Does Freedom of Religion have limits when the well being and health of a child is concerned?
Child's death may put faith law to test
JESSICA BRUDER and DANA TIMS The Oregonian Staff
The case of a 15-month-old Oregon City girl who died for lack of medical treatment could become the first test of a state law that disallows faith healing at the expense of a child's life.
Ava Worthington died March 2 at home from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and infection, according to Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner. He said both conditions could have been prevented or treated with antibiotics.
The child's breathing was further compromised by a benign cyst that had never been medically addressed and could have been removed from her neck, Young said.
Factbox:
Faith healers and Oregon law
Saturday, March 22, 2008
1995: Lobbied by the Christian Science Church, legislators introduce a religious defense to Oregon's homicide statutes, protecting parents who try to heal their children solely with prayer. Parents who could prove to a judge or jury that faith governed their actions became immune from criminal liability, just as others could assert a claim of self-defense or extreme emotional disturbance.
1997: Again at the behest of Christian Scientists, Oregon legislators add religious shields to the state's first- and second-degree manslaughter statutes.
1998: Citing legal immunities for faith healers, the Clackamas County district attorney declines to prosecute the parents of an 11-year-old diabetic boy who died after the couple withheld medical treatment in favor of prayer. Her decision, which conflicted with the state attorney general's interpretation of the law, sparked a statewide controversy.
1999: After months of debate, legislators dissolved parents' legal defense for treating sick children only with prayer. The new law eliminated religious protections in cases of second-degree manslaughter, first- and second-degree criminal mistreatment and nonpayment of child support.
Does the state have the moral right and authority to interceed with a person's faith when a child is involved?
9 comments:
That is a hard question.
Because doing so (intervening) assumes a superior knowledge of what is really best, and should the state be in that position?
Where do we draw the line.
Is it not the right, who wants the state OUT OF parental decisions related to raising children?
I certainly do not want to see the state punish parents, after the fact, when faith prevented them from getting appropriate treatment.
However, an intervention before the child dies might be something I am in favor of.
That way the parents do not have to go against their own faith, because they are not the ones deciding to have the child receive medical treatment, and the child gets treatment.
If God really intends for the child to die, no amount of medical intervention is going to keep the child alive? Or is it?
If God intends for the child to live, is any lack of intervention going to keep the child from living?
Now I am confusing myself.
You're right, Eileen, it is a very hard question. While parents have a right to their religious beliefs, don't children have a right to a healthy life?
Then again, where do we draw the line for government interference?
Use Jehovah's Witnesses for an example. They don't believe in Blood transfusions and often their children are temporarily removed from their custody when a doctors decides a transfusion is in hte best interest of the child.
Teen JWs have gone to court to block attempts to tranfuse them, some winning their claim, even though it meant their death.
In these cases, though, doctors knew of the medical need. With the Followers, they seek no medical help, so how would any one know, before the child died?
How do they have Freedom of Religion is under constant government scrutiny to determine if a medical need exists?
How do we protect the child if they don't?
I won't pretend to have an answer, I don't. I don't like a child dying needlessly and I don't believe God ever intends for a child to die of such curable disease, but that is my religious belief.
A very difficult situation, indeed.
I don't mean to be inappropriately black-and-white on this issue but the answer to both of Victoria's questions, in my view, is a resounding yes. Technically, if a state enacted the appropriate shield, an entire universe of abusive behavior, if credibly defended as religious practice, could be exercised against children.
Beyond that, however, all freedoms have their limits. The freedom to keep and bear arms has legal limits as does the freedom of speech (you can't cry fire in a crowded theater). It's been said that your right to disagree with me ends the moment it translates to violence; I propose that the right to deprive a child of medical treatment ends the moment you're letting a child die when a $2.00 bottle of medicine would save him.
Below a certain age, a child is incapable of consenting; this is part of established law. The parents may well believe that it's in the hands of God to save them from the common cold instead of picking up Sudafed. But a 15-month-old child cannot possibly choose to refuse medical treatment on the basis of religion... they can only be deprived of medical treatment by the actions of their parents. The legal term for this is either "depraved indifference" or "criminally negilgent homicide" We can allow alot of nutty things in religious practice but I draw the line at children.
Excuse my "intolerance".
This may be the first test of exactly what you say, Keith.
I see a ticklish area here, but I'm no attorney, either.
Since they seek no medical care at all, how does the state know when to intercede? Is it a violation of their privacy and faith to be under constant scrutiny?
Like I said before, I don't have the answers, but the God I learned about wouldn't let innocent children die in this manner.
As opposed as I am to government interference, I'm even more opposed to innocent children dying when they could easily live with minimal medical care.
What happens from here is up to the prosecutors office and the courts. My prayers are with those children.
Mine as well, Lew. As you put it, the God I know is the one whose Son said "Suffer the children to come unto me and forbid them not for such is the kingdom of heaven" and warned that "whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
To me, there is no doubt about how God views children and how strongly He would condemn anyone who harmed a child, whether by neglect or overt action.
There's no question that the health of the child comes before the religious wishes of his parents.
There is a gentleman that I have worked with while coaching kids. His own son was injured. This gentleman's response was to pray for his son's healing.
I spoke directly with this gentleman. The point is, you can disagree politely. I told him that I did appreciate his faith--he was a lay-pastor of his church--but that there was a line that could be crossed when it came to the welfare of his child. I pointed out that a medical assesment of the child's injuries did not preclude prayer, but could in fact allow him to better focus his prayers on his son's behalf. In other words, a medical exam does not preclude prayer. But it does allow one to make better choices.
Soccer is at times a quite violent sport, and leg injuries are often quite dangerous.
To his credit, this gentleman did take his son to a doctor for an examination. Rest did allow for healing. I'm sure prayer was a major component, too.
I'd known this child for six years at the time...I started coaching him when he was 11 years old. I had a good rapport with him. We spoke directly and clearly about the nature of his injury. He knew that I was being respectful of his dad's religious views.
In the end, it all worked out. Had a doctor not been included at that moment in time, I would have taken steps to make sure that the child had a medical exam. I think it was the direct, polite conversation that I had with the dad that avoided a messier intervention.
The state does, and should have, the authority to intervene in the interests of the health of a child. Unfortunately, there are those on the Left who view this reasonable approach as the slippery-slope that leads to greater and greater intervention by the state into the private lives of families.
The point being, it does matter who you elect to office. Being right to move in the interests of the child in one situation doesn't mean the total and absolute denial of family privileges and rights in the raising of the child.
The parents chose their religion. The child did not.
Several years ago I was the roommate, and good friend, of a Christian Scientist. She took no medicines and saw no doctors. But when her elderly father -- also a CS -- was suffering, they went to a hospital for treatment.
The parents have no right to force their irrational beliefs on their children.
I agree, David. Now, how do we ensure those children will receive medical attention?
Since the sect is so secretive, how do we monitor their children and not violate Freedom of Religion?
There has to be a legal way to ensure those children receive needed medical care. But first, the authorities must know they need it.
How do we monitor this sect and not begin a slippery slope monitoring all other religions?
That's why I say this is a very ticklish situation that somehow, must be resolved.
I'm doing a large academic paper on Christian Science and the refusal of medicine in the case of sick children.
In the case of Christian Science, the laregest organized religious group that uses spiritual healing practices, prayer and medicine cannot be used at the same time. This is because Christian Scienctists reject the existence of the material world, believing only in the spiritual world. This then allows them to reject the existence of sin, suffering, and pain. If their child gets sick, they then pray, reminding themselves that their child can't be sick. Medicine, known as materia medica is based in the belief of the material world which would then void Christian Science healing. (Look to the founder, Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures)
So where does this leave us? Christian Science does allow for the use of medicine in some cases, but that decision is up to the the parents. And there are thousands of healing testimonials published by this group that would sway the parents away from medicine. Plus, as mentioned before, if the state doesn't know about the possible neglect, then how can they interceed? And how can CS parents know when an illness is lethal if they have no medical knowledge to go on, so how can they then be held responsible if the child dies? That's like saying "you have the right to rely on prayer, but as soon as you fail, you will be held responsible?"
My answer..just like Canada and the U.K., child health care should be mandated by the federal government. But even this leaves problems. Because of our health care system, those without funds and insurance cannot pay for this help. Healthcare is not universal in the U.S. like in Canada and the U.K. Also, this would cause problems with the first and fourteenth admendment. And, in the cases where medicine won't prolong the quantity or quality of life of a child, parents then wouldn't have the right to stop painful, evasive, and usless treatment and allow their child to die in peace.
It's a very difficult issue, and the U.S. will probably never allow for the universal legal responsibility anda the laws it would require.
Post a Comment