Oregon Department of Human Services has recently won custody of a 10 month old facing blindness in one eye. The problem for the state is that the parents believe in faith healing and thus the state has taken action to get custody of the child to prevent the blindness. The parents will also be facing trial for failing to provide adequate care for their child.
Beck’s initial response is to ask ‘what is blindness in one eye compared to the formative years of a child’s life’ which he says are crucial to a child’s development. I don’t think anyone will disagree and I think it’s the ominous consequences of such a young child being taken away from the parents that bother him so much. His argument is that individuals should have a right to make their own choices, to a certain degree, and that its really more important that this very young child remain with its parents than have one eye go blind. But when asked where he would draw the line between individual choice and what many would assert as child abuse, he concedes that is quite difficult but still contends that there must be a line drawn. He also concedes that if it were life or death, or perhaps if the parents were insane, that removing the child in that instance would be the right thing to do.
The conversation eventually turns into one about vaccinations, following the theme of individual choice.
Be sure and listen so that you understand the nuances of his argument. If you don’t have 7 minutes, listen to it until it hits the vaccination point (about 3 or 4 minutes in).
Enjoy!