When Your Child’s Doctor Becomes Your Enemy

Denise Hunnell

When our children are young, their doctors are our partners. They guide and aid us in ensuring our children are as healthy as possible.

Unfortunately, about the time our children hit adolescence and start to look at us with a jaded eye, their medical providers are doing the same thing. All too often, we are no longer seen as useful for the healthy development of our children. We are left outside the exam room, while the doctor or nurse practitioner or physician assistant offers our children a myriad of options and the assurances that “Mom and Dad will never know!”

I know, because I have been on both sides of that exam room door.

Mother Doesn’t Know Best?

Back in the day, I accepted what the medical school taught me: Parents do not know what is best for their children, especially when it comes to their sexual health. As the doctor, only you know.

As the doctor, it is your job to take care of children in spite of their parents. Separate them from their parents so that you can get the real story and don’t tell their parents any more than you have to. Make sure the children know they can trust you, and make sure they know they cannot trust their parents.

But then I became a mother. No one loves my children more than I do. I realized how utterly wrong it is to exclude parents from important intimate decisions about their child’s health.

As a doctor, I am prevented by law from discussing sexual and reproductive health issues with parents without their child’s consent. These adolescents are too young to vote, buy beer, buy cigarettes, get a tattoo, or even get their ears pierced without parental consent; yet they are considered mature enough to make decisions about using contraceptives, which have potentially dangerous — sometimes lethal — consequences, without parental consultation.

Doctors Become Pushers

The recent statement on adolescent contraceptive use by the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) confirms that the medical establishment is no more receptive to parental involvement than it was thirty years ago, when I was in medical school. The Academy’s position is that health care providers who see children need to push contraception, and they need to exclude parents when they do it. The statement spends a great deal of time making it clear: the pediatrician is justified by state and federal laws in offering a whole range of contraceptive options to teenagers without parental consent.

The bottom line is that the AAP wants your adolescent daughter using some kind of contraception. They state that talking about abstinence is futile. In other words, your daughter is not much more competent or self-disciplined than the family dog; the responsible thing to do is to make sure she is “fixed” during the long “heat” of adolescence.

Once parents are out of the way, the AAP urges all pediatricians to become competent in utilizing long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) for their patients. These include hormone-releasing IUD’s, as well as implantable hormone reservoirs. They also endorse long-acting injectable contraceptives, like Depo-Provera. And if you can’t convince the teen to try one of these methods, there is always the popular combined oral contraceptive, commonly known as “the pill”.

Of course the AAP makes these recommendations while completely ignoring the dangers of these powerful drugs. They make no mention of the growing body of evidence that strongly links oral contraceptive use to aggressive pre-menopausal breast cancer, increasing its incidence by as much as 400%. The younger a woman is when she begins using hormonal contraception, the greater her increased risk for breast cancer.

The AAP fails to consider that the injectable progestin-only contraceptives, like Depo-Provera, have been found to double the transmission rate of HIV. They say not a word about the increased risks of blood clots and strokes, or that Bayer, the maker of the contraceptive Yaz, just settled a multimillion- dollar lawsuit because of these severe side effects.

Do Not Let Yourself Be Sidelined

So what is a parent to do?

The first thing you do is to refuse to be sidelined in this discussion. Be proactive; talk to your children early and often. We do not have “the talk” with our children. We have lots of small discussions to educate and shape their understanding of healthy and holy sexuality.

Be alert to the teachable moments. It may be when discussing the situation of a classmate; or it may be after seeing a movie or television show. Talk about the decisions others make, and the consequences that follow.

Let your daughters know they are so much more than sexual beings. They have a whole host of voices like Lena Dunham telling them to, “think with their lady parts.” You need to encourage their intellectual, creative, and athletic pursuits of excellence. Those “lady parts” are just a fraction of a wondrous whole person.

When it comes time for a doctor visit, whether it is for a sports physical, or a check up for a medical problem, prepare both yourself and your daughter for the private interview. It will happen, because healthcare providers are considered negligent if they do not adhere to this standard of practice.

Behind Closed Doors

Having spoken with both mothers and daughters, I am still amazed at the agenda-driven questioning that goes on behind closed doors. For example, a fourteen-year-old girl was asked if she had a boyfriend. When she said she did not, the doctor apologized for assuming a girl would have a boyfriend and asked if she had a girlfriend instead. Another girl was chastised for wearing a sports bra instead of a push-up bra to enhance her small breasts.

In these closed-door sessions, young girls are routinely offered contraception with the assurance that their parents will be told nothing about it. If the girls decline contraception, they are offered prescriptions to keep on hand just in case they change their minds.

I tell my own daughter that the doctor does not know her, does not know me, and does not know anything about our relationship, our family, or our values. Because of this, the doctor may discuss or suggest things that are contrary to our principles.

I also assure my daughter that this private talk with the doctor is entirely optional, and that she is free to end it at any time if she feels uncomfortable. Let your daughter know that you will always love her and she can talk to you about anything without jeopardizing that love.

You Are Not Your Child’s Enemy

It would be nice if we could always find a doctor that at least respects our family values and does not seek to undermine them. They are out there. I meet many such physicians through the Catholic Medical Association or the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

However, as the AAP statement demonstrates, the mainstream professional medical associations have embraced the contraceptive culture, and have no respect for the role of parents in the development of a healthy approach to sexuality. With health insurance plans increasingly limiting your choice of physicians, it is becoming more difficult to shop around for a physician who will work with you instead of against you to keep your child physically, emotionally, and spiritually healthy.

So be on guard. Do not be intimidated by white coats and medical degrees. No one knows your child the way you do, and no one loves your child the way you do.

Do not allow a medical provider to treat you like an impediment to your child’s health. You are not the enemy. You are the parent God chose for your child.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

57 thoughts on “When Your Child’s Doctor Becomes Your Enemy”

  1. As a woman, a Catholic, and a Medical Student, there is a lot in here that I agree with, and a lot that I disagree with. However, what really floored me is the continued focus on young women in both the article and in the comments. Girls aren’t the only ones that need to learn that “they are more than sexual beings”. What about boys? Sexism goes both ways. Our society over sexualizes young men too! The sooner we start teaching boys the same lessons about the value of their bodies and their minds we will get a lot closer to solving the these issues.

  2. “Recent use of oral contraceptives containing low-dose estrogen [20 micrograms ethinyl estradiol] did not appear to increase breast cancer risk,” Beaber said.

    These lower-dose pills account for an increasing number of prescriptions written today, Beaber said.”

    Elizabeth Beaber, lead researcher at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Health Day July 31, 2014

    So yes, high dose oral contraceptives and triphasic radically increase the incidence of breast cancer. low dose does NOT appear to increase the risk and lower dose are being more frequently prescribed.

    1. Low dose pills accounting for an “increasing number” does not mean that most prescriptions are low dose pills. The data from the study shows that 78% of the women received moderate dose pills which are associated with a 1.6% increase in breast cancer. Also, the high progestin/low estrogen hormonal contraceptives are associated with more blood clots and strokes as well as a doubling of the HIV transmissions rates.

    2. Even my husband, a cardiologist, knows that ANY hormonal contraceptive depletes the body of vitamins and interferes with the body’s natural operation and, yes, raises the risk of breast cancer. There are DOZENS of studies that are out there in support of this. It’s just that Planned Parenthood and organizations backed by big pharmaceutical companies do not want to discuss those studies. Visit this review of 72 studies done all over the world by various professors and doctors. Overwhelmingly, the link between hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer is proven.

      http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/140724/72-studies-breast-cancer-and-induced-abortion-Lanfranchi.pdf

      The drug companies, who give grants to Planned Parenthood and other politicized organizations like the AMA, do not publicize these studies. You boys are told not to take steroids or hormones, but for girls, it’s OK? How cheap are women’s bodies, because they are for sale all over the place.

  3. Ummm..how about finding your local Catholic pediatrician who is well versed in St. JPII’s Theology of the Body…We found one and I completely trust my children to her, knowing she won’t push contraceptives on my children and she understands fully their God-given dignity!

    1. You are very blessed and that is of course the ideal situation. It is just important for parents to realize that the doctor may very well have an agenda quite different from the parents’. It would be nice to think that all doctors would be respectful of family cultural and religious norms, but this is simply not the case. So happy that you were able to find such a doctor.

    2. It is just important for parents to realize that the doctor may very well have an agenda quite different from the parents.

      What if the parents have an agenda? Any worldview could be seen as an agenda to those who disagree with it. Religions have an agenda. Popes have an agenda. Humanae Vitae was an agenda.

      What happens if a girl confides to the doctor that she is sexually active with her boyfriend? The doctor can’t tell the parents. Is she supposed to encourage abstinence? What if she takes the parents’ faith into account and doesn’t advise the patient to use protection? Wouldn’t she be negligent. Is she really pushing an agenda? What if her agenda is wiser than those of the parents and church?

  4. Pingback: The Homeless - BigPulpit.com

  5. Dear Denise-This will be the most-forwarded thing I have ever sent to others. Thank you thank you. Guy McClung ps: BillS-we are all still praying for you; God bless you. Guy

  6. Dr. Hunnell I think you show too much restraint. Who exactly is this American Academy of Pediatricians?

    Let me play devil’s advocate. It sounds like they are an important professional organization whose goal is to uphold excellence in the profession of pediatric medicine, both by supporting its members and safeguarding the public. Surely the leaders of this group are doing all they can for the children?

    I ask this because I can’t help but wonder whether these professional organizations, while in some sense doing a public service, have been co-opted by sheer political operatives whose sympathies are shamelessly ideological and partisan. I don’t know if that is true or not, but I do know that very few physicians in my social circles have a shred of respect for AMA, AAP, etc. That’s all I know. I could give you some illustrative quotes but I’d have to censor them. Yeah, MD’s that I know are definitely not, how do the youngsters say, “BFF’s” with the AMA or the AAP.

    1. You are absolutely right! Only a small fraction of physicians belong to these associations. For example, only 15% of physicians belong to the AMA. Yet this group claims to be the voice of American physicians and its policy statements still carry great weight in legislative circles, the media, and in legal proceedings. And, yes, these organizations spend a lot more time pursuing political agendas than promoting good health. So while they are actually minority voices, they are very loud voices that command a great deal of attention and must be answered. This is especially true in groups like the AAP and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) where the majority of physicians are women and the organization has be taken over by radical feminists. I speak from experience when I say that being a pro-life female physician gets you ostracized pretty quickly in these association circles.

    2. I ask this because I can’t help but wonder whether these professional organizations, while in some sense doing a public service, have been co-opted by sheer political operatives whose sympathies are shamelessly ideological and partisan.

      So, if a doctor saw as part of her job to determine if an adolescent were sexually active and, if so, advised her on contraception options, would that be “shamelessly ideological and partisan”?

    3. You are wisely observing that both the left and the right are equally gutless in failing to recognize contraception as a moral issue, hiding cravenly behind the make-believe fantasy that these things are “health care.”
      How about you? Do you believe contraception is health care? Tell us, exactly what disease does contraception cure or prevent?

    4. Contraception is absolutely healthcare. Is healthcare only for prevention and cure of disease? And only certain people see contraception as a “moral” issue. I certainly never saw it that way when my wife and I planned our family.

    5. Yes, in a just society, health care is about prevention and cure of disease. Population management is something only a servile people agrees to.
      For the rest of us? Yes, health care ought to stick to disease prevention and disease management. We traditional folk feel a little safer that way.

    6. Do you realize that contraceptive coverage is provided at no extra cost because the insurance companies would rather pay for contraceptives than pregnancies and children’s health care? It is a win-win except for the moralists.

    7. If this statement were accurate there would be no need for the HHS mandate for contraceptive coverage. Contraceptive coverage is elective health care, not essential healthcare. If a woman wants to accept the risks she is free to do so just as she can accept the risks of cosmetic surgery. Encouraging minors to accept these risks and by default excluding parents from the discussion is wrong. For a medical association like AAP to set as their standard that doctors know better than parents what is right for a parent’s own child is arrogant and detrimental to to families. This is as much a matter of parental rights as it is one of religion.

    8. Encouraging minors to accept these risks and by default excluding parents from the discussion is wrong.

      I can go either way on this. I can see where you could be right in some extreme cases and I can see where you are definitely wrong in other extreme cases. Between those extremes are situations where a doctor should at least ignore the parents’ religious objections in the same sense as ignoring Christian Scientists or Jehovah Witnesses and discuss and prescribe contraceptives and even abortaficients. However, if the parents have legitimate health concerns with a certain type of contraceptive, they should have input into the doctor’s decisionmaking process.

    9. There might be things about me to be pitied of which you know nothing about. But I don’t know what is causing your pity.

    10. What I mean is I think secular values are so anti-humanist that I truly pity anyone who holds them. Nothing personal. I get where you’re coming from. You’re in the majority. I just pity the majority.

    11. One aspect of being a humanist is letting humans, not gods, call the shots. You see that as rebellion. I see it as the only sane way to live.

    12. The history of the 20th century shows me that when humans are given power to make life or death decisions “for the common good,” the guillotines, gulags, and death camps come quickly. That’s why I pity secular believers. They don’t know what’s happening until it’s *their* head in the guillotine. Then they beg for mercy. They die betrayed, not by God, but someone who said there is no God, who said abandon your God and let reason show the way! Sad story. Same ending every time.

    13. The history of the 20th century shows me that when humans are given power to make life or death decisions “for the common good,” the guillotines, gulags, and death camps come quickly.

      Who made the life or death decisions before the 20th century? God? Humans had to be involved somewhere in that process.

    14. The 20th century was the moment in time when secular humanism stepped up and said explicitly, let us show you how to cure society’s ills without religion.

      Secular humanism showed us their answer. They kill. Pol Pot realized that it was very expensive to murder his Cambodian people with bullets, so he ordered his secular humanist army to murder women and children with clubs. They were beaten to death.

      Similarly, Margaret Sanger saw a shortcut to deal with sociological catastrophe. She classified abortion and contraception as “health care” and moved it into black communities. Millions have been willing to support her transparent agenda.

      This is secular humanism. What is good for man is determined by a utilitarian equation, exactly like you argued that the ethical good of contraception was seen in the quantitative calculation of the comparative costs of allowing women to become pregnant.

    15. Secular humanism showed us their answer. They kill. Pol Pot blah, blah, blah….

      Who do you want to run the world? The Pope? How about secular governments run by democratically elected leaders? Do you have something better?

    16. How about this. Don’t vote for candidates who express contempt for Christianity. Let’s start there and see what happens.

    17. How do you define “contempt for Christianity”. You do know that this nation is not supposed to favor any one religion?

  7. The problem facing adolescents from religious families is that they do not always get valuable guidance when it comes to contraception and abortion. It is up to medical professionals to be secular in the advice and care that they provide.

    Children should not be bound to the religions of their parents and doctors should not treat them as if they are. For example, children from Catholic families should know the options available to them for preventing or terminating pregnancies. This may require a degree of doctor-patient confidentiality and privacy that religious parents might consider to be unacceptable.

    1. Are we to assume the doctor will tell the adolescent all the very real & potential hazards (both physical & emotional) of contraception (some of which are abortifacient in nature & many of which can rightly be classified as human pesticides & carcinogens) & abortion…? I think not.

      Children should also not be bound by the ideology of American Academy of Pediatrics, Planned Parenthood, & the like.

    2. Are we to assume the doctor will tell the adolescent all the very real & potential hazards (both physical & emotional) of contraception?

      A good doctor will discuss the pros and cons of options available to the patient. That is what they are there for. What they can’t be influenced by are ideologically driven moral issues. That is not their responsibility.

    3. Ah, Bill … are you denying the humanity of doctors? Because doctors, as human beings, are as fallen as the rest of us. Of course they can be — and are — influenced by ideology, just as any other human being is. In fact, Dr. Hunnell’s posts outlines the extent to which ob/gyns are ideologically influenced.

      As for “secularism”: If you’re only using that word to denote an unspecified irreligious perspective, “secularism” as such doesn’t come packaged with a specific moral code; the irreligious person simply picks up what s/he can live with from the dominant culture, or from some comfortable philosophy. On the other hand, “secular humanism” is an ideology, with dominant moral tenets. I’m afraid appealing to “secularism” as some kind of savior from (eek!) religious morality is like looking for a ghost to get your back in a barroom brawl.

    4. So, what are you saying then. Doctors are influenced by ideologies that can cause them to provide care and advice that conflict with the ideologies of the parents? What if the doctor is treating a minor who asks for contraceptives or an abortifacient? Is the doctor supposed to neglect the patient in deference to the religious beliefs of her parents? I don’t think so.

    5. The presumption is that it is a child’s human right to be sexually active at a young age and outside of marriage. By dumbing down the truth, calling it “ideologies”, a rocky road is paved which leads to all sorts of unhealthy ideas. There is nothing at all healthy about encouraging young & unmarried children to engage in sex. Pregnancy, STDs, even the physical injuries that result from some types of modern sex based on hard core porn – these are things we’re subjecting our children to when we condone sexual activity at young ages. Further, I believe most of us commenting here can attest to the seriousness of a broken heart, which usually follows a relationship where a couple have begun having sex at an early age and while unmarried. Sometimes this only takes once – the “one night stand” or the “fling.” Also, sadly, there are those cases where one individual gets used by another for sexual pleasure.

      We tell our children not to gorge themselves with food (overeat); we tell them to get plenty of sleep; we tell them to stay hydrated and dress warmly when it’s cold outside; why aren’t you up in arms that we’re imposing our views and beliefs on them for those things? Perhaps it would feel good to eat more? To stay up later? The common sense of good parents must reign over purported “rights.” It’s a requirement of the natural law for parents to do what is best for their children; condoning sexual activity outside of marriage may perhaps grant some fleeting bodily pleasure, like overeating, but it has zero long term or health benefits.

    6. There is an age before which my ideas are absurd and there is an age after which yours are. We might dispute what that age is. If we agree on an age like 18, that works for me. But having said that, there are cases where those who are younger than that are better served by listening to their doctor rather than their parents. That’s all I mean to say.

    7. I can agree with that for the most part – and add in something you probably would agree with, too. The number (18, for example) has less importance than the child’s maturity level. Maturity being defined as the ability to use right reason and behave in a responsible manner according to the situation presented. In cases where the parents are clearly choosing something that would harm the child, (let’s say, refusing a life-saving blood transfusion, or less controversial, insisting upon caning a child for disobedience) the doctor’s advice ought to trump the parents’. But I think we’d be hard pressed to find that most cases lean this way.

      In the back of my mind runs mainstream, recent news stories of doctors overriding parents choices – the case of Justina Pelletier, for example.

    8. I think the classical hypothetical situation has to involve any combination of Catholic taboos where children need to get the advice of a secular health professional. There are matters that involve premarital sex, contraception and abortion in which a teen might need a resource not available in a traditional religious family. That is all I am trying to get across. My kids are grown and on their own, so I can speak from experience.

    9. It’s not the doctor’s job to enable teen rebellion, anymore than it’s his/her job to “protect” her from her parents’ religious beliefs. We have ages of majority and minimum ages precisely to protect kids from the consequences of bad decision-making, especially under pressure from predators, peers and others outside the family. The kid might not see having sex at his/her age as a bad decision; bad decisions, however, don’t become “good” through the invocation of “children’s rights” or ideological freedom. The UN Declaration’s assumptions are a matter for another time; I’ll content myself for now by saying it’s not a perfect document, and that we shouldn’t jump off that bridge just because everyone else is.

    10. I can agree with you for the most part. The only hypothetical instance that I see where a doctor might want to sidestep parents religious beliefs is if the religious beliefs would deprive the patient of necessary access to contraception or abortion. It would be at that point where I would say that the right of the child exceeds the right of the parents. Not to promote promiscuity of course but just to deal with the realities of being an adolescent.

    11. Neither fertility nor pregnancy are diseases in need of “treatment”; in fact, there are only a small handful of circumstances in which a direct abortion is plausibly necessary from the standpoint of immediate threat. But that’s not the point. The point is, how is a 15-year-old person not wise enough to buy land, or sign off on tonsil removal, yet wise enough to determine whether she should take a drug, have an implant, or have an abortion, any one of which choices have serious potential consequences, both short- and long-term?

      Part of the problem is, we’re arguing from a small host of premisses that we would have to reconcile before we could come to an agreement on this one. Sometime, I hope we can find a better starting point.

    12. I would say for certain that a 15-yr old, should she find herself pregnant or in danger of having become pregnant accidentally or unintentionally is entitled in this country to decide for herself what her next step should be. Simplest example would be to take a morning after pill. More complicated example might be an abortion. These are examples where the religious beliefs of the parents should be immaterial. This would be a typical human right for a child that the UN is trying to secure (much to the dismay of some religious conservatives).

    13. In other words, having made one bad decision, she should be free to double down on it? It’s not only “religious conservatives” (apparently a devil term in your lexicon) who hold abortion to be wrong; I’ve come across liberals and irreligious who are also against it. And again, the UN’s say-so doesn’t make it good and wise.

    14. For a young woman to have her whole life altered for lack of using a contraceptive or taking a morning after pill or having an abortion because of her parents being Catholic is just absolutely tragic. Did she make a mistake? Perhaps? Does she deserve a second chance by taking appropriate action? Of course she does and I would hope that her doctor would agree.

    15. Tragic? It isn’t always or necessarily, and it wouldn’t be if we as a culture weren’t so intent on punishing girls for keeping their children. You want tragedy? Consider a culture that pushes a fourteen-year-old girl into sex (because it’s her “right to explore her sexuality”), then tries to push her into the abortion clinic (because it’s “her right to choose”) when her body does what it was designed to do, then abandons her when she chooses to keep the child (“Your choice, your mess to clean up”).

      But even if I could agree wholeheartedly with your assessment, I have to disillusion you about the “second chance” part of your response. Mulligans only happen on golf courses. Abortion isn’t a “reset” button that makes the girl’s life as though she’d never had sex. If anything, it compounds the original bad judgment. Even when women don’t suffer grave physical consequences from the procedure, the trauma the majority of them experience is emotionally scarring. And pity for Person A is no good grounds for taking the life of Person B.

      So again I say: Having made one bad decision, the girl should be “free” to double down on it? And the doctor should be a willing co-conspirator in this cycle of poor judgment?

    16. Tragic? It isn’t always or necessarily, and it wouldn’t be if we as a culture weren’t so intent on punishing girls for keeping their children.
      This is why doctors can’t allow themselves to be influenced by people like you. First, if they know that a girl is sexually active, they should advise the use of condoms or prescribe contraceptives regardless of anyone’s religious beliefs. Second, if a girl has sex and wants to avoid pregnancy by taking a morning after pill, no one’s religious beliefs should affect that decision. And third, if she gets pregnant and chooses to have an abortion, no one’s religious beliefs should affect that decision either.
      Now, if you want to discuss how a girl can be raised in a loving family and taught the importance of being responsible and not having premarital sex or about the potential health effects of oral contraceptives, that is worthy of consideration. But I sympathize with doctors who have to deal with religious beliefs of parents that put them at conflict with what they know they should do as health professionals.

    17. *sigh* This is where I came in, right in the middle of the previous showing of this picture. We’ve already gone over this ground, and your reliance on dissing religion, when I’ve pointed out to you at least twice that opposition isn’t limited to religious people, hasn’t made your argument any better than it was the first time. Rather than go around this circle again, I’ll simply step off here. Pax tecum.

    18. Yes, children absolutely should be bound to the religion of their parents. What religion they follow, or irreligion they follow, is their choice after they leave home.

    19. That’s a joke, right? What if they don’t leave until they are in their 20s or 30s? Do they still have to be what their parents are?

    20. It is not a joke, and yes, it applies to 30-somethings too, and maybe even more. If people want to live by some set of rules other than their parents’, then they need to get their rear out the door. And it would be crassly ungrateful for someone who has lived off his parents well for thirty-something years not to follow their rules.

    21. What you are proposing is a violation of the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child. It is against international laws on human rights for parents to force their religion on their children. Children are free to follow the religion of their choosing or no religion at all under this convention.

    22. I have no problem stating that the UNC-RC has seriously overstepped its bounds in several of the “laws” it has passed. The UN flies under the banner of helping poor, starving, abused children, yet marches to the battle drum of promoting sexual activity at early ages, with a “solution” of abortion for “unplanned pregnancy” resulting from that sexual activity – and abortion providers worldwide profit. The UN has helped turn our children and young adults into a billion dollar source for industry. People should be outraged that the UN has sought so ferociously to continue the sexual abuse of children, stolen the rights of parents in couched language, and so voraciously devours any opportunity for freedom of religion, which includes raising children as parents see best.

    23. You had me up to:

      and so voraciously devours any opportunity for freedom of religion, which includes raising children as parents see best.

      Children are entitled to freedom of religion as well as their parents. I’m sure you can see the down side of indoctrination of children in places like Gaza where they are taught to hate. Yes, christian children are taught to love, and that is a good thing. But even so, they are entitled to choose their own path, which sometimes involves following a different (or no) religion.

    24. Children are entitled to a healthy upbringing. I think the old axim, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” applies well here. Parents may teach their children whatever religion they wish; but they cannot make the children believe it in their hearts. So a child who chooses not to believe something in his heart has that “right” even from God Himself, who gives us free will. Yet, it is the duty of parents to follow their conscience in the raising of their children, and therefore, to teach whatever external elements of their faith they so choose.

    25. I did that with mine. Confirmation was their graduation from CCD and they never looked back.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.