On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:05:32AM +1000, david wrote: > <example> > Some years ago in NSW, children of Jehovah's Witnesses were denied blood > transfusions by their parents because of religious beliefs. The state > introduced legislation and stepped in to make such children wards of the > state if their lives were at risk. > > What right has the state to deny to a child eternity in the presence of > the Lord for the sake of a few years of earthly life? > </example>
This is an easy one. There is absolutely no evidence that the JW's notions about blood transfusions are in any way true, however there is well established evidence that death will occur in certain situations when a blood transfusion is refused. Children are not the property of their parents, and it is not a parent's prerogative to put a child's life at risk for their illogical and unevidenced beliefs. Young children are not competent to make their own decision on such matters; therefore it is the responsibility of the state in its role to protect the general well-being of its citizens, to step in and protect the child from its own parents. This is established law. NSW baby Gloria Thomas died in agony from an easily treated eczema condition as her parents treated her using homeopathy against doctors' advice. Parents Thomas Sam and Manju Sam have been jailed for manslaughter by gross criminal negligence. In USA baby Alayna Wyland suffered an abnormal growth around her left eye which the parents tried to treat with prayer - and nothing else. The parents have now been convicted of felony criminal mistreatment. There may be many ways in which AU is a nanny state; you chose a particularly poor example to rest your case. Nick. -- PGP Key ID = 0x418487E7 http://www.nick-andrew.net/ PGP Key fingerprint = B3ED 6894 8E49 1770 C24A 67E3 6266 6EB9 4184 87E7 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
