The issue as to whether denying children medical treatment by a parent can be a very heated debate. There are reasons for both sides of the argument although claiming this is not a crime is a vastly weaker argument compared to its counterparts. The moral implications of denying a child the right to live simply outweigh anything else. It doesn't matter what religion a person has, no child should be denied medical care. In fact, medical care should almost be forced upon if the parent resists letting a child have treatment. The idea of letting a child die is cult like and just like cults are not allowed in the U.S., neither should crazy religious beliefs such as this. I chose this topic because I think its absurd that religion still goes this far even in the U.S. I personally don't believe in a religion and it angers me when such illogical events happen as a result of irrational thinking. I plan to find more articles discussing the idea of medical care vs no medical care to get more ways of looking at the topic and more arguments and counterarguments. This map itself wasn't really challenging to make but I suppose it will become more complex as I find more arguments. Until then, I'll continue looking for more articles where I can find more information on the topic.
I would have to agree that when comparing the blockade of medical treatment to a child to religious or parental decision, the sheer human rights violation conquers the choice of the guardian and the religion by far. That being said, we have to allow parents to raise their kids as they see fit, for that is an essential ideal to our personal liberties as American citizens. Our kids are not owned by legalities but by the parents that gave them life in the first place. The line between proper parental guidance and abuse can be crossed, as we saw as evident in the article. Your map is very proper and does a good job of linking and measuring the limits and lines involved in the decision process of a situation like the one in the article.
ReplyDeleteAfter I read your blog I agreed with you on most points. This is an extreme case of people practicing religion, but it should never happen. I agree that the parents should have been punished harsher for allowing two of their children two die due to religious beliefs. As for your stakeholders map, I liked how it went into deeper levels than just the people involved. It expanded on the topic and created a more detailed description of the positions held in the arguments. This certain article can be viewed upon severally different ways but ultimately I agree with you and the points you presented.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this, I definitely see where you're coming from. I do believe in freedom of religion and think that people should have the right to whatever they need to do spiritually. However, the religion argument is irrelevant and is just a sorry excuse for inhumane and negligent behavior. Anybody who allows this to happen should be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. Despite my strong opinion, I see how there are some people who have different perspectives and I like how your diagram includes some of them.
ReplyDeleteEveryone always brings up this argument of how in this particular scenario, the freedom of religion has been taken too far. However, what justifies taking this freedom to its extreme? What this couple did was morally wrong to the public, but they believe the choices they made were what was right for their child. There are still people who believe that it is their freedom of religion to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. Often these people are bullied and tormented to the point of death. Does having this homophobic sense of thinking mean that they too have taken advantage of their freedom or religion? (I don't believe what these people did were right. I just wanted to make a point that taking advantage of freedom of religion is an opinion of the one analyzing it)
ReplyDeleteThe issue regarding children having medical care no matter what is a very interesting topic to think about and it has so many viewpoints that must be taken into account. Although myself and the majority of Americans see this from the moral viewpoint of it and see it as a very bad thing, others who follow this belief think that what they are doing is ok and the US constitution gives people the freedom to believe in whatever they want. I personally believe that it is unbelievable that anybody would let this happen but I also believe that people should be able in believing in whatever makes them happy.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I really like the way you constructed your stakeholder map. It was really simple and easy to understand and see where each viewpoint branches off. I would recommend going more in depth with the reasoning behind each stakeholder. You stated in the blog that over time, you would find more arguments to make the map a bit more complex, which, I’m sure, will make a good contribution to the map. It would also help when writing the first paper. I really like how you started with the two obvious and different opinions: denying medical treatment is a crime and denying medical treatment is not a crime. After this, you branched out into other viewpoints, which I found to be very effective.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say I’ve agreed with most of what everyone before me as saying, that denying medical care to children is in all honesty abusing through the scapegoat of religion. Every child should have the quality and professional health care service they need. It really comes down to if you really want to sit and see your kid suffer because of the type of religion that YOU believe in, not even themselves. It isn’t fair and I believe that there should be some sort of law that all children should receive the medical care they deserve.
ReplyDeleteI really like the topic that you chose and it seems like it really interests you. I agree with everyone on the fact that it is abuse to deny medical care to a child, but it is also up to the parent at the same time. Your map looks really good I would include details along with each subtopic just so when you start drafting it makes it a lot easier. Good job!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and think it is outrageous that a religion would keep from saving a child's life and It shouldn't be that way. If a child is near death the doctors should step in and take control. I like you map and agree how the boxes are set up.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and your points. No child should ever be denied medical attention, even if a religion says otherwise. Children should not have to die from not receiving medical help, and you make a valid point that it could be murder if a parent denies it. I do believe that certain procedures should not be done due to religious reasons, but no person should ever be denied treatment.
ReplyDeleteI like this stakeholder map. I think it has an accurate representation of the major arguments for and against refusing a child medical care but I think there could also be room for an undecided middle ground because this is a very complex argument and it's likely that I'm not the only person who is stuck in the middle on this case
ReplyDeleteI like how you let the map branch off on either if it is a crime or if it is not a crime. I think there is a lot to say on the topic you chose and that there are many stakeholders involved. One suggestion I have is to many mention the people that are involved as well such as children, parents, and doctors being the obvious ones.
ReplyDeleteYou picked a very controversial topic to write about, and because our country was founded largely off of freedom of religion, many people are divided by their viewpoints on this subject. A large number of people do agree that behavior such as this is completely unacceptable and religion is no excuse for child abuse, or in this case fatality. However many people believe that freedom of religion gives them the right to make these kind of choices for their children. Personally I agree with you, and I believe it is not only immoral, but absolutely wrong to prevent a child from receiving proper medical attention. I feel that your stakeholder map was well-organized, and you did a good job of conveying your argument.
ReplyDelete