Should a state's mandate trump religious beliefs?

Yes, religious beliefs are just beliefs and most of the time time not true or fact. Common sense should rule. It is sad how religion is getting in the way of this boy's life. He is influenced by his parents not by his own independent thought.

YES

Yes, there are definitely times when the state should dictate what care a child should receive. People are entitled to freedom, including freedom of religion, by the Constitution. However, freedoms and rights can be restricted when they trample on another's freedoms, such as their right to life. When the rights belong to minors who are not able to stand up for themselves, someone needs to intervene for them, and this is where the state comes in.

Religion does good things for a great many people, but it does bad things for many others. It should be treated like any other right or freedom, not given higher value simply because it is religion (especially when the scientific facts prove otherwise).

I think this also should apply to vaccinations, since people choosing not to vaccinate their children puts the whole population more at risk, especially those that are too sick to be able to receive vaccinations in the first place.

I have no problem with ADULTS letting themselves die for some religious belief. It is when they condemn their minor children to death for the same reason that I think the government should intervene.

Since belief or adherence in any one religion (i.e. I have never visited any church in which different congregations followed the same traditions, interpretations, beliefs, etc. in the same way) or displayed any reasonable conformity of values for any faith system (i.e. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc.). It is my belief that organized religion varies by family, person (i.e. pastor, priest, etc.) or by congregation.

It would be difficult to set universal guidelines on what is acceptable or unacceptable for a society according to religious beliefs especially since all that is stated above assumes that the US or Minnesota only cares for or has experience with the Christian Faith. For example, during my adult life, I have worshiped at numerous Catholic churches, Lutheran (i.e. ELCA, Missouri and Wisconsin) churches, non-denominational churches, Baptist, etc.) churches. None of them worshiped my GOD in the same way nor tried to promote any form of a universal value system based on religion. Furthermore, the requirement to even subscribe to a religion (i.e. going to church) or to be a follower of a faith is in question in America (i.e. it is widely assumed that you are anti-Christian if you do not believe that you can only worship Jesus within the confines of a church).

It would be near impossible to make policy based on religion since obtaining a set universal beliefs has been impossible. Maybe this is the wisdom that our Founding Fathers had when they established the Constitution and mandating the separation of Church and State? Not that they did not believe in GOD but understood that you could not govern a disparate society equally or fairly when you don't have a reliable way of understanding what GOD wants.

I would assume that all of the parents listed in your article loved and cared for their children the best way that they knew how. I would also assume that all of the parents were knowledgeable of their options for assistance, had reasonable access to those options and took the course of action they thought best for their children. However, how can we honestly base correctness of their decisions solely on their adherence to their religious beliefs? It would only be reasonable to ask the following: How long have they participated in their form of religion? Did/does their religion or even their house of worship universally condone the choices they took? Are the interpretations or actions they took clearly stated in the beliefs of their religion?

Let me be clear, this is not an indictment on GOD, religion, church or any other faith system. The only thing that is clear in these stories is that children suffered at no fault of their own. I really don't know how much closure or help for those that had to endure these tragedies will gain by justifying their actions on adherence to religion or that GOD in some way was deciding which outcome to give to their plights?

My prayers go out to the family's that have suffered these tragedies and I wish to believe that GOD wishes no pain and suffering on any child and would try anything to prevent it or ease it.

THE KID WITH CANCER

THE LAST TIME I HEARD CANCER HAS NO CURE
SO WHY ARE THE DOCTORS DEMANDING THE KID TAKE KEMO OR SOME THING THAT WILL MAKE HIM SICK
IN FEB OF THIS YEAR MY 88 YEAR OLD FATHER WAS TOLD BY DOCTORS TO HAVE STAGE 4 PROSTATE CANCER WE DID WHAT THE DOCTORS TOLD US TO DO AND GAVE HIM KEMO
WELL THAT JUST ABOUT KILLED HIM A OLD FRIEND TOLD ME WHO I TRUST MORE THAN THE DOCTOR TO GIVE HIM COMPOUND X NO CURE FOR CANCER MY BUTT HE IS UP AND GOING AND DOING WELL PUT ON 10 POUNDS SO YES LOOK IN TO THIS ITS HAS A WEB SIGHT COUMPOND X IT KILLS CANCER BUT SOME ONE DONT WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW

I HOPE THIS GETS SOME ATTENITION BUT I THINK IT WONT

KENNY

When it comes to children, elderly, mentally/physically handicapped I say yes the state can intervene and should. If an adult is of basically sound mind and decides they do not want any medical intervention so be it, but no one should be able to make those decisions for someone else. When you are of sound mind, in a healthy state you should make a living will and that way your wishes can be carried out should a time come that you can no longer make that decision.

Yes, the government in these cases should intervene to save the life of a child. It seems ridiculous that these people would chose to neglect modern medicine for the sake of their fictitious beliefs. Prayer hasn’t solved any problem, common sense does however, and that’s what these religious radicals seem to always be lacking.

I believe the state should be allowed to intervene when a minor is involved; however, is the state going to pay for the medical treatment or will his family be held responsible? Also, does this family have any health insurance?

I can not believe some of you people on here think that the government
should get involved. This is why the country is going down hill – fast.
They all have you scared and believing that they are always right.
It is time to take a stand.
The governement, doctors, espec. FDA & Big Pharma has no interest
in saving people lives.
What cop outs!

In this case where there is a 95% success rate with treatment, withholding treatment is shocking to me. What loving parent, in the name of religion, lets their child die untreated.

yeah i know that free religion is the law, but they wanna save the boy's life, no problem there, but what happens when the government says that u cant let your child watch more than 4 hours of tv a day?
or that u have to put your child to bed by 9 pm?
or that you're only allowed to give them 1 piece of candy a day?

I was angered when I heard this story at first. but I found myself in a dilemma of thought the more I heard about it.

at first, I was angered that the state would have a right to decide something for a child who was brought to this world and raised by the parents. the parents should have the right to decide for their children because they are THEIR children. why should the state have any say in it? but then a news report mentioned that the court generally rules in favor of the doctors only in cases of life and death...in other medical cases that do not threaten the minor's life, the courts usually side with the parents. this made sense to me...

then, I also thought of children who are abused by their parents...the state after all has the right to take the children away from parents to get them out of harm's way...I have always had somewhat of a problem with this, not because I think these children should stay with abusive parents, but because I feel like the state/goverment sometimes abuse the right that they have taking away children from good homes on the claim of abuse....but nonetheless, these cases are rare....

so after a lot of painful thinking, I came to the decision with myself that even though I think parents should decide what's best for their children in most cases (I think that should be the case with most cancers as well) but considering this boy has Hodgkin's Lymphoma (which indeed is a very curable cancer-unlike many other cancers) and could live a very long life after his treatment is complete, I think the state was right in this decision. however, I don't think that should be the case if this was a very advanced (almost hopeless) case of Hodgkin's lymphoma in which most of the chemo and treatment suffering would be in vain, in that case I think the parents should be able to decide....

so in short, I think it depends on the specifics of the medical condition....

also, I think this child and the parents may benefit from extending sessions of talking with someone (whether a doctor or social worker) who can explain the specifics of this disease to them and why treatment works in most cases....maybe when they have a complete and better understanding of the disease they can make a more informed decision....after all, I'm sure they made their no-treatment decision based on some ideas that they have or some stories that they heard.

as for faith, well I believe God gave us advanced brains so that we can use them for good of mankind, such as making medical advances that can save people's lives!

Yes, because religion isn't medicine, it's a philosophy> God created doctors for a reason–to keep His flock safe.

Oh come on Johny Too Good, sending your child to bed at a certain time or having (oh my God!) 3 pieces of candy won't save your child from certain death. So your argument is totally unrelated to saving a child that faces almost certain death. Please make some sort of cogent argument that relates to cancer...