Newborn screening has parents seeing red »
Posted by: Bkumm 1 year, 6 months agoWAHOO - Ray and Louise Spiering wanted to observe a period of silence after their daughter Melynda's birth. The Spierings, who attend a fundamental Christian church and also follow some teachings of the Church of Scientology, wanted "that balance of our beliefs included into the births of our children," Louise Spiering said.
Read Full Story at columbustelegram.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 78
-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
They did this to my son not five minutes after he was born. It was two drops of blood and that was it.
Now, I'm all for the parents having the right to choose what is best for their children, but it seems that the State is trying to do that.
This is one of those issues where faith, politics, religion, science and personal freedom collide.
Reply-
-
100%
DeadHead131 year, 6 months ago
The newborn is too young, so why are the parents the default fallback? The state has decided that this is medically important for people to young to decide for themselves, so it comes down to who knows best for the child until he or she is old enough. The parents, generally simpleton citizens with lack information about medicine or much of anything really, or the state that has made this decision on scientific grounds? Damn I hate religion.
Reply
-
-
60%
TednGilbertAZ1 year, 5 months ago
I THOROUGHLY detest people who post stories only viewable bi REGISTERED users of the site linked. Sink this garbage! Link a story where it is direct, not through paid or otherwise rregistration.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
DeadHead131 year, 6 months ago
No it's not, because the person who dies from blood loss chooses to die, where here stupid parents are making stupid decisions for other people. In addition, separation of church and state means that the state comes first. If a law contradicts a religious tradition or ceremony, the law comes first. There is a reason for the law- otherwise we would allow human sacrifice under the protection of religious freedom.
Reply
-
-
0%
KISA452a1 year, 6 months ago
I know this is old, but OMG! Of course it is genetic profiling. What do you think they need teh blood for? DNA perhaps?
Reply
-
-
83%
deathray1 year, 6 months ago
It's a complicated issue, for sure. If the child becomes an economic burden to the rest of the community as a result of non screening and treatement, then it's not up to the parents.
On the other hand, the parents have every right to determine the credo by which their children live...
On the third hand (right from Fiddler on the Roof) despite the biblical proscription, it wuld seem that te parents would want to know what challenges they might be facing, and prepare adequately.
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
Isn't this a tough one? It is such a balancing act. I am deeply opposed to forcing people to do ANYTHING that they don't want to do, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. But, not finding out about a disease might hurt someone else (emotionally, financially, whatever).
Is 'might hurt someone' sufficient cause for the state to ignore the rights of the parents? I just don't know.
You gotta admit, though that this:
"The Spierings, who attend a fundamental Christian church and also follow some teachings of the Church of Scientology"
is great stuff.
Reply-
0%
vettenut1 year, 6 months ago
I, for one, would like to know what kind of "Fundamental(ist?) Christian Church also contains people that "follow some teachings of Scientology," since those two spiritual paths mix about as well as oil and water.....
Perhaps the person who attached the "Fundamental" label to the Spiering's church did so incorrectly???
Reply
-
-
0%
DeadHead131 year, 6 months ago
No they don't have every right, especially if the child's life is endangered. People keep talking about this "right of the parents." What right? Where does this right come from?
Reply
-
-
0%
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
I also feel that the child is not the parents possession. Sometimes decisions have to be made in the best interests of the child. It can't be dictated by the parents or the religion of the parents. If we went by that premise couldn't we circumcise young girls at birth because our religion believes so?
Reply-
60%
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
Like I said it is a very complex issue.
The child is not a possession, but rather a responsibility. I'll tell you, the scariest (and proudest) moment of my life was when I brought my son home.
He was MY (and my wifes) responsibility.
On the other hand, if a parent is beating the crap out of thier child, does not the state have the responsibility to protect the child? I think they do.
This is a tricky one, I tell ya.
Reply-
88%
random17341 year, 6 months ago
The scariest and proudest moments of my life are in two parts. Number one is when I taught our son to drive. Before that I only had a few gray hairs. Now I have a lot of them. I know whose fault it is too! Thank goodness he didnn't hit anything (well, there was that one mailbox but we won't talk about that) or anyone.
Number 2 is when he got the job teaching High School and moved out. He has become a good man and I am very proud of him.
Reply
-
-
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
-
-
0%
random17341 year, 6 months ago
There are always a few that don't want any medical treatment for their children. Most states have decided that the life of the child is worth more than the beliefs of the parents.
Jovial said it best. Children are a responsiblilty not a possesion (unless I want that little brat to take out the trash - Where did he get off to again - wait till he gets home, is he in trouble!).
Reply -
50%
SusanParrish1 year, 6 months ago
I see three sides to this:
1. The parents are being silly. These are good and important tests.
However...
2. The parents are entitled to their beliefs: "Mary Anaya and her husband, Josue, believe the Bible instructs against deliberately drawing blood." That's pretty serious. How can the state tell them their religion is wrong?
But...
3. If they didn't want it done, why didn't they either have the baby in another state or have it at home. I don't believe the state could send someone to break down their door and prick their baby's heel, seems like if you are against the interference of science, having your baby in a hospital would be a last resort.
And I'd like to know, did this woman refuse to have blood drawn during her pre-natal care? Did she have an IV during her labor? I've done this once or twice, you can't see a guy with "M.D." on his coat without having blood drawn first.
Reply-
17%
Virginia1 year, 6 months ago
You've made some good points especially about having a baby in another setting. Problem is people end up at the hospital not knowing all the rules they will be expected to have known.
Reply -
20%
kriicket1 year, 6 months ago
Very good points made...I remember having to test for gestational diabetes....they had to draw blood after a fasting period, and then again after drinking some kind of sweet orange crap (yuck, the thought makes me nauseous). I don't know what to think except when it comes to the health of my children, I am all for having blood drawn, especially if it will save their life.
Reply -
100%
Helixbuilder1 year, 6 months ago
The parents should act in the best interest of their child instead they cling to their faith. In reality it is just their selfish arrogant clinging to their beliefs that may kill their child. That is abuse and stupidity!
Reply
-
-
-
100%
rightfromwrong1 year, 2 months ago
WHEN I WAS MARRIED 25 YEARS, I TOOK A LOOK AT MY WIFE ONE DAY AND SAID.
HONEY, 25 YEARS AGO WE HAD A CHEAP APARTMENT, A CHEAP CAR, SLEPT ON A SOFA BED AND WATCHED A 10-INCH BLACK AND WHITE TV, BUT I GOT TO SLEEP EVERY NIGHT WITH A HOT 25-YEAR-OLD BLOND."
NOW WE HAVE A $500,000.00 HOME, A $45,000.00 CAR, A NICE BIG BED AND A PLASMA SCREEN TV, BUT I'M SLEEPING WITH A 50-YEAR-OLD WOMAN.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE NOT HOLDING UP YOUR SIDE OF THINGS."
MY WIFE IS A VERY REASONABLE WOMAN. SHE TOLD ME TO GO OUT AND FIND A HOT 25-YEAR-OLD BLONDE, AND SHE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT I WOULD ONCE AGAIN BE LIVING IN A CHEAP APARTMENT, DRIVING A CHEAP CAR, SLEEPING ON A SOFA BED AND WATCHING A 10-INCH BLACK AND WHITE TV.
AREN'T OLDER WOMEN GREAT? THEY REALLY KNOW! HOW TO SOLVE YOUR MID-LIFE CRISES
Reply -
100%
rightfromwrong1 year, 2 months ago
With a couple celebrating their 50th anniversary at the church's marriage marathon, the minister asked Brother Ralph to take a few minutes and share some insight into how he managed to live with the same woman all these years. The husband replied to the audience, "Well, I treated her with respect, spent money on her, but mostly I took her traveling on special occasions. The minister inquired: "Trips to where?" "For our 25th anniversary, I took her to Beijing, China." The minister said, "What a terrific example you are to all husbands, Ralph. Please tell the audience what you're going to do for your wife on your 50th anniversary? Brother Ralph: "I'm going to fetch her."
Reply -
95%
rightfromwrong1 year, 2 months ago
A man picks up a young woman in a bar and convinces her to come back to his hotel.
When they are relaxing afterwards, he asks, "Am I the first man you ever made love to?"
She looks at him thoughtfully for a second before replying. "You might be," she says. "Your face looks familiar."
Reply -
100%
rightfromwrong1 year, 1 month ago
A gay man, finally deciding he could no longer hide his sexuality from his parents, went over to their house, and found his mother in the kitchen cooking dinner.
He sat down at the kitchen table, let out a big sigh,
and said, "Mum, I have something to tell you: I'm gay."
His mother made no reply or gave any response, and the guy was about to repeat it to make sure she'd heard him, when she turned away from the pot she was stirring and said
calmly, "You're gay, doesn't that mean you have ******with other men?"
The guy said nervously, "Uh, yeah, Mum, that's right." His mother went back to stirring the pot, then suddenly whirled around and WHACKED him over the head with her spoon and said,
"Don't you EVER complain about the taste of my cooking again!
Reply
-
-
100%
CynatTDS1 year, 6 months ago
In my opinion the parents have a right to their beliefs but at the same time the law should be a little more flexable in acomodating those beliefs.
All they ask for was a delay of a week to get the test done.
The hospital couldn't wait another five days to get the test done?
Reply -
0%
vettenut1 year, 6 months ago
So much for your compassion, garmissou86......
Or don't religion-haters have to be compassionate?
No, I guess not--they can leave that to the "religious fanatic(s) among us" whose faith motivates them to be compassionate......
Reply -
0%
earthlingerer1 year, 6 months ago
Who's to say that even religious parents have the intelligence to decide what's best for their baby.
We already know that religion isn't the best medicine, especially for newborn infants.
If they have their baby in one of "Caesars'" hospitals, then render unto "Caesar" what is his.
If you want to be so uptightly religious, go to Bethlehem, or several other historically religious places to have your baby. They'll still be US citizens, by law, and I guarantee that no one will thry to care for your baby too much, and only as much as you can pay.
Reply-
100%
CommonSense501 year, 6 months ago
Actually, no, the child is not automatically a US citizen. It is considered a citizen of the country in which it was born. Friends of mine had their baby early while they were trying to leave France and boy, was that a lot of red tape to get the child's citizenship changed. Don't assume just because you are a US citizen that your child, born in another country will be. The country takes prominance, why do you think a lot of Mexican women come here to have their children? They are not citizens, but their children are.
Reply-
0%
IcCaRus1 year, 6 months ago
they come here beacuse US law recognizes BOTH children born on US soil as citizens (regardless of parents nationality) and the children of US citizens born anywhere as citizens. your friends child was, at the moment of birth, by both us and international law, a citizen of both france and the us. i know this because my brother (us citizen) and his wife (ukrainian citizen) have a daughter born in ukraine that has held dual citizenship since birth.
Reply
-
-
-
83%
mbkijb1 year, 6 months ago
Another example of religion getting in the way of things. I guess if they want to take the risk of having to care for a retarded baby, that would be their burden, but I would welcome those tests.
Reply -
100%
CommonSense501 year, 6 months ago
I am a little curious, if they are so against doctors, where did they have the child? In a hospital from the looks of it.
Reply -
0%
Helixbuilder1 year, 6 months ago
The parents are morons if they ignore genetic testing, the treatments available then they should be arrested for child abuse.
Reply -
100%
moortiez1 year, 6 months ago
Obviously, these people are morons for letting superstition get in the way of their childs health, but they are the parents. The state has a role in promoting child welfare and mandating certain practices. We all know how idiotic some parents are, and how, left ot their own devices, they will, out of ignorance, injure, and maybe even kill their children. Thankfully, these are small numbers expressed as a percentage, but as a raw number, I'm sure it would be horrifying. This is just run of the mill medical testing for the good of the child. I suppose I will go with the suggestion of others here. If you don't want the tests, then leave the state to have your baby, or have it at home, where you can control the environment, and put off the tests if you want. Perhaps these folk were just looking for something to sue over?
Reply -
0%
unorthodoxic1 year, 6 months ago
As I read the article, the test identifies extremely rare defects. As one comentator stated, there are thousands of kids being injured in sports all over this country. On the one hand we condemn parents who do not want to subject their child to pain to discover if that child has an extremely unlikely genetic condition, but say nothing about parents who allow their children to participate in sports that frequently result in serious, permanent injury or even death. We allow young girls to be thrown high into the air to be caught by other young girls, who frequently miss the catch. We send our boys out onto a field to run madly into each other and throw each other to the ground. We allow our students to starve in order to "make weight." Now tell me more about why we think these parents are endangering their child by refusing that test. Could it have anything to do with the need for doctors and hospitals to generate income?
Reply -
0%
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
It could, but hospitals can generate a whole lot more income than the $45-100 this test costs in much easier ways.
They're endangering their child because while these defects are rare, when they exist in a child they can have devestating consequences.
What I'd be curious to know is if these are anti-choice people putting their own children at risk. That'd be a curious study, wouldn't it.
As for the professed religious dogma they're using to justify their belief, it's simply prooftexting. I'm pretty sure Jesus would be OK with saving babies.
Reply -
0%
Unashamed1 year, 6 months ago
"The state has a role in promoting child welfare and mandating certain practices." But to what extent? Using this logic, the state can say that parents have a right to follow their personal religious beliefs but do not have a right to teach those beliefs to their children. I don't believe it will reach that point, but who knows!
Fact is it is a simple medical procedure that should require the consent of the parents, who, in every other way hold legal authority over their minor children unless deemed unfit by a court. I believe that should apply in this case as well. It is rediculous to take away parental responsibility based on such miniscule odds of the child having one of the conditions being tested for.
I know some of you are thinking, what if the odds were 1 in a 100? or 1 in 10? Pick a number and everyone on your side of that number is reasonable, and all on the other side are just being idiots.
Reply-
100%
KISA452a1 year, 6 months ago
"Using this logic, the state can say that parents have a right to follow their personal religious beliefs but do not have a right to teach those beliefs to their children."
This is not far off. Already it is dangerous to talk about your religion in public and this trend will continue.
As to the tests... Let parents raise their children as they see fit. If government wants to take over, they shoudl have all the responsbility as well. The parents think that pain and noise willa ffect ehri children, then the state should pay for anything the parents claim results from this.
Get the state out of personal decisions.
Reply
-
-
0%
natashas1 year, 6 months ago
I think she made a bad choice. I want to respect her decision. In order to never have her child's blood taken that child could not go to school, be in the service (hey thats not a bad idea), and god forbid he gets sick you could not find out what was wrong without taking blood. I think she needs to look at the bigger picture.
Reply-
67%
KISA452a1 year, 6 months ago
She seems to believe that taking blood shortens the life of the child. So, she would (probably) weigh the cost in terms of length of life vs the likliehood of the taking blood helping. In this particular case, since the test is for something so rare, then it isn't worth the potential cost. On the other hand if he is sick and blood is needed, then depending on what the risk is, her decision might change. I dont' think I saw anything in the article to say this is not true and actually makes more sense. There should be, and probably are, exemptions for children based on religion. These tests aren't for anything communicable, they are to help the child and, honestly, to save money for the state and insurance industry. That is the real crux of it.
Reply
-
-
100%
jennygerms1 year, 6 months ago
Interesting issue. It seems like the mother was not apposed to ever having blood taken, just at that time. I could be wrong I only skimmed the article. I wonder if the hospital could have negotiated and taken the blook later?
Reply -
100%
amazed1 year, 6 months ago
what I find interesting is that it is the "liberals" who are incessantly accusing the religious and others on the right of "forcing our way of life down every one else's throats" are the one condemning the parents and demanding they be over-ridden.
What a riot.
Reply -
0%
Unashamed1 year, 6 months ago
Define "incompetent." What to some people see as necesarry discipline, others see as abuse. And I'm not just talking about spanking. Any form of discipline will be seen by some as abuse. No discipline at all is seen by others, including me, as being abuse. Certainly the parent who inflicts physical injury on a child is incompetent, but so is the parent who let's their child run wild, basically raising him/herself.
Certainly, a line has to be drwan somewhere, but in this instance, the state has gone way too far.
Reply -
0%
AnonymousSomeone1 year, 6 months ago
Really what dumba$$es to bring this case to court. Two little drops of blood aren't going to hurt the child and could help the child tremendously if there is a genetic disorder. This has me ever more convinced that scientologists are wierdos. I suppose it's not something the state can mandate, however.
Reply -
0%
amazed1 year, 6 months ago
If the state was insisting that you do something you find morally abhorent -- saying the pledge of allegiance, being silent for a generic prayer offered by a city official, for example -- you would be screaming long and loud about the separation of church and state and that the state has no right, etc.
These people apparently find these tests morally abhorent. To force them to accept this for their children is in violation of the separation of church and state just as surely as forcing people to pray in public would be.
But, once again, the more "liberal" among us show us all that their tolerance only extends to those with whom they agree, or possibly are even more to the left than themselves.
Reply -
0%
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
Actually, Amazed, if you read my comments I think it is a serious conundrum.
I think the Pledge is fine. I think they should take out the 'under God' part that was added as a response to Communism, but I don't have a problem with the Pledge. Moments of silence are also fine.
If these people refuse to allow their child to take the genetic testing for diseases that we know will cause problems that are significantly easier to treat in childhood that is certainly their right. However, if their religious belief will not allow the testing then they certainly can not expect either private insurance or the State to pay if there becomes a problem later.
Normally, I would say that the State has an obligation to protect the health and welfare of all of its citizens, however these citizens have chosen to opt out of that obligation by the State when they refuse to do what the State has chosen to do in order to protect that same welfare.
Reply
Submitted By:
Bkumm
Ex-Navy, degrees in History and Marketing and Management.
Socially liberal, fiscal conservative.
Just following my own brand of atheistic spiritualism.
" [T]he only purpose for ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Jeremy
charbarred- Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
berkeley
Coop666
Eagle_Eye- moortiez
- ScottMiller
samsara15
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
