Parents say newborn blood tests against God's will

i declined to have these tests done after my daughter was born (a home birth) - i didn't want to put her through the uneccesary pain. we are not religious, it was just a personal choice. i had to sign all kinds of forms though for the state (california) and they made my refusal sound so ominous. i also declined a hep b shot for my daughter as well as the antibiotic eye drops which are only needed if the mother has passed something on to the child, but which are still given to every baby born in a hospital in the US. why? because some people (in lower socioeconomic areas?) don't know they are carrying these diseases. honestly this should all be an option not a law!

Reply

If the parents still don't want the tests, even after being exposed to children afflicted, would you then grant them the right to decline the tests?

Some people's moral convictions don't change, even in the face of devastating circumstances. That's what makes them convictions.

As an aside, can they use cord blood for these tests?

Reply

What makes you think that parents who believe this would seek treatment for a child if they *did* find out that the child had one of the diseases they're testing for?

It seems to me that if someone doesn't believe in testing for illness, regardless of why, they're not going to believe in medical care and treatment, either.

Reply

They probably don't believe in medical care either, but that doesn't mean as a society that we think they have a right to deny it to their kids.

Most of the tests that are performed on newborns take some time for the levels of by products of faulty body chemistry to accumulate since the mom's body does the work in utero. I think waiting until a newborn is older is okay, as long as it is waiting and not avoiding.

Reply

I'm still wondering how the couple can claim to practice both fundamental Christianity and Scientology...

Reply

I don't understand why our "free country" should force any medical procedure on anyone if they (or their parents, in the case of a minor) don't want it. There are always negative side affects to every painful, invasive, or chemical procedure / treatment. At the moment of birth, a baby in its natural state acts far differently from one impaired by drugs or unnatural pain - to the point where bonding could be affected.

I am not against the tests; I would probably choose for my child to have them, or some variant; but I agree with Jules - it should be a choice.

I don't agree that people who don't choose the test would necessarily refuse treatment. There's nothing unusual about people opting out of a screening (amnio, ultrasound, mammogram, even dental check-up) yet when symptoms develop, those same people are at the doctor. Why would the newborn screening be any different?

Reply

Ethyl - I don't think that it's society's choice. I believe, and someone with more of a background in law can correct me if I'm wrong, that parents have the right to seek or not seek medical treatment for their children on the basis of their religious beliefs. A lot of the people I know who have refused vaccines for their kids have done so under a blanket, "It's against our religion..." that's not questioned by the powers that be (the people in question aren't actually religious!). No proof or explanation is required, and those kids still go to public school, where immunizations are supposedly mandatory.

In order for "society" to do anything, the parents would have to be accused of medical neglect, and the case would have to go to CPS, and they would have to determine whether or not the parents were being abusive, and if only if they determined that the kid was at risk could "society" do anything by removing the kid and providing medical treatment in foster care or adoptive care. I don't think that any means exists for "society" to compel parents to seek medical tests or treatment for their children.

While I think these parents are foolish for not having the heel stick done, I too refused the Hep B shot at my daughter's birth (I wasn't planning on letting her use IV drugs or have unprotected sex for at *least* a few weeks after she was born!!), and I refused the eye stuff (I know that I don't have any STDs) with my ped's blessing. I would've hated for the government to have been able to compel me to do these things to my child - they simply were not necessary in our situation. As a rule, I don't do medically unnecessary things to babies. Where do we draw the line? Let ME decide as a parent. And leave the Scientologists, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah's Witnesses alone, too. Be pragmatic about it - it's Darwinism at work.

Reply

The laws vary greatly from one to another as to availability of exemptions for vaccinations. Some have only medical exemption and religious exemptions and the religious exemptions to vaccination require the parents to be members of a church recognized to consider vaccination against their beliefs.

Other states have more liberal religious exemptions and some also have a philosophical exemption which would allow a parent to object for any personally held beliefs other than religious ones.

Amy said >>In order for "society" to do anything, the parents would have to be accused of medical neglect, and the case would have to go to CPS, and they would have to determine whether or not the parents were being abusive, and if only if they determined that the kid was at risk could "society" do anything by removing the kid and providing medical treatment in foster care or adoptive care. I don't think that any means exists for "society" to compel parents to seek medical tests or treatment for their children.

Reply