| 
|
Page: Profile: Wren's Nest News Local
| Total Views: 4,943,183
|
Article: 17174
[Health]
Date Posted:
1/28/2007
5:39:35 pm EST
Wvox Stats
Views: 9,312
RSS: 18,811
Comments: 19
|
Faithful Challenge Newborn Blood Test Laws
Author: AP Source: MSNBC
Title: FAITHFUL CHALLENGE NEWBORN BLOOD TEST LAWS
Ray and Louise Spiering wanted to observe a period of silence after their daughter Melynda’s birth, but what they got was an uproar.
To the Spierings, Nebraska’s requirement that newborn babies undergo blood screening within 48 hours of birth is an infringement on their religious beliefs and their right to decide what’s best for their four children.
The couple attend a fundamental Christian church and follow some teachings of the Church of Scientology. Louise Spiering said they wanted “that balance of our beliefs included into the births of our children.”
It’s taken them and another set of parents to the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Legislature in a drive to make the newborn screening law more flexible.
The mandatory test, in which a few drops of blood are drawn from a baby’s heel, screens for dozens of rare congenital diseases, some of which can cause severe mental retardation or death if left undetected.
Nebraska is one of four states — along with South Dakota, Michigan and Montana — that don’t let parents opt out of the testing.
| Options: [Read Full Story] [Comments Locked]
[Email to a Friend]
|
|
Community Thoughts: There are 19 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| Chattel And Poisons | Jan 31st. at 12:25:24 pm EST
|
Terry (Irvington, Virginia) - Email Me
To PKU kids, one of the simpler issues addressed by these blood testing laws, parents not feeding an infant a suitable special diet is a lot like parents subjecting normal kids to toxic levels of alcohol routinely as infants. Study the normal cellular metabolism of serum glucose (or at least the Krebs cycle within it, the most central and basic part of human metabolism) , and the ways that can handle limited ETOH intake for adults, or reverse operation in some cases of medical disorders, to understand how similar a diet mismatch for a PKU infant would be to feeding a shot of vodka with every meal.
Then, ask the question, would parents feeding a normal infant that repeated shot of vodka be justified in doing so either as part of some weird religious cult tradition, or by claiming a religious right to avoid learning how that could cripple or kill the infant and then claiming that by avoiding such knowledge, it would be exercise of parental or religious rights to mangle or kill the infant? Or, can such avoidance of readily available information be part of a criminal abuse pattern? If the latter, why do other states allow parents to opt out of these newborn tests?
In theory of some religions, avoiding testing for congenital disorders is presumed to be part of ideology of loving all god's children equally. Nice theory for those within such belief systems, but what if the practical interpretation shifts from what may realistically be loving care, to abuse or even negligent homicide?
Those same religions treat women and children as chattel, private property of a father or husband, contrary to international slave trade bans and the USA 13th Amendment (which also bans "traditional marriage" and "adultery" as forms of slave trade in chattel females) . They often retain archaic "rules" specifying felony assaults and murders as religious doctrines. With adult females, most such archaic religious doctrines are clearly void and contrary to current public policy of every Western country. With children, it's a bit trickier, as while they exist as persons born and entitled to independent civil rights, they also are not fully functional adults in their own right. There are serious paternalistic religious and ethnic culture prejudices in our Common Law rooted legal system interpreted as "parental rights", which are at odds with equal rights relative to other communal and tribal models which don't view kids as anyone's "property" to use, care for, or abuse, at their will or whim.
If government or some kind of community model could be trusted to routinely act more functional than paternalistic parenting of chattel based practices for child rearing, there might be rational basis to consider major changes to clean up discrimination inherent in the larger construct of "parental rights", which is far from neutral legal policy. However, most other possible child rearing practices have equal or greater problems relative to theoretical legal standards, leaving us in a perpetual tug of war for how to balance conflicting issues, for lack of any available ideal meeting all fundamental functional and legal needs.
Much as it treads all over privacy and religious issues, these medical tests impress me as having such compelling and rational medical basis as to justify a narrow government mandate of infant testing. One blood prick for a tiny sample is far less chaotic or invasive than any form of birthing process, which perhaps itself should be avoided by adults not willing or able to act as responsible adults themselves, as these parents appear to be.
|
| At Weaning Is Too Late | Jan 30th. at 11:07:11 pm EST
|
Arcadia's Ashes (Sydney, New South Wales) - Email Me
I don't think the parents should have the final say. Parental rights are important but cannot be more important than the health of the child.
The neonatal heel prick test can test for diseases which can massively reduce the quality of life, or even kill the children (hypothyroidism, cystic fibrosis, Phenylketonuria.)
The last is an inherited metabolic disorder where the amino acid phenylalanine is incorrectly metabolised causing a toxic byproduct. It is inappropriate as a previous poster suggested to wait until weaning because phenylalanine is present in breast milk (it is a normal amino acid, not an evil chemical put in diet soft drinks to give you cancer.....) and significant brain damage could have already occured.
Once diagnosed the risk of brain damage can be massively reduced with a special milk formula and diet designed to be very low in this amino acid (a very small amount of breast milk may be given but a baby would starve on the amount which can be allowed) .
That a parent would risk such horrible consequences to avoid a simple test is astonishing to me, and it is THE CHILD who will pay if they don't. Sometimes doctors really do know best, folks......
|
| MY 2 CENTS WORTH.... | Jan 30th. at 5:39:33 am EST
|
Whitewolf (Schenectady, New York) - Email Me
I'm not a parent, but I think that the newborns' health supercedes the parents fundie tendancies.... with all the diseases that could be detected with just a few small drops of blood, I personally don't see WHAT the problem is. There's "faithful" and then there is just sheer STUPIDITY. I agree with another poster that said that if you don't have your newborn tested, and then they turn out to have PKU or some other condition, YOU pay for it. Don't waste my money on something that could have been detected and treated.
Love to all
|
| Parent's Perspective | Jan 29th. at 11:03:38 pm EST
|
Mephisto Ravenscroft (Oswego, Illinois) - Email Me
As the Daddy to a *very* healthy, *very* intelligent girl of 10 years (with Phenylketonuria, or PKU) , it absolutely sickens me to see that people have such blatant disregard for the health of their offspring. Were it not for the battery of tests run in Illinois, our daughter would not have been diagnosed in time, and severe damage, including the aforementioned retardation would have occurred by age two. Our daughter was diagnosed at 10 days old (after a second test) , and her diet was immediately changed, to keep her "PHE levels" in check.
To address one of the other things I'd read...waiting to test until the child has weaned is already too late...damage in the brain would have already begun. This damage is irreversible, the only recourse would be regret.
But not only do I say "Shame on you!" to the parents for not doing what is right for their child, but also to the "responsible" parties who do not volunteer the required information, whether the parents ask or not. Knowledge is what saved our daughter, and I could not be happier for it. So her diet is different...yes, she is a vegan, and will be for life...but she is the wonderful person she is today because of that test.
I couldn't agree more with the poster who'd spoke about them (the parents) waiving various things...because of their disdain for this testing, should their child suffer from such a thing, I'd hate to see them offered so much as a dime, as much as it pains me to say about a wonderful, innocent child. But you make your bed...from time to time you must lie in it. Thanks for granting me a rant on this...
Peace,
Mephisto
|
| Having Faith Shouldn't Mean Losing Common Sense. | Jan 29th. at 7:43:18 pm EST
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me
I believe that immunizing children against diseases and bloodtests are a great idea. We had the polio vaccines in school when I was young. In retrospect, I'm glad they did, and that my folks had the good sense to go along with it.
However, I have seen how hard it is to be different and to have a faith that those around me disagree with. The Fundies are in my face with their pamphlets and the coersion, subtle and otherwise telling me how I will go to hell if I don't change my ways and accept their religion. And I have been subject to some discrimination because I have encountered people who dislike my beliefs and lifestyle. What does this have to do with the subject? Everything. We already have government intervention- and religious intervention in much of our lives already. I do not expect the supernatural to take care of me, although I'm very grateful when it does. I am open minded however, and I realize that the powers that be have opened paths for me to take care of myself should I choose them. It is a very rare time however that I am pushed into choices- and even then, I can still opt out. Even though I know the responsibility goes with the freedom to choose.
While I disagree with the Fundies on many counts-too numerous to mention, there is one I agree with and that is freedom of choice. I understand that children-especially newborns don't have that as yet. And while some may wish they could be pushed into taking care of them, the parents believe otherwise and their protest is proof of that. And so are the religious sects that have been accepted over time that have shunned twenty-first century technology. Nothing good comes from being forced to do anything against one's will-no matter how well intended the cause. And while I am glad that the tests, information and vaccines are there, I don't believe in being mandated to take them- even if it sounds irresponsible and ridiculous-even if it puts the child at risk. What should be heavily stressed to those that refuse, is that the responsibility and the cost becomes all theirs once they do refuse and that it was their choice when things go wrong.
One can do no more than that. Especially when dealing with some people bound and determined to be irresponsible for reasons both religious and otherwise.
Besides, just because some choose to be irresponsible for whatever reason doesn't mean I will be. After all, I do believe in the Gods and the Goddesses- but I still lock up my car at night. After all, I can't expect them to do everything for me. And I don't.
|
| Parental Religion Vs. Child's Wellbeing? | Jan 29th. at 5:58:51 pm EST
|
arinna (Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina) - Email Me
Are we really going to make the case that an innocent child should be subject to a life that potentially could be full of suffering or even cut short just so the parents can practice their religion?
I sure hope not.
True an infant has no ability to tell us what they would prefer but common sense could and should prove useful in giving us an answer. Let's break it down to the most simple choice possible. As an infant would I rather be true to my parents religion that I don't even understand yet and risk being permanently retarded or disabled or dying before I see my fifth birthday or would I rather some other smarter adult intervene and make my parents protect me from these preventable burdens of illness?
Don't get me wrong I'm all for parents having the right to teach their children the ways of their religion even when everyone else may think it's a stupid religion. But this isn't teaching. This case is about forcing a child to suffer because the parents think it's God's will. That crosses the line between simply having your own beliefs and forcing someone else to suffer for your beliefs. The first is allowed the second is not.
|
| I'm Certainly No Expert, But... | Jan 29th. at 4:13:53 pm EST
|
Patricia (Chesterton, Indiana) - Email Me
I've seen the effects of Phenylketonuria up close, and all I can say is that it is a dreadful metabolic disorder with devastating effects if not discovered in the child at birth. It can lead to such conditions as profound mental retardation, no means of verbal communication other than to scream, aggressive physical behavior, and a whole host of other physical, mental, and emotional disorders. Thank the Gods we now have a test to discover it in time.
Because their bodies cannot process specific common, and abundant amino acids, children who are PKU positive must be essentially vegan their entire lives in order to maintain proper brain and body function. Failure to know this at birth can result in conditions that are unmanageable in a family home setting.
I wish I could beg these parents to allow the test in time to catch any existing indications of this horrible metabolic disorder.
|
| Idiocy At Its Highest Form | Jan 29th. at 2:32:07 pm EST
|
Hellas32 (Dacula, Georgia) - Email Me
I'm sorry. I cannot understand why a parent would not want these simple tests to ensure their child's health. This attitude, that even seems to be present in the Pegan community, of the Gods will protect and heal us is just plain rediculous. It's not that the Gods will not protect and heal you, it's that they have allowed humans to amass extensive medical knowledge to perform that miracle on a daily basis. 50 years ago, these diseases were a death sentence for infants. Now, the Gods have granted us the ability to detect them early and treat them. Is that not a miracle of the Gods? Are they not healing you by giving medical professionals the knowledge to detect and treat illness?
Quit looking for the Supernatural to happen and let the common everyday miracles happen.
Any parent that opts out of this, after having it explained, has forgone their right to sue the Doctors or claim any sort of benefits. They were informed of the risks, now they can bare the responsibility.
|
| Want To Waive The Testing? | Jan 29th. at 2:19:44 pm EST
|
Lora (Leominster, Massachusetts) - Email Me
Fine. Then you must ALSO waive:
-Social Security payments for a disabled child whose disability could have been detected and prevented by a simple diagnostic test
-Health insurance coverage for the child
-Any tax breaks or subsidies for special education, nursing care or home health aides that may be required for the child's illness or disability.
If you choose your belief system over health care, YOU pay for it. I am not paying for it with my tax dollars or my insurance premiums. I don't expect, or receive, health care coverage or taxpayer funding for my personal religious choices, and no one else has a right to. Health insurance and SSI is intended to protect you from accidental injuries and illnesses you cannot avoid. Once those injuries and illnesses are avoidable, you have lost your right to coverage.
Other types of insurance do not permit the insured to be lax about prevention, and they check up to make sure you are in compliance: my homeowner's insurance checked to make sure my wiring was up to date, that deadbolts were installed on all doors, and that I had fire extinguishers in the house. They checked that I had smoke and CO2 detectors installed at appropriate locations. My car insurance checks to make sure I haven't gotten any tickets recently. If I failed the home inspection, or if I get too many tickets, my insurance would be cancelled. It doesn't matter if smoke detectors are against my religion, or if I have a special racecar license from a NASCAR course on rally cars, I am still required to obey their terms or forfeit my insurance. This is not complicated.
|
| Rights Come With Responsibilities | Jan 29th. at 12:16:21 pm EST
|
Sea Raven (New Haven, Connecticut) - Email Me
Ok.. so I'm not a parent but I do have what a lot of parents don't have and that's common sense.
Parents DO have the right to decide what is best for their children. However, with that right comes the responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. If parents choose not to have the hospital perform these newborn tests, those parents, in my view, have waived the right to sue the hospital or doctors if the child develops any of the diseases the tests were meant to detect. These are simple, non-invasive tests, not treatments.
The lack of individual accountability that exists in the world today continues to baffle me.
C
|
| Whats The Prob | Jan 29th. at 2:32:04 am EST
|
Lady Heather (Nanaimo, South Dakota) - Email Me
i live in south dakota and both my kids had the shot things done right away then they brought my babies to me when i was ready. btw my youngest just turned 1. and i think the childs health should be 1st priority.
|
| ..........Yeah............... | Jan 28th. at 11:52:55 pm EST
|
Pinky McFatfat, High Shamrock Shake (Dublin) (Northumberland, Pennsylvania) - Email Me
.......working in medicine, I can see the parents who would deny their child these tests having no problem in the future collecting SSI payments for a preventable condition they themselves helped make worse. Can you say 'cash cow'?
I often wish that those who so oppose modern medicine had some way to give back all their vaccinations...
|
| Hmmm... | Jan 28th. at 10:59:59 pm EST
|
Arachne Priestess (Cookeville, Tennessee) - Email Me
I hate to be a dissenting vote here, but the history of humans shows that there were many more infant deaths before any of these test existed. While I respect anyone's right to choose or refuse medical treatment and the right to worship as they choose, I am still left to wonder what parent wouldn't want to know if their child had a potentially serious illness as soon as possible. The sooner an illness is detected, the better chance of survival with early treatment.
Sometimes its not really about what the government wants or the religious rights of parents. Sometimes its simply about what is right for the child's safety.
|
| Come To Think Of It... | Jan 28th. at 10:27:55 pm EST
|
Becky (Olean, Ohio) - Email Me - Web
my mother had a similar problem with this same blood test when I was born; it was done without her consent, as was a full brain scan, though I think Ohio laws have since changed about it being mandatory. However, she also went to an ObGyn that told her having a baby at 39 years old was guarenteeing a birth defect and she should abort.
Imagine his surprise when she informed him that her godmother's spirit had told her she would have a healthy baby girl with no difficulties at all.
Imagine his further shock when, after reading 3 or 4 ultrasounds and deciding she was carrying a 7 pound boy with Downs' Syndrome, a healthy 9 pound girl arrived. The "I told you so" moments were apparently frequent and priceless.
Yet another reason to look for a good midwife.
|
| With Choice Comes Risk And Responsibility | Jan 28th. at 9:47:35 pm EST
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me
I feel sorry for the child, but then, we have enough people already trying to tell us what's right for us without our consent too. It should be a choice rather than a mandation. The tests are there and they should be allowed to opt out if they feel inclined. However, they should be informed as to the risks if they do. Then whatever happens will be up to the parents- and their responsibility for any results.
|
Disclaimer: The Witches' Voice inc does not verify the accuracy of the details stated in this listing, nor do we vouch for the value of the goods or services presented here... As with all contacts and financial dealings in cyberspace, we encourage you to use caution and wisdom in your dealings with strangers.
Political Statements: Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren's Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches' Voice, Inc. TWV is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization.
|
State/Country flags created by 3dflags.com and are used with permission
Web Site Content (including: text - graphics - html - look & feel)
Copyright 1997-2009 The Witches' Voice Inc. All rights reserved
Note: Authors & Artists retain the copyright for their work(s) on this website.
Unauthorized reproduction without prior permission is a violation of copyright laws.
Website structure, evolution and php coding by Fritz Jung on a Macintosh G5.
Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren’s Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches’ Voice, Inc. TWV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization.
Sponsorship: Visit the Witches' Voice Sponsor Page for info on how you
can help support this Community Resource. Donations ARE Tax Deductible.
The Witches' Voice carries a 501(c)(3) certificate and a Federal Tax ID.
Mail Us: The Witches' Voice Inc., P.O. Box 341018, Tampa, Florida 33694-1018 U.S.A.
| |
