Church midwife in Oregon believes in letting babies die

I'm glad I don't have high blood pressure, because some days reading the newspaper makes me feel like my head (or my heart?) is going to explode.

Today's outrage is nicely encapsulated by the Portland Oregonian headline that caught my eye at the top of the Metro section: "Midwife calls death God's will."

The death was that of David Hickman, who was born two months early and lived a unduly short life of nine hours because his parents were wacko Oregon City Christians who believe in faith healing.

(I've written about previous child sacrifice deaths committed by Followers of Christ church members here, here, and here.)

It's ridiculous how religious belief is used as a justification for letting children die without seeking necessary medical care. If somebody stands by while a child dies without dialing 911, this should be an open-and-shut legal case: guilty.

But while this is the 21st century, some cultural attitudes are still stuck in ancient history because of religion's stultifying influence. Here's a blunt reader comment on the Oregonian story that I liked:

Religion poisons everything it touches. If we stoped teaching our kids about a made-up hell they wouldn't grow up to be brainwashed. PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE BRONZE-AGE PEOPLE!!!!!!

The following quotes from the Oregonian story indicate what good advice that last sentence is. Lavona Keith is the church midwife who helped with the delivery of David Hickman, who should have survived according to a neonatologist.

A church midwife who attended the home birth of David Hickman, who was born two months early and lived only nine hours, said she does not believe the premature baby should have been taken to the hospital.

In unusually candid testimony, Lavona Keith said "it wasn't God's will for David to live."

...Under questioning by prosecutor John Wentworth, Keith said it is for God to decide whether a baby lives or dies.

"Is there anything a doctor can do to change that?" Wentworth asked.

"I don't think so," Keith said.

..."I would anoint" the child with oil but would not call a doctor, Keith said. "I believe in trusting in God."

What would God do, Wentworth asked.

"He would heal my baby," Keith said.

"What lesson was learned from David's death?" Wentworth asked.

"I don't know," Keith replied.

Lavona Keith, you are a fucking idiot.

Plus, every Christian, along with every idiotic true believer of any other faith, who believes that God's will determines whether a baby lives or dies also is a fucking idiot.

Religion rots minds. Religion kills innocent people. These are facts. As is the death of David Hickman, a baby sacrificed to a God who doesn't exist.

Here's more proof that if you seek to be moral, run away as far as you can from religion.

Comments

[Catherine]

I always liked the story of the man caught on the roof of his house during a flood. he asked god to save him. Helicopters tried to pick him up several times, but he was waiting for god. After he drowned, he asked god in heaven why he had not been saved and god said that he had sent the helicopters several times and the man had refused their help. 'god' sends the doctors too after training them for close to a decade.

[Michael]

Thank you providing reason and highlighting the destructiveness of religion.

[cc]

If we could get all the fucking idiots to quit fucking there would eventually be no idiots.

[Willie R]

I detect a certain amount of vitriol in this posting, respondents included. That goes for me, too. All of a sudden, I have a dog in this hunt, scheduled as I am to become a grandfather in December (much to my chagrin, unfortunately).
I wish I could say that this is a non-issue for me, but I cannot. One thing I can say is that I am clueless as to an appropriate response. Life is like that.

[Brian from Colorado]

Your hatred and contempt change nothing, Churchless, with the possible exception of your capacity for compassion.

[Blogger Brian]

Brian from Colorado: you're right. I detest people who let sick children die needlessly. I hope I always feel that way. It seems to me that this is a sign of my compassion. If I didn't get angry when religious zealots engage in what amounts to child sacrifice, I'd worry about myself.

[Brian from Colorado]

So, you think the likes of Ms. Keith to be effing idiots. What then? Do idiots not deserve compassion?

What about an atheist woman who, finding herself in very adverse circumstances, comes to believe that life is but a brief and pointless fog of pain and suffering, and so decides to kill herself and her young child in order to save them both from further misery? Would such an equally misguided person warrant similar detestation?

[Blogger Brian]

Brian from Colorado, there's a big difference between individual and collective madness. Lots of people hate Jews, but only a Hitler, with the force of a collective behind him, could kill millions.

Yes, there are mentally ill individuals who believe, and do, crazy stuff. But the Followers of Christ church has been encouraging their members to pursue faith healing for children with serious health problems for many years.

Numerous children have died. There have been several indictments and trials by law enforcement authorities. This is a case of collective child abuse in the name of religion, not a case of an individual mentally ill person.

When I say these people are "crazy," I'm not speaking clinically -- as likely would be the correct diagnosis in the example you gave of someone who killed themselves and their child. Again, this is ongoing, considered, willful child abuse in the name of religious dogma.

[Brian from Colorado]

Oh, then they're not misguided, just willfully evil?

Here's a brilliant book I'd recommend, (written by an exceedingly bright young lady with impeccable lefty creds, btw):

http://www.amazon.com/Being-Wrong-Adventures-Margin-Error/dp/0061176052/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317071700&sr=8-1

Ignore the blurbs; its most important message has to do with understanding how ALL of us come to believe things, and why we ALL tend to think that our beliefs are obviously self-evident, while those of our opponents can only be based on ignorance, stupidity and/or malicious intention.

[Blogger Brian]

You used the term "evil," not me. I don't believe in evil. I believe that some people suffer from a deficit of empathy. Yes, this likely is a neurological problem. But religion exacerbates it, encouraging people to accept that the imagined dictates of a distant God are more important than saving a child's life in the here and now.

[Brian from Colorado]

But what about you, old chum? What informs your belief that saving a child's life is important in the here and now? In the end, wouldn't your world view dictate that it's just a neurological function as well? In fact, isn't this view just the product of one more program call in the brain machine which randomly evolved to perpetuate mindless DNA?

From this perspective, and thinking more generally, what is it then that makes one view proper and right and another indecently wrong? I ask this in all seriousness and am curious about the basis you would assert for establishing the legitimacy of values.

[Blogger Brian]

Brian from Colorado, people sometimes say to me, "Brian, you think too much." Well, I don't think I do -- but I might as well try this statement out on you:

Brian, you think too much.

This issue seems pretty darn simple. Laws are a reflection of a culture's collective moral judgment. Oregon law says that parents have a responsibility to provide necessary medical care to seriously ill children (for all I know, moderately ill children also).

A jury soon will consider whether the parents of the baby who died are guilty of child neglect. If the medical evidence shows that the baby could have been saved if treatment had been sought, rather than anointing the baby with oil and trusting in Jesus, I believe the parents are guilty.

What do you think?

Your comment above is unduly abstract and theoretical. We have laws. We make moral judgments. Philosophers and theologians can argue about the nature of morality, but the need to hold people accountable for certain actions continues on regardless.

If you have a moral/legal argument for why it is OK to let a baby die instead of providing medical care, because the parents believe Jesus will heal the child, I'd be interested in learning what it is.

[Brian from Colorado]

Thanks for your response and your patience. Of course, I have no moral/legal argument for why allowing a child to die in such circumstances is acceptable, nor would I wish to assert one. But to sum things up, it would seem that your position on the question amounts to a form of "because everybody says so" - basically an appeal to collective authority. Small wonder then that you'd worry about the influence of fundamentalist idealogues on society if the definition of moral norms boils down to that. To be sure, there's an aspect of truth in thinking that way, but what's more important (in my mind, at least) is how we can respond constructively to those we disagree with, and how we find a way to live in peace in a world that, as the Taoist say, is ultimately forever out of our control.

I'm sure there are folks (primarily atheist philosophers in academia, I'd expect) who still make a good living chasing words about in circles on the subject of ethics and morality. But at least we can agree that it's a tricky and difficult subject in which to delve at depth.

BTW, I don't think I think too much; I think I think just the appropriate amount! :)

[tAo]

Brian from Colorado,

your arguement is pointless and absurd.

it's simply a matter of common sense and human rights. common sense dictates that individual children's lives are vastly more important than someone else's (the parents) abstract religious bias. children have fundamental rights, just as adults do. they have a basic human right to be given all possible medical assistance, to save their life. they have a right to life, a right to not die due to a lack of medical care caused by obstruction or by neglect. a child's right to life and to necessary medical care supersedes their parents narrow-minded religious beliefs or whims. period.

if the parents denied or obstructed or prevented the human rights of the child, and the child dies as a consequence, then the parents are guilty and responsible for causing the death of the child. period

and no amount of nonsense rationalizations or intellectual jugglery excuses that.

[Passerby]

Interesting discussion.

Parents allow a child to die because of their illogical religious belief in a sky-god, thus not seeking medical care for their baby.

Yet, people advocate violence against doctors providing termination of unwanted pregnancy...because of their religious view that abortion is killing a fetus.

Perhaps, it is man's concept of religion that is the root of evil...

[Roger]

What is man's concept of religion, that would be the 'root' of evil? The person, asking this question would have a belief in something called evil?