Medicine, religion, and the law...

[palabravampiress]

I just came by this article on MSNBC. It reports on a small, yet growing movement to criminalize faith-based healing in cases in which minors die of ailments that could have been treated in a hospital or by a doctor and lists the basic details of several cases in which parents are being tried for the deaths of their children. In all cases, the children were victims of biological illnesses. I found it interesting, so I thought I'd share.

I think this is a case of misguided good intentions. Everyone involved wants to protect children; they just have different ideas about how best to do so. I, for my part, am not so sure that prosecuting grieving parents for the deaths of their children is the right way to do so. It would be one thing if the parents had *caused* the deaths by foul play such as murder, accidental injury due to beating, malnutrition due to starving, etc. In these cases, though, the children were felled by illness, not by foul play. Furthermore, even if the parents didn't choose the method of care that, in hindsight, we know may have saved their children, they did seek out care for their children. They were not negligent, just misguided, misinformed, and quite possibly ignorant. I think criminalizing the deaths of minors when those minors are killed by biological illnesses goes a little too far. We can't protect everyone from everything. Diseases do still kill us, sometimes even when we are receiving the recommended and socially acceptable type of care. I think it is dangerous to make people criminally liable for disease. I think it assumes a lot more responsibility than we as human beings actually have.

Death is a horrible thing. The death of a child is even more horrible. I just don't want to see society's justifiably uncomfortable feelings regarding the deaths of children do more harm than good by locking grieving parents away simply because they were unable to cure their kids of illness.

What do you guys think?

 

[Blondie Bear]

I agree. Especially when we, at least, have the Constitutionally-protected right to freedom of religion. I think that, besides the points you've already raised, prosecuting stuff like this is a dangerous step that will lead down a slippery slope toward unacceptable restrictions on that freedom.

 

[white avenger]

Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me." He never said "The little children shall suffer BECAUSE of me." Refusing to allow proper medical treatment to a minor is abuse just the same as sexual or physical abuse and should be viewed in exactly the same way. If the parents or guardians allow a child to die or face serious medical problems simply because of their religious or personal beliefs, whatever they are, they should have to pay the consequences for their actions.

 

[Relic]

I'm pretty sure that until the age of 18 you are legally responsible for your children, this extends to decision making on their behalf as far as legal contract and power of attorney goes.

I'm confused by this kind of stuff. I have relatives that are Jehovah Wittiness. Under that religion there are a number of rules; one of which is the prohibiting of blood transfusions.

A common thing for young adults/ "children" is to question authority, sometimes in the manner of their parents faith. I have problems with say, a 14 year who decides that the religion of their parents is not for them because they want to seek medical treatment being controlled by their parents decision when it comes to denying medical treatment. There needs to be some kind of power for the child there, if there is not already.

If the child shares the parents faith and has been so influenced that they share their opinion on medical treatment, the state should not force the procedure, just as it could not for you or me. If the child wants to have the procedure done to save their life despite their parents wishes...thats another ball of wax.

I guess it comes down to consent and emotional responsibility and ultimately choice of the child for me, and even then I'm confused. I do not believe in the parents having their right to parent infringed upon, at the same time how do you balance that when it comes to the child's choice running counter to the parents choice?

This is confusing, but I do agree that punishing the parents over outcomes decided by religious choice should not be taken lightly. It runs counter Constitution and I'm not very comfortable with that.

 

[yellowcrayon]

I do really feel bad for these children's deaths. However, as has been stated, people have the right to practice their religion freely. It is *not* the government's place to say "well, you can practice it freely, except for on x, y and z occasions." Neither is it the individual's place to force their beliefs on others.

Prosecuting these parents is really not going to help matters. These are people who are already grieving for the loss of their child, and putting them in jail is not going to make them feel any better. If anything, it'll make them angry as well as heartbroken, and that is *not* a good combination (Willow, anyone? 😛).

We have many rights in this country, and the right to life includes the right to proper healthcare. However, and I wish to most strenuously point this out, that does not mean that it is the government's responsibility to give us healthcare. It does mean that we have the right to go and seek it out, and do what we must in order to get it. The government's role is to see to it that the right is not infringed, it is *not* to carry it out for us. We're not a Father Knows Best State, we are a republic (it says so in the Constitution, for any who wish to claim we're a "democracy"). The role of the government is to stay out of our lives and see to it that other individuals do as well. Then again, I'm a *huge* proponent of John Locke and the Laws of Nature.

All that is to say, it's a touchy subject and I'm not entirely sure right now how to approach it, but prosecuting the parents as criminals is most certainly *not* the answer.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me." He never said "The little children shall suffer BECAUSE of me." ... If the parents or guardians allow a child to die or face serious medical problems simply because of their religious or personal beliefs, whatever they are, they should have to pay the consequences for their actions.

I concur, yet He also said that His people are to answer unto Him and not the Government. If their actions are right by God, and if they can answer why they let their child suffer and/or die when there was treatment available then the Government has no say in the matter. That is a big, if, however.

 

[Blondie Bear]

ckg927 agrees: We also have a Constitutionally-protected right to be free FROM religion,too.

I respectfully disagree, but even if that is the case, your assumed freedom FROM religion does not give you the right to take away other people's freedom OF religion, no matter how much you personally dislike their religious choices.

(And I use "you" in the generic, not personal, sense.)

 

[itsxpaperdoll]

ckg927 agrees: We also have a Constitutionally-protected right to be free FROM religion,too.

Well said!
This is a very complicated matter, but I just can't get over the fact that children die because of the, I'd almost say ignorance but I will say Faith, of their parents. And they don't just die quietly in their sleep, they suffer. The little girl who died from pneumonia, she suffered for days, not able to breathe. The girl that died from diabetes, she suffered for months from nausea, excessive thirst, vomiting and and loss of mobility before she died. Both of them could have been cured easily. Instead their parents sat next to them and prayed. If they don't actually go to jail, at least, by charging them, those states will show that it is not acceptable when children, who, let's be fair, are too young or possibly, too brainwashed, to argue with their parents, die a painful and easily preventable death because of their parent's faith. Maybe it's not manslaughter, but at least it neglect or mistreatment. Mistreat is mistreat, even when it's under the cover of religion. And let's not forget, that most of these children die from diseases with a survival rate of over 90%, with proper medical care. Failing to seek medical care for your young child suffering from a simple pneumonia, for whatever reason, is neglect.
Of course, freedom of religion is an important right, and people should be really careful, in cases like this, not to restrict the parents too much, since everyone has the right to reject medical care. But, does that also count for their children? I really don't think so. These children are too young often to think ofr themselves, and if they're older, they don't know anything but their sect, so how can they challenge their parent's decision if they don't know anything else? And the decision to simply rely on prayer, and to not even go to the hospital to see what's wrong, means that the parents fail to do the most basic things to protect their children, which is, like I said, neglect. If we were talking about parents who don't feed their children, no one would argue neglect, since it hurts the wellbeing, the health of the child.
Also, Jehova's Witnesses do accept medical care unto a certain level. The reason that they don't want blood transfusion, is because they don't want anything in their body that God didn't put there. But they, or at least the moderate ones, don't mind using antibiotics (a perfectly natural medication) to save their children. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who even refuse to bring their child to hospital in the first place, who just pray without even knowing what's wrong. Religion can be beatiful and can make a lot of people happy, and we certainly shouldn't forbid people to practice whatever religion they want, but if you're hurting others by doing so, it is wrong.
People are free to do what they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone. That counts for everyone, as much for me (atheist) as for a Follower of Christ Church, or someone who worships some Indian guru.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

I'm pretty sure that until the age of 18 you are legally responsible for your children, this extends to decision making on their behalf as far as legal contract and power of attorney goes.

I'm confused by this kind of stuff. I have relatives that are Jehovah Wittiness. Under that religion there are a number of rules; one of which is the prohibiting of blood transfusions.

A common thing for young adults/ "children" is to question authority, sometimes in the manner of their parents faith. I have problems with say, a 14 year who decides that the religion of their parents is not for them because they want to seek medical treatment being controlled by their parents decision when it comes to denying medical treatment. There needs to be some kind of power for the child there, if there is not already.

If the child shares the parents faith and has been so influenced that they share their opinion on medical treatment, the state should not force the procedure, just as it could not for you or me. If the child wants to have the procedure done to save their life despite their parents wishes...thats another ball of wax.

I guess it comes down to consent and emotional responsibility and ultimately choice of the child for me, and even then I'm confused. I do not believe in the parents having their right to parent infringed upon, at the same time how do you balance that when it comes to the child's choice running counter to the parents choice?

This is confusing, but I do agree that punishing the parents over outcomes decided by religious choice should not be taken lightly. It runs counter Constitution and I'm not very comfortable with that.

Yeah, in Scotland I know that the law goes that if the doctor/surgeon deems the child competent of understanding the treatment, the consequences, and the side-effects, there is no need for the parents consent. Also, interestingly, the doctor can overrule the parents wishes not to have a blood transfusion if they are Jehova's Witnesses.

 

[Kali]

Ohhh this a tricky, tricky subject. But hell, I'm just going to out and say it anyway. I just don't have time for the whole tact thing today.

I get the religious freedoms bit - each to their own and all, but my strong liberal side leaps up and screams when minors are involved. If you are 30 and don't want cancer treatment, fine. But if it's a child, even your child, you should not be able to refuse treatment UNLESS in those rare cases where it has proved completely futile and there is nothing more that can be done, and continuing treatment will cause more pain and duress. In the rest of the cases, do both - use complementary therapy and conventional meds, vaccines and the power of prayer, crystals and voodoo, stick a feather up your nose, what ever floats your boat, but refuse antibiotics when a toddler has bacterial pneumonia and the survival rate when using them is 90%? Why WOULDN'T you? As a parent I would do anything I could, so I get you might turn to the spiritual side, but to refuse the advances of science? It is completely illogical.

Don't get me wrong, I think we should be free to do anything, but only if it harms no others. I mean, we are all grown ups, able to make decisions about our own welfare, picking and choosing from any religion we want to. But, I think that government agencies should interfere when it is for the protection of society, particularly minors, who are without the power of independence from their families and do not possess the authority to make these decisions, even if they are old enough to know what's going on. That is the duty of government - to represent those who have no power, to give protection to those who are unable to protect themselves. They are elected as trustees of the people to champion the greater common good, so they should certainly be protecting the society of the future, regardless of the infringement of the parent's liberty.

 

[Blondie Bear]

I understand your all's outrage. And after this comment, I'm going to bow out of this conversation. We have a fundamental difference in worldview that will only lead to yelling and throwing things, and I'd rather stop it before that happens.

I believe in personal liberty and responsibility above all else. You appear to believe in safety and security above all else, even if it means infringing on inalienable rights to obtain it. Because of that difference, there is no way we can ever agree or reach a middle ground on any conversation of this type. Parents have responsibility for their children. That means that they have the right to NOT medicate their children if they so choose. If they believe that prayer is more powerful than modern medicine, that is their prerogative. It's not quite the same as locking their sick child in the bathroom and going back to their beer and football game; they are doing what they think is right to treat their child. If we infringe on their rights in order to make sure that their children survive in ways that they do not agree with, that will only lead to the State, not the parents, deciding what is best for children in all other ways. I, for one, do not want to see that happen.

There's my two cents, and all I have to say about that. Enjoy the flame wars I see on the horizon; I refuse to be involved.

 

[Faith]

I am all for allowing people to believe what they choose but as a parent how can you justify choosing your faith over the life of your child? At the end of the day surely the safeguarding of your child should come above all else?

 

[Relic]

Hey Faith, thought I'd try to make my Karma post more clear.

There are people out there who's faith does not believe in any sort of medical treatment besides Divine intervention and home remedies...not that I agree with them, but if my actions as a hypothetical legislator ended up with the outcome of a mother and father thinking they had damned their child...and raising that child to believe they were damned...have you actually preserved life or have you done significant damage?

If a child is being abused by physical force or neglected I believe that nothing should stand in the way of justice. however, we must be very careful and definitive on how we describe these things we serve judgment over. If you and your family fast..are you negligent in care for your children because you aren't letting them eat? The law gives no direction, only that death by starvation is a terrible crime.

What has stood the course for years is the intent behind the act...my parents spanked me and some would say they abused me, I don't think that at all. If a parent thinks they are saving their child from damnation by not having a procedure done and the child agrees we don't really have the right to deny them that by forcing something on them.

It's far from simple though. What about cases where the parents are divorced with one parent a member of some religion and the other not, and one wants treatment for their child and the other doesn't? What if the child disagrees with the parent and wants something done?

It is very tricky. I honestly don't see it as black and white as you, the way you usually end up loosing rights start with laws of good intention. it may start with children but it's not much of a stretch to see it ending up with religion influenced decisions on weather or not to seek healthcare being viewed as negligence, part of religion is personal choice and good and bad....I'm not willing to give that up for someone elses opinion to save people who don't want saved.

For those that do want saved but aren't allowed a voice i think action needs to be taken to empower them in matters of life or death...it is their life after all.

Say your a seventeen year old who's pregnant and want to have your baby but it has been diagnosed as deadly for you. You could still deliver the child, or not, you might live or not (medicine has been wrong many times before...VIOXX anyone?) the government steps in and says...not having an abortion is against the law, you need to seek treatment to save your life.

Extreme. Yes.
Unlikely...are you willing to take that chance?

 

[hannahfngrl26]

So this is going to sound totally cold blooded but here is my thought, I am fine with faith-healing and no, the parents should not be tried in court for it. I have always been the "what ever floats your boat" kinda girl and frankly if this is what works for people fine. Obviously, I am not a faith-healing believer but I think if that is what is right for them that is their choice. Frankly, it is just "God's" way of thinning the herd and considering how overpopulated the world already is I say bravo. And if you are just catching that I am okay with it because it means people are dying where as if they took an alternate route they may not have you are correct.

 

[itsxpaperdoll]

Say your a seventeen year old who's pregnant and want to have your baby but it has been diagnosed as deadly for you. You could still deliver the child, or not, you might live or not (medicine has been wrong many times before...VIOXX anyone?) the government steps in and says...not having an abortion is against the law, you need to seek treatment to save your life.

Extreme. Yes.
Unlikely...are you willing to take that chance?

That's an interesting example, and I would love to talk about it, but it is not really what this article, and the general discussion is about. We're not talking 17 year olds who have the possibilities to think about their options and pick the one that suits them best, be it religion or not. The focus of this problem is younger children, who are, most probably, brainwashed by their parents and sect. There's practically no way that they will argue their parents decision to not seek emdical help.

Also, the Jehova's Witnesses I know (only two, and admittetly, relatively moderate ones) have no problem using some types of medicine, like antibiotics. After all, without actually knowing it, people have used them for centuries (honey contains it, some types of mold that can grow on bread were actually used by the Mongols, or one of those peoples) 🙂

 

[Relic]

I'd karma you but just did...my dads half brother is Jehovah Witness and diabetic, he has a certain way to take insulin, but can't inject it. He is not an example of every witness but he would take oral antibiotics/medication but not anything by drip or injection, which is how they would handle treatment for pneumonia on an infant. He might not be every example though.

As far as being brainwashed...my parents brainwashed me too. That is just a derogatory term about the way your parents raise you when applied to children. it's also not necessarily true. Your not 'washing' so much as instilling life lessons. As a parent by raising my children they have helped shape me as well.

If you are raised a certain way and stick to those beliefs and by state forced treatment are damned to hell (in your mind) would you rather not have died?

To me there are two reasons why this state stuff should be looked at very carefully.

1.) Despite your claim that it does not apply to the discussion (IRT the pregnancy scenerio)...as a very possible outcome or circumstance of actions taken entailing the discussion I feel that it has a large amount of relevance.

That is whats wrong with solution and debate in my opinion, not enough discussion of consequence...people just poo-poo things they don't agree with and say "thats not really relevant to the discussion" People sometimes back down and future problems arise that should have been brought up earlier. I don't back down that often when someone says my input is not relevant because of that.

2.) In some instances the treatment can be a punishment worse than the alternative of inaction. Everyone seems to say (myself included) beliefs are fine up until they harm someone. thats just it, forced treatment can harm someone. Can you imagine the life of torment a person could go through thinking they were damned to hell? In some instances it could be damaging to society as well. A person who believes they will be punished for eternity might just say the hell with society if I am to be punished i may as well have a lot to be punished over. in effect we could be creating evil.

On the other hand they could reject their parents religion and be very happy they now have the ability to grow old.

Ultimately forced treatment does not pass the "If it harms none let it be" stink test either, not to mention possibly setting us up for dire future circumstances where the state decides not only how long we live, but how we live and the quality of that life as well.

 

[palabravampiress]

Wow! Everyone has some pretty strong and interesting opinions. Thanks for discussing this with me, guys. 🙂

I, for one, think the 17-year-old forced abortion scenario as relevant to this debate. In most cases, a minor is a minor is a minor and the parents are responsible for that minor's well-being. Older, non-emancipated minors may have the mental capacity to make decisions regarding their own healthcare, but they aren't usually the ones making the decisions. Their parents sign off on all of the procedures and pay all of the medical bills. Because minors from infants to adolescents are viewed so broadly as one group under the law, a 17-year-old might just as easily be denied (or forced to undergo) medical treatment as a toddler. What we are debating here is, at its core, who should have the ultimate say over the medical care of minors: their parents or the state. That includes all minors from birth until the legal onset of adult status as well as all medical emergencies that might befall them. In my opinion, it is dangerous for a free society to abdicate to the state control of such intensely personal matters as the intersection of religion and health. In a free society, we have the right to make our own decisions about our own lives... even if those decisions turn out to be misguided mistakes and even if the government knows (or thinks it knows) better.

Another interesting aspect of this debate is the relatively recent trend toward criminalizing accident, disease, and other common tragedies. We, as a society, seem to think ourselves invincible. When death or injury proves otherwise, one of our first reactions is to blame. Through the clear lens of hindsight, we pick apart the particulars of a given situation until we find someone who made a decision to act (or not to act) in a way that later proved to be a mistake, and then we compound the misery brought on by human weakness by punishing those who are probably the most distressed. Quite frankly, I don't like this trend. In the not-too-distant past, accidents were accidents and diseases were diseases, not crimes. People -- and yes, even children -- died tragically, and society felt sympathy for the loved ones. Now, we charge them for crimes and sue them for every dollar they have. Why can't death by accident or disease ever be a normal part of the human condition anymore? Biological illness, whether commonly treatable or not, is nobody's fault. It happens. I think it is misguided to treat it as a crime.

 

[Queen Mum]

Well, I'll try to be careful, as I have a tendency to step on people's feet when talking about religion, but I'll try to do my best. Well, from staying of your feet.


So, I do get that respect of religion is important and everything, but I honestly think it shouldn't be more worth then a person's life. I also know that one has to respect a parents position on an issue, but well I do think, that if we have the medical technology to heal a person, we should actually make use of it. Religion isn't a green card for being able to do everything with your life and with the life of others.

Like for instance, if a grown up decides for himself not to make use of medicine, okay he should know that if he doesn't get this treatment, he is most likely to die, but it's up to him. But in the cases here. We are talking about teenagers and I believe that such important decisions should not just be up to the parents. There is a reason that we have doctors. Some doctors might be crooks and not all are as good as Dr House, but generally speaking they have a tendency of being able to give us something to heal or atleast make us more comfortable with our situation. Of course it's difficult to say, teenagers are not adults and we can't have the state take over the jobs of parents, but in a way I find that the given cases present us with issues of where I would prefer the state to take over the role of the parents. I mean, these kids had no chance, as their parents made a decision for them.

Like for instance, there is a point to why people live longer nowadays than a hundred years ago and it just doesn't all have to do with evolution and God being on our side. I believe in human technological development and if we have the capabilities to treat people for diseases, infections and whatever, we should make full use of it, well at least an informed use of it. So I would limit religious freedom there, where it endangers the freedom of others.

However, I do believe it's not just an issue of religion but more than that, well basically human nature. I would suspect that a person could decide similarly and not be influenced by religion.

 

[Chase Summers]

I don't know. Maybe it's because I'm more spiritual than religious, but I have a hard time grasping the concept of someone choosing faith over their own child. But on that same note, it annoys me to no end to see doctors and the government trying to intervene "for our own good." I understand it's children in question, and not adults, but I think maybe there should be a line solely on the fact that the consitution does give people the freedom of religion. Besides, I firmly believe that these parents, if wrong, will be reckoned with by their God in the end. It's just awful that a child will have to suffer to serve this God.