do they have the right to do the same to their dependents? Children are not considered capable of making these decisions themselves, and rightly so. Their legal guardian makes the decision, and that usually makes sense too. But they're also not considered the property of their guardian, which is basically what you would have to claim to make the "we can do whatever we want" argument. They have rights of their own, as established by the fact that child abuse and neglect are considered crimes. Should what constitutes child abuse change depending on whether it's religiously motivated? No, right? That's not persecuting religion, it's just not considering it a factor, which is what government ought to be doing, right?

[iNow]

Another kid flushed down the drain for something quite treatable... diabetes.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=1

— Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

 

After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

 

The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.

 

<...>

 

About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

 

“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”

 

Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.” <

more at link

>

 

God DOES have the ability to save the sick... It's called medicine you ridiculous fools!

 

Where do we draw the line? When is enough enough?

[Pangloss]

What additional line do you feel needs to be drawn?

[iNow]

TBH, I don't know. My gut tells me that innocent kids shouldn't have to die because their parents had an odd set of beliefs which prevented them from allowing standard treatment to the kid (I mean, insulin? Seriously!?!). How to make that so without trampling rights of individual practice escape me, since protecting a child and protecting a parent have different needs and backgrounds.

 

I'm not talking about a nanny state, but I also don't think such basic negligence should be escapable because you pray to an imaginary friend.

[ParanoiA]

That's a considerate reply iNow. That's right where I find myself too. On a personal level though, I would persuade people like that - using the strongest language possible - to grow up and take care of their kids or let somebody else do it. Even a crack addict is responsible enough to get their kid to a hospital...well, most of the time anyway.

[iNow]

On a personal level though, I would persuade people like that - using the strongest language possible - to grow up and take care of their kids or let somebody else do it.

 

See, I struggle with that, too, as I truly get the sense that these people are sincere, they are authentic with their reasons and motivations, and they honestly believe that they ARE "taking care of their kids" in the best possibe manner. It's just that they are so deluded by iron age fairy tales that their personal version and interpretation of what is "best" is skewed away from reality in the extreme. Dilly of a pickle this is.