Is it bad to deny medecine to a child on religious grounds?

[Alyeska]

Ok, I wanted a more detailed title, but SD.net doesn't allow.

I am taking an Ethics/Philosophy (Death, dying, & medical ethics) and I am doing an extra credit assignment on parents who refuse medical treatment for their children bassed on religious grounds. I must say after writing this and taking this class I have determined 90% of the philosophers out there are full of shit and don't know how the world works. Anyway this is my report for those interested. Feel free to give advice, suggestions, comments, and critique.

Does society have society have a moral obligation or right to compel parents, parents who violate the standards of a society when they refuse medical treatment of their children, to follow the standards of society?

This particular topic is not commonly discussed within the United States, but nonetheless it is a hot issue for debate. At stake here are two of the most important fundamental the United States holds dear. The right to religion and the safety of children. Both these are core beliefs in this country and it is no surprise that when the two conflict, tempers flare and emotions run high. Where does this conflict occur? It occurs when a particular religious belief does not allow for certain life saving medical treatment for a child. A popular example is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood transfusions and Christian Scientists refusing most forms of modern medicine. Both religions site their religious literature as reasoning for not using such forms of medicine, and use the protections of the Constitution to allow them to live their life and raise their children the same way. The full weight of this issue is felt when this way of life leads to the death of a child by a deadly disease which is curable through modern medicine. Here is a classic example of the issue at hand:
On May 6, 1989, an 11-yeard-old Minnesota boy named Ian Lundman complained of stomach pains. Acting in accordance with her beliefs as a lifelong Christian Scientist, his mother, Katherine McKown, prayed for Ian but did not call a doctor. When the boy had not improved the following day, Ms. McKown sought the healing prayers of two Christian Science practitioners. Three days later, Ian was dead. (Taking Sides, 2001, p. 166)
What made this an even larger tragedy is that Ian died needlessly because he had diabetes. Ian’s father had left Christian Science but did not have custody of his child.3
Carol Lavine sums up the entire issue quite nicely with her statement that:
[r]eligious freedom and family privacy are pitted against society’s obligation, through the medical profession and the courts, to protect the health and welfare of all children. In the most extreme cases, such as Ian’s, honoring one value inevitably means violating the other. (Taking Sides, 2001, p. 167)
Society’s need for a child to be raised in a healthy environment is in direct conflict with society’s other need for personal privacy and religious freedom. That leaves us with the question as to which is more important than the other?

Society through federal & state laws and court rulings has attempted to answer the question of whether or not society has the right to intrude on the family. “Colorado and 45 other states have statutes that allow parents to use their religious beliefs as a defense against prosecution for withholding medical treatment from their children”. These state laws are a direct result of lobbying attempts by Christian Science groups.1 This has resulted in one or two religions forcing their morals on the majority of society. The US Supreme Court has also weighed in on this issue:
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that parents do not have an absolute right to deny their children medical treatment on religious grounds, saying in a 1944 decision that while parents "may be free to become martyrs themselves," "it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children." The court reprised the same thought in a 1990 case.1
This creates a conflict between the state and federal courts. Any conflict between levels of the government automatically go to the federal level for the ultimate decision. Naturally such conflicts are sided with the federal level and any ruling the Supreme Court gives is precedence. Twice now the Supreme Court has ruled that parents do not have a legal right to risk the life of their children. While the legal issue has been settled, the debate itself still rages. This report looks at the issue in an abstract light and it must be determined which side is right regardless of the law.

The legality of the issue has been addressed. Now the issue must be looked at more from a societal stand point as well as the personal stand point. Is it right for parents to withhold medical attention on religious grounds? This question already indicates something. The issue is not normally considered with religion taken out of context. If a parent withheld life saving medicine for their child out of sheer negligence and even ignorance, that parent would be punished. If an action is wrong through normal action, how does religion make this very same action correct or in the very least less severe? The end result is the same, a child is dead through sheer negligence and the culpability is the same.

Where is right and wrong defined? What is right is defined as a standard that is upheld for all people. What is wrong is when a standard is violated that harms the well being of other people. Therefore a standard of law is held the same for all people. The United States government allows religious freedom so far as they follow the laws of this country. A religion that uses illicit drugs might be restricted as would a religion that calls for the sacrifice of young virgin women. All people regardless of religion are supposed to be held to the same standard. To write in legal exceptions into the books creates both religious discrimination and anarchy. The issue of withholding medical treatment for children being withheld for religious reasoning falls into this area of the law. Should exceptions be made in the law for these religions? Is it right to hold people to different standards based solely on their religious belief? The practice of a religion now makes what is a crime by normal standards no longer a crime through religious defense.

If an act is wrong through normal actions, what makes it right through religious actions? The law is supposed to be blind when it comes to religion, so why should it be making exceptions for those conducting the act under the religious context? What makes their acts less criminal? While many in society may agree what they are doing is out of good will, it can not be argued that it is right. Is it wrong to sacrifice a virgin to appease the gods and reap good will on the land? Of course. Would it also not be wrong to sacrifice the health of innocent children? The Supreme Court makes a good case that parents are indeed harming their children.

If society as a whole is to function, its citizens must be held to the same standards regardless of their beliefs. The idea that parents should be able withhold medical treatment for their children based on religious viewpoints would constitute application of unequal standards. It further places a legal precedence supporting religion which is against the Constitution. Good intentions or no, these people should know that the health of their children is a primary concern.

In Taking Sides this issue is discussed by two groups. The first is the American Academy of Pediatrics which asserts children are indeed being harmed by lack of medical care. The second is Mark Sheldon who proposes that harm is not being done because of the spiritual beliefs of the parents. Sheldon uses an example and explains the reasoning behind a woman’s choice: “She acts in a way that is prescribed for her by her religious tradition” (Taking Sides, 2001, p. 177). What Sheldon does not acknowledge is that many religions have many different traditions. He would not appreciate all of them. Some would have us believe that it is the will of God to kill homosexuals while others see it as wrong to be using technology. Yet more would have blue laws enforced on entire populations. The morality of the religion in question is meaningless when the issue of society is examined. Society creates laws on the basis of what is best for the continuation of society and the best interests of those most at risk. Children are most definitely in this category. Personal religious beliefs are secondary to the safety that society has deemed important. It is the parents responsibility to raise the child in a safe and healthy environment until they are legal adults while using the standards given by society. A death of a child due to religious belief is a failure. Society do not allow parents to kill their children in exorcisms to save their souls, society likewise would not have a vested interest to allow parents to let their children die from neglect.

There is another aspect of this issue that has not been addressed. As previously mentioned forty-six states have laws on the books that allow a certain degree of lack of medical care for children. There is not one state that allows lack of basic care such as food and shelter. In 1998 a couple from Utah was sought for kidnapping their child after social services had removed the child due to health concerns. The parents believed their child was the next messiah and they were feeding the boy a diet of lettuce and watermelon because they claimed it was pure. They were doing this on religious grounds. The precedent of this is clear. The government decided the welfare of a child is more important than the religious beliefs and rights of the parents. This very same concept should be applied both legally and morally to cases of medical care and neglect with children under religious grounds.

Is it criminal or is it wrong for parents to deny medical attention to their children based on religious grounds? This report has detailed two separate legal issues in regards to the subject. There are conflicting legal positions on this moral issue yet both federal and state government are against the problem in concept. The Supreme Court has detailed that there is no justification because the parents are doing more than pushing their opinion on their children. They are outright killing them. State laws do not allow questionable practices in regards to child health and the precedent itself should over ride the laws in place that protect the medical issue with religion. Morally the concept of putting such beliefs on children is questionable. It places a criminal act in a different light for religious reasons with no justification or legal standing behind it. The conclusion of this report is obvious. Yes parents do indeed harm their children.

3 http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/victims.htm
1 http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fund ... tm?FACTNet
2 http://www.cnn.com/US/9810/06/fbi.kidnapped.02/

[Howedar]

Good essay.

I totally agree.

[Yuri Prime]

Nice work. I agree and that's more than enough for extra credit.

[Darth Wong]

Ok, I wanted a more detailed title, but SD.net doesn't allow.

I am taking an Ethics/Philosophy (Death, dying, & medical ethics) and I am doing an extra credit assignment on parents who refuse medical treatment for their children bassed on religious grounds. I must say after writing this and taking this class I have determined 90% of the philosophers out there are full of shit and don't know how the world works.

I could have told you that a long time ago. Most philosophers cling to the notion that they remain relevant in a world which moved beyond most of their seminal conclusions centuries ago and no longer cares. One amusing question to ask philosophers: "name a philosopher who is famous for his accomplishments ... in the last hundred years". Science moves on. Philosophy, on the other hand, is trapped in the past, which it narcissistically worships because it has no present.

In fact, I have become convinced that the majority of modern philosophers are more interested in trying to make themselves sound smart and superior than in actually accomplishing anything, ever.

Does society have society have a moral obligation or right to compel parents, parents who violate the standards of a society when they refuse medical treatment of their children, to follow the standards of society?

This particular topic is not commonly discussed within the United States, but nonetheless it is a hot issue for debate. At stake here are two of the most important fundamental the United States holds dear. The right to religion and the safety of children. Both these are core beliefs in this country and it is no surprise that when the two conflict, tempers flare and emotions run high. Where does this conflict occur? It occurs when a particular religious belief does not allow for certain life saving medical treatment for a child. A popular example is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood transfusions and Christian Scientists refusing most forms of modern medicine. Both religions site their religious literature as reasoning for not using such forms of medicine, and use the protections of the Constitution to allow them to live their life and raise their children the same way. The full weight of this issue is felt when this way of life leads to the death of a child by a deadly disease which is curable through modern medicine. Here is a classic example of the issue at hand:

On May 6, 1989, an 11-yeard-old Minnesota boy named Ian Lundman complained of stomach pains. Acting in accordance with her beliefs as a lifelong Christian Scientist, his mother, Katherine McKown, prayed for Ian but did not call a doctor. When the boy had not improved the following day, Ms. McKown sought the healing prayers of two Christian Science practitioners. Three days later, Ian was dead. (Taking Sides, 2001, p. 166)

What made this an even larger tragedy is that Ian died needlessly because he had diabetes. Ian’s father had left Christian Science but did not have custody of his child.3
Carol Lavine sums up the entire issue quite nicely with her statement that:

[r]eligious freedom and family privacy are pitted against society’s obligation, through the medical profession and the courts, to protect the health and welfare of all children. In the most extreme cases, such as Ian’s, honoring one value inevitably means violating the other. (Taking Sides, 2001, p. 167)

Society's need for a child to be raised in a healthy environment is in direct conflict with society’s other need for personal privacy and religious freedom. That leaves us with the question as to which is more important than the other?

I really think you need to point out that there are many systems of morality in this world other than the "clash of opposing rights" model favoured in the United States.

Keep in mind that I never studied as an ethicist, so these are very brief scratch-the-surface bits:

John Stuart Mill's Unitarianism held that it's a simple matter of determining how much benefit goes to the greatest number of people for any given act. In this case, he would hold that life, being a huge benefit, goes to the child if he is saved, while respect of their religious beliefs (a lesser benefit) goes to the child's parents if he is not saved. Easy answer: save the child, screw the parents.

Kant's Duty Ethics are based on the notion that we all have a duty to observe universal rules, as defined by the notion that if everyone followed them all the time, society would be better off (conversely, a bad idea is one which, if followed by everyone all the time, would be disastrous for society, ie- lying). In this case, if everyone always obeyed religious beliefs even if it led to death or suffering, then society would lapse into the chaos of the Dark Ages. So Kant, too, votes yes: save the child, screw the parents.

Locke was a right-based philosopher, and he would be the guy you're talking about.

Aristotle's Virtue Ethics were based on the "Golden Mean" principle, which held that virtues are compromises between extremes and vices (eg- modesty sits between vanity and humility). In this case, he would probably consider it virtuous to be somewhere between devout and skeptical, but only an extremely devout person would sacrifice his child for a belief system, so Aristotle would vote yes: save the child, screw the parents.

So, if we take these 4 systems, we get 3 votes for saving the kid and 1 no-decision (although even that last vote may probably swing the same way if we adopt the notion that some rights are of higher stature than others).

Society through federal & state laws and court rulings has attempted to answer the question of whether or not society has the right to intrude on the family.

Colorado and 45 other states have statutes that allow parents to use their religious beliefs as a defense against prosecution for withholding medical treatment from their children”. These state laws are a direct result of lobbying attempts by Christian Science groups.1 This has resulted in one or two religions forcing their morals on the majority of society. The US Supreme Court has also weighed in on this issue:

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that parents do not have an absolute right to deny their children medical treatment on religious grounds, saying in a 1944 decision that while parents "may be free to become martyrs themselves," "it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children." The court reprised the same thought in a 1990 case.1
This creates a conflict between the state and federal courts. Any conflict between levels of the government automatically go to the federal level for the ultimate decision. Naturally such conflicts are sided with the federal level and any ruling the Supreme Court gives is precedence. Twice now the Supreme Court has ruled that parents do not have a legal right to risk the life of their children. While the legal issue has been settled, the debate itself still rages. This report looks at the issue in an abstract light and it must be determined which side is right regardless of the law.

Agreed, but why bother mentioning the court cases at all if the report is ostensibly an ethical one rather than a legal one? Are you just trying to establish the controversial nature of the subject matter? Because I don't think that really needs establishment.

The legality of the issue has been addressed. Now the issue must be looked at more from a societal stand point as well as the personal stand point. Is it right for parents to withhold medical attention on religious grounds? This question already indicates something. The issue is not normally considered with religion taken out of context. If a parent withheld life saving medicine for their child out of sheer negligence and even ignorance, that parent would be punished. If an action is wrong through normal action, how does religion make this very same action correct or in the very least less severe? The end result is the same, a child is dead through sheer negligence and the culpability is the same.

This is an example of government establishing religion, by upholding its beliefs as justification for murder or criminal negligence.

Where is right and wrong defined? What is right is defined as a standard that is upheld for all people. What is wrong is when a standard is violated that harms the well being of other people.

It's a bit more complicated than that, given all of the competing doctrines and writings on the subject.

Therefore a standard of law is held the same for all people. The United States government allows religious freedom so far as they follow the laws of this country. A religion that uses illicit drugs might be restricted as would a religion that calls for the sacrifice of young virgin women. All people regardless of religion are supposed to be held to the same standard. To write in legal exceptions into the books creates both religious discrimination and anarchy. The issue of withholding medical treatment for children being withheld for religious reasoning falls into this area of the law. Should exceptions be made in the law for these religions? Is it right to hold people to different standards based solely on their religious belief? The practice of a religion now makes what is a crime by normal standards no longer a crime through religious defense.

If an act is wrong through normal actions, what makes it right through religious actions? The law is supposed to be blind when it comes to religion, so why should it be making exceptions for those conducting the act under the religious context? What makes their acts less criminal? While many in society may agree what they are doing is out of good will, it can not be argued that it is right. Is it wrong to sacrifice a virgin to appease the gods and reap good will on the land? Of course. Would it also not be wrong to sacrifice the health of innocent children? The Supreme Court makes a good case that parents are indeed harming their children.

It looks to me as if you're appealing to the law, but this is supposed to be an ethical discussion, not a legal one.

If society as a whole is to function, its citizens must be held to the same standards regardless of their beliefs.

Hey, I agree with you, but you just stated your conclusion as a premise. That's a no-no.

The idea that parents should be able withhold medical treatment for their children based on religious viewpoints would constitute application of unequal standards. It further places a legal precedence supporting religion which is against the Constitution. Good intentions or no, these people should know that the health of their children is a primary concern.

Again, you mention constitutional law as justification. That is not an ethical justification; it is a legal one.

In Taking Sides this issue is discussed by two groups. The first is the American Academy of Pediatrics which asserts children are indeed being harmed by lack of medical care. The second is Mark Sheldon who proposes that harm is not being done because of the spiritual beliefs of the parents. Sheldon uses an example and explains the reasoning behind a woman’s choice: “She acts in a way that is prescribed for her by her religious tradition” (Taking Sides, 2001, p. 177). What Sheldon does not acknowledge is that many religions have many different traditions. He would not appreciate all of them. Some would have us believe that it is the will of God to kill homosexuals while others see it as wrong to be using technology. Yet more would have blue laws enforced on entire populations. The morality of the religion in question is meaningless when the issue of society is examined. Society creates laws on the basis of what is best for the continuation of society and the best interests of those most at risk. Children are most definitely in this category. Personal religious beliefs are secondary to the safety that society has deemed important. It is the parents responsibility to raise the child in a safe and healthy environment until they are legal adults while using the standards given by society. A death of a child due to religious belief is a failure. Society do not allow parents to kill their children in exorcisms to save their souls, society likewise would not have a vested interest to allow parents to let their children die from neglect.

I would prefer to simply point out that any attempt to elevate subjective belief to the level of objective reality (the subjective belief is someone's personal religion, while the death of a child is objectively verifiable) is quite literally insane.

There is another aspect of this issue that has not been addressed. As previously mentioned forty-six states have laws on the books that allow a certain degree of lack of medical care for children. There is not one state that allows lack of basic care such as food and shelter. In 1998 a couple from Utah was sought for kidnapping their child after social services had removed the child due to health concerns. The parents believed their child was the next messiah and they were feeding the boy a diet of lettuce and watermelon because they claimed it was pure. They were doing this on religious grounds. The precedent of this is clear. The government decided the welfare of a child is more important than the religious beliefs and rights of the parents. This very same concept should be applied both legally and morally to cases of medical care and neglect with children under religious grounds.

I hate to sound overly critical of an article proposing a position with which I agree, but you keep referring to laws and legal precedents. You can't say that you intend to discuss the question of whether something is right or wrong (as opposed to legal or illegal) and then run around quoting laws and legal precedents as justifications for your position.

Is it criminal or is it wrong for parents to deny medical attention to their children based on religious grounds? This report has detailed two separate legal issues in regards to the subject. There are conflicting legal positions on this moral issue yet both federal and state government are against the problem in concept. The Supreme Court has detailed that there is no justification because the parents are doing more than pushing their opinion on their children. They are outright killing them. State laws do not allow questionable practices in regards to child health and the precedent itself should over ride the laws in place that protect the medical issue with religion. Morally the concept of putting such beliefs on children is questionable. It places a criminal act in a different light for religious reasons with no justification or legal standing behind it.

Agreed, but you have to show why this is ethically wrong. Appealing to the authority of the courts won't do that. The biggest key here is that a subjective belief-based benefit is being weighed against an objective reality-based benefit. Assuming we do not lapse into solypsism (in which case neither the parents nor the child exist and the issue is moot), the child's life or death are real. The parents' beliefs may or may not be true, but one cannot in good conscience allow real harm for the sake of something which might not even exist.

[Alyeska]

There is a very good reason why I kept mentioning the legal aspect. The teacher wants a realistic grounding to the topic so as to avoid the bullshit spouted by some of the philosophers. Furthermore legal standing and precedent indicate public opinion to a lesser extent.

Anyway thanks for the disection. Pitty I had to turn the report in by 11:59 PM Mountain Time on Friday the 15th.

[Darth Wong]

There is a very good reason why I kept mentioning the legal aspect. The teacher wants a realistic grounding to the topic so as to avoid the bullshit spouted by some of the philosophers. Furthermore legal standing and precedent indicate public opinion to a lesser extent.

I guess it depends on the nature of the teacher. Some teachers would dismiss that whole article as an appeal to legal authority, while others might like it. Philosophy, like many liberal-arts faculties, is often an exercise in determining the whims of your prof.

Anyway thanks for the disection. Pitty I had to turn the report in by 11:59 PM Mountain Time on Friday the 15th.

Can't win 'em all

[The Dark]

Mill was Utilitarianism, not Unitarianism. Unitarianism is a Christian denomination .

My philosophy professor teaches the abstract stuff only because he's required to. The classes he enjoys are the ethics and logic courses, the ones with real-life consequences. He admittedly doesn't care what side one defends in a debate, as long as they differentiate themselves from the other viewpoints (it's usually 4 views per debate) and can rationally and self-consistently defend their view.

One reason to bring the legal view into the picture is that ethics are supposed to influence law. This does not always happen, as ethics vary person-to-person and the tolerance of society varies over time.

An ethical argument against allowing religion to influence life-saving medicine comes from the need for successive generations. To allow a child to die needlessly removes their genetic potential from the reproductive pool. Since maximal variation of genetics gives the highest likelihood of cultural survival (inbreeding among a small pool causes genetic health problems), the willful allowance of death decreases the likelihood of cultural survival, which is contrary to the maintenance of society, a high priority of most cultures. If religious reasons are allowed to negate medical aid, then there is no logical reason why non-religious reasons should not be permitted, potentially leading to a wide-spread death of children and extinction of society (admittedly, this is somewhat slippery slope, but in theoretical ethics worst-case scenarios are admittable as arguments).

[Durandal]

I mostly like it, but I would've focused more on the subjective nature of the child's spiritual good. It can be objectively demonstrated that the parents are doing the child good by bringing him to a doctor, but it cannot be objectively demonstrated that they are doing him "spiritual good" by refusing medical treatment and praying instead.

Also, Mike, I believe you were referring to Utilitarianism, not Unitarianism.

[Rye]

Durandal's right IIRC. Jeremy Bentham started the whole utilitariansim thing, and his version was referred to as " a philosophy fit for swine" by John Stuart Mill, who reformed it slightly.

Aly, i liked the essay, you constructed it far less sarcastically than i would've and came across as an articulate person who knew his beans as it were. You also reminded me why i quit philosophy, which brightened my mood.

[Alyeska]

Durandal's right IIRC. Jeremy Bentham started the whole utilitariansim thing, and his version was referred to as " a philosophy fit for swine" by John Stuart Mill, who reformed it slightly.

Aly, i liked the essay, you constructed it far less sarcastically than i would've and came across as an articulate person who knew his beans as it were. You also reminded me why i quit philosophy, which brightened my mood.

Well last paper my teach graded he told me to leave out my opinion, or at least emotional language as much as possible until the very end. Besides, writing it in this style means you have a better chance of persuading those who made the mistake of siding with the Christian Scientist lobyists.

[Joe]

Durandal's right IIRC. Jeremy Bentham started the whole utilitariansim thing, and his version was referred to as " a philosophy fit for swine" by John Stuart Mill, who reformed it slightly.

You sure about that, chief? From what I've read of Mill's Utilitarianism, I don't think he came up with the "philosophy fit for swine" argument (also known as the pig objection), he just defended utilitarianism from others who were making that charge.

[Joe]

Just something interesting to add: Gandhi believed that denying animal food needed to cure illness to individuals was morally correct. He always thought that the decision should have been left to the individuals, but if the choice had been solely in his hands he would not have administered the medicine.

[mauldooku]

Just something interesting to add: Gandhi believed that denying animal food needed to cure illness to individuals was morally correct. He always thought that the decision should have been left to the individuals, but if the choice had been solely in his hands he would not have administered the medicine.

Where'd you get this from? I've never heard of Gandhi's 'darker side'

[Joe]

Just something interesting to add: Gandhi believed that denying animal food needed to cure illness to individuals was morally correct. He always thought that the decision should have been left to the individuals, but if the choice had been solely in his hands he would not have administered the medicine.

Where'd you get this from? I've never heard of Gandhi's 'darker side'

http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/ga ... gandhi.htm

[Darth Wong]

Just something interesting to add: Gandhi believed that denying animal food needed to cure illness to individuals was morally correct. He always thought that the decision should have been left to the individuals, but if the choice had been solely in his hands he would not have administered the medicine.

He also supported the Hindu religious "caste" system, which is a source of severe oppression, intolerance, and suffering to this very day. I've seen pictures of people whose faces have been melted away because they were from "untouchable" castes and they tried to get water from wells belonging to higher castes (so acid was thrown on their faces; this is apparently a common punishment for such transgressions).

[Joe]

Gandhi took a "half-enlightened" approach to the caste system. He believed that the lower castes should have been treated humanely but accepted the fact that they were inferior scum by birthright.

[Darth Wong]

Gandhi took a "half-enlightened" approach to the caste system. He believed that the lower castes should have been treated humanely but accepted the fact that they were inferior scum by birthright.

I wouldn't go so far as to even call that approach "half-enlightened". More like "fucking ignorant". But Gandhi is considered a saint, so it gets shoved under the carpet. It's often quite surprising what dirt can be dug up on a typical saint (Mother Theresa being another example).

[jinx]

what did mother theresa do?

[Darth Wong]

what did mother theresa do?

For example, she accepted stolen money from a savings and loan crook and then refused to give it back even after being informed that it was basically looted from old peoples' life savings.

PS. The condition of receiving the money was that she would personally make entreaties to the state governer for leniency on behalf of the S&L crook, and she did.

Mind you, there's more than that. Look up a book called "Hell's Angel" about her life if you're curious.

[Joe]

She also performed baptisms on people who she was taking care of who were about to die, against their will.

[DPDarkPrimus]

She also performed baptisms on people who she was taking care of who were about to die, against their will.

Now that should be punishable by whipping. Ignoring a dying person's requests.

[Darth Wong]

She also performed baptisms on people who she was taking care of who were about to die, against their will.

Now that should be punishable by whipping. Ignoring a dying person's requests.

Their deaths were not delayed by her "clinics" anyway, since she took the money and used it to greatly expand her facilities and stock them with nuns and priests rather than maintaining a smaller number of facilities and stocking them with, oh, say, MEDICAL EQUIPMENT.

Mind you, when she HERSELF was sick, she took a private jet to get the world's finest medical care. Treat others as you would have them treat you, eh?

[Joe]

She also performed baptisms on people who she was taking care of who were about to die, against their will.

Now that should be punishable by whipping. Ignoring a dying person's requests.

Well, it wasn't so much ignoring their requests as it was doing it without asking them. Children, primarily.

[PainRack]

Gandhi took a "half-enlightened" approach to the caste system. He believed that the lower castes should have been treated humanely but accepted the fact that they were inferior scum by birthright.

I wouldn't go so far as to even call that approach "half-enlightened". More like "fucking ignorant". But Gandhi is considered a saint, so it gets shoved under the carpet. It's often quite surprising what dirt can be dug up on a typical saint (Mother Theresa being another example).

While Gandhi was certainly weird, this is not one of them.

While Gandhi did support the caste system, he was also the supporter of the Untouchable caste, insisting that they had a place in India and were entitled to the rights of a citizen.

[Darth Wong]

While Gandhi did support the caste system, he was also the supporter of the Untouchable caste, insisting that they had a place in India and were entitled to the rights of a citizen.

So? This goes back to the "separate but equal" bullshit. You will never have equality as long as you have forced segregation.