They're not all mad

[ponderingturtle]

If it is not here, then it is not proximate and I think it behooves an ethical majority to display some tolerance toward minorities. I am not going to specify more distant examples - words like "can" and "worms" spring to mind.

You need to be specific. What should ethical doctors do about treatments that do not work?

This is about information. Is it what is the ethical response to people promoting something that is factually incorrect? Like say those who claim that vaccines cause autism?

Should say christian scientists be challenged for their beliefs about praying while watching someone die painfully of a readily treatable illness?

 

[John Hewitt]

You need to be specific.
What should ethical doctors do about treatments that do not work?

This is about information. Is it what is the ethical response to people promoting something that is factually incorrect? Like say those who claim that vaccines cause autism?

Should say christian scientists be challenged for their beliefs about praying while watching someone die painfully of a readily treatable illness?

No I don't, the OP was about creationism and maniacs. That posting was a problem in itself. Merely imputing that any, or at least a significant minority, of creationists are maniacs is a level of language that raises questions.

In answer to your question - I think that people are entitled to raise their own children according to their own customs and beliefs. If you believe those children might thereby be harmed then, in general, you will be wrong, though there will be some specific instances where you are right. Social lines like that are always hard to draw and I am not God to draw them. I will leave that issue to law makers; they are welcome to it.