Religions are dangerous. Nowhere is this more obvious than in cases of child abuse. The Catholic Church is #1 in this area, but to me killing children in the name of faith healing is even more abhorrent.
You can recover from sexual abuse. You can't recover from dying.
Yesterday an Oregon boy died of a urinary tract blockage. A radio news report I heard this afternoon said it's an exceedingly painful way to die. A catheter probably would have saved him.
I hope his Followers of Christ parents rot in hell. I don't believe in hell, but if it exists, parents who kill their children deserve priority admission.
The crazy thing is that Oregon law allows anyone 14 years or older to deny medical treatment. So if the boy had been sufficiently infected with Followers of Christ insanity and refused the catheter, his parents may not be able to be criminally charged.
But they should be, as the parents of a 15 month old girl – members of the same Followers of Christ congregation – have been (also yesterday, coincidentally).
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.
That's outrageous. Equally outrageous is how legislators in this country allow ignorant religious loonies to kill their children in the name of their imaginary God.
If people were sacrificing children in the name of an Aztec deity, they'd be punished. But if they do it in the name of Jesus, the law generally looks the other way.
As reported in "A child's death and a crisis of faith," most states give some sort of free pass to religious child abuse.
In all, 45 states offer some legal accommodations in child-protection laws for parents who use spiritual healing, according to the Christian Science church. The laws vary widely, with some states protecting parents or guardians from felony abuse or murder prosecutions, while others exempt prayer practice only in misdemeanor cases, according to Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty Inc., a nonprofit group based in Sioux City, Iowa, that opposes such laws.
Wisconsin has three statutes providing religious healing exceptions: one in the child-abuse laws, one in the laws concerning crimes against children, and one that bars the state from forcing medical care on someone who chooses Christian Science prayer. The state's child-abuse laws were amended in 1987 to say: "A person is not guilty of an offense ... solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing." The wording was requested by the local Christian Science government-relations office, according to the Wisconsin Legislative Council, a state agency.
Ridiculous.
Whenever I hear someone say "What's wrong with believing in God?" I think of all the children who have died in the name of faith. Not to mention the countless others who have otherwise suffered at the hands of religious believers.
I agree with what you said. The problem here is not believing in god-- even though it's what they claim. It's believing in religion and I think laws need to protect those who are too young to protect themselves from such abuses. Later they can do whatever dumb thing they choose. I don't think 14 is old enough to make such choices as it's an age children are still under their parents' thumbs.
Posted by: Rain | June 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM
You are standing on a slippery slope that suggests that conventional medicine is a better alternative than doing nothing (or even praying). The bigger issue, than religious practice, is whether one should be forced into the medical system against ones wishes whether it be from religious or other beliefs. Granted, there are some horror stories where religious parents seemed to have harmed their children but when modern medicine kills 100,000+ a year http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/335.cfm perhaps faith in an unknown makes as much sense as faith in the so-called known. I want to reserve my right to treat myself and my children as I please.
Posted by: Randy | June 19, 2008 at 09:23 PM
Randy, in these Oregon cases the children were denied (or refused) antibiotics and a catheter. These are demonstrably effective treatments for the life-threatening problems the children had.
I don't think a parent has the right to kill his or her child, out of a false belief that medical treatment won't (or shouldn't) be used on the child.
I sympathize with your position when it isn't clear that medical care is better than alternative care, or doing nothing. But when necessary medical care is kept from a child by a parent's erroneous beliefs, that seems wrong to me.
Posted by: Brian | June 19, 2008 at 09:36 PM
Randy, Brian,
good points from both. Randy's point is strong since western medicine is the third leading cause of death in America. (Crazy, huh?) Brian, I also agree with your point...this is a tricky one actually...
Posted by: Adam | June 20, 2008 at 01:27 AM
If someone defends the right to deny a child who might be diabetic insulin because of religious beliefs, do we also allow those parents to use their children sexually if their religion says that's good? Once society abdicates its right to make certain basic judgments about rules for life, like say murder is bad, then where does it end? Supposedly Abraham was going to slay his son in the name of god. Was that okay and if so, is it okay today?
Medicine clearly has its flaws; but if a child has an appendicitis, that child will die without medical care. That's a biological fact, not an issue of faith. It is one of those things that extremists (on any side) don't like that you can have gradations, areas of gray where you will say no to one thing but yes to another on the same slope. Inoculations for diseases benefit everybody by reducing the incidence of those diseases. Yes some are harmed by the vaccines, but that is the nature of how societies govern whether tribal or federalized.
I don't want government interfering more than necessary in my life or anyone else's, but I recognize some rules are needed because of the nature of humans. Protecting children sometimes even from their own parents is unfortunately one of those needs.
Posted by: Rain | June 20, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I'm not saying that conventional medicine isn't the right thing to do sometimes. But that's not a decision government should get to make for me or a parent of a sick child. There are powerful arguments against innoculations being as harmful as they may be helpful. And insulin isn't the only protocol for diabetes. http://www.rawfamily.com/sergei.htm
If a child has cancer should the parent be forced to subject him or her to radiation and chemotherapy, America's favorite cancer treatment? I think Brian wrote the blog as a religious argument. But it is a political argument and the slipperyest of slippery slopes.
Posted by: Randy | June 20, 2008 at 03:28 PM
I understand what Randy is saying, but common sense applies here. If a child is suffering and in danger of permanent disability or death, it is incumbent upon the parent to seek trained professional help immediately. This should go without saying. Let's see, my kid can't breathe and the peppermint tea isn't working, guess I'll pray harder and try tincture of rosemary. What's the matter with these people?
While the doctors are removing the cyst which is suffocating the child, the shaman or priest can perform a ritual in the waiting room.
Posted by: Type O | June 20, 2008 at 09:51 PM
the Lord helps those who help themselves. Pray that researchers will find new medicines and doctors will find new techniques
Posted by: Kudzu Fire | July 05, 2008 at 04:46 PM