When Parents Call God Instead of the Doctor

Personally, I dont care if someone chooses to use prayer rather than medicine. Its sad when someone dies because of it, but its really not a criminal act (imho). These parents did not know the kid had diabetes. I have no idea if they used to involve doctors in their lives and then had a conversion to this particular flavor of xianity, but I do know people can live a long time with undiagnosed diabetes. It appears they called 911 when the kid stopped breathing (rather than waiting for a lazarus/jesus rising moment).

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/45469297.html

Xians can back up the belief in prayer with their bible. Either we have freedom of/from religion or we dont. This is the privacy of their home, with a documented belief system (whether you choose to partake or not) and parents should have the final say on what experiences their children have. This is not a case of beating a kid to death to drive out a demon. This is not a case of stoning a child for fornication.

In the big picture, this is simply nature being allowed taking its course. And I am unconvinced that is a crime.

http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/news-events/cost-of-diabetes.html

$7900 a year. $577 per year for every man woman child in USA (cost). Too bad prayer doesnt work. Would save us all a bunch of money....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those people should be sterilized.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If they went to the doctor in the first place, they would have known. This is child abuse. The child has no say, and is relying on the parents to make the correct decisions. Put yourself in the place of a dying kid whose parents are too brainwashed to get them proper medical help. Too bad kids don't have freedom from their parents religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its nature being allowed to take its course. Religion didnt kill the kid, diabetes did. Diabetes kills a lot of people each year even with treatment. My former boss lost his mother to uncontrollable diabetes. His (the boss) diabetes achieved uncontrollable status (at 50 years old, approx 20 years after being diagnosed) until the gastric bypass temporarily cured it (10 years). Now its coming back. Diabetes is a shitty disease to have and worse yet when it starts at such a young age. With or without medicine.

What do you care if someone else makes choices you wouldnt? How impacted is your life by their private decision?

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical1.htm


Prayer vs medical help

Parents withholding medical treatment
from their children; legal exemptions.


Quotation:

bullet "The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct." Judge Vincent Howard, Marathon County Circuit Court, Wisconsin.

Freedom to choose faith healing:

People in North America are guaranteed freedom of religion.:

bullet The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits any action by an American government which restricts "the free exercise of religion."

bullet Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion.."

Courts have generally interpreted the concept of freedom of religion very broadly to include both religious belief and most religious practices. e.g. the personal freedom to choose prayer and/or religious ritual in place of medical treatment for a disease or disorder. When faced with a medical problem, an adult can seek medical attention, use faith healing, try herbal or other alternative medical treatment, or pursue no treatment at all, and let nature takes its course. Some parents or guardians may wish to exercise the same options for their children. The result is sometimes a conflict with civil authorities: should parents have the right to follow their religion and withhold medical attention from their children, even if the child will probably die needlessly? The problem is aggravated by the teachings of some faith groups which create a culture in which seeking medical health is viewed as rejecting God.

Problems sometimes occur in cases involving a minor or other person who is incapable of giving informed consent for their own treatment. Parents and guardians are generally given almost complete freedom in providing or denying health care to their children. But, in the case of life-threatening medical conditions, the courts and Child Protective Services have occasionally intruded, and ordered treatment of a child against the wishes of its parent(s).

J. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religions in Santa Barbara, CA has stated that at the start of the 20th century, there were many faith groups that advocated prayer in the place of medicine. Their teaching was largely motivated by a backlash directed against the inroads of modern medicine. The number of groups that still advocate prayer has been dropping ever since.


Dr. Seth Asser, co-author of an article on medically preventable child fatalities commented:

"You can't beat, sexually abuse or starve your kids, but the law allows a parent to refuse medical care in favor of magic. This is not just a social phenomenon, but a public-health issue."

Why do parents choose prayer in place of medical attention?

Thousands of children die every year in America as a result of neglect or abuse. Often abuse is the result of spanking or other forms of corporal punishment that simply got out of hand. However, this essay deals with a different phenomenon: a sick child who is denied medical attention -- often for an easily treated problem -- because of the parents' reliance on prayer. On the order of one child a month in the U.S. is known to die as a result of a disease or disorder that is almost certainly curable with medical attention. The full number is unknown.

The root cause of the problem is the parents' concept of truth. In the case of Christians, truth is typically based on four considerations:
1.What the Bible says and means, according to their faith group's interpretation.
2.Their faith group's traditional beliefs.
3.Personal experience.
4.Scientific findings.

Among many fundamentalists, Pentecostals, evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious conservatives, as well as Christian Scientists, the first two criteria vastly outweigh the fourth in importance. Some parents are willing to ignore medical and other scientific knowledge and make decisions largely or solely on their religious beliefs.

A major factor is not necessarily what the Bible says, or even what it meant at the time. It is what the Bible means today.

Two examples are:

bullet Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that the dietary rules in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) requiring that blood be fully drained from meat before it is eaten are literally true. Hebrews are forbidden to eat meat containing blood. The Witnesses interpret these passages as being still binding on modern-day Christians. They also teach that these passages prohibit a member from accepting a blood transfusion, even if it is necessary to save their life. Few other Christian denominations teach either of these beliefs.

bullet "Pastor Bob" is reported as having once written in the Unleavened Bread Ministries web site: "Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital. Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith." 1 The New Testament does not recommend that people seek medical attention for themselves or their family. It does talk about medical cures through prayer, sometimes involving the elders in the church and anointing with oil. That might have been a useful teaching in the first century CE Galilee, because there were no hospitals available and medical knowledge was so primitive that going to the doctor, on average, endangered your health more than just letting nature take its course. It was only in the early 20th century that medical techniques improved to the point where physician care was beneficial, on average. To some deeply devout parents, the 1st century approach is still the path to take.

Here again, the question is not what the Bible passages say, or even what they meant at the time. It is whether they still have the same meaning today. Some small faith groups teach that because hospitals and modern medicine are not mentioned in the Bible, that modern-day Christians must not take advantage of them today. Prayer, anointing, and the laying on of hands are the only acceptable treatment. With the exception of the U.S., hospital and physician care is now universally accessible throughout the developed world. Most Christian denominations urge their members to take advantage of medical help. A few small faith groups teach that the Bible requires their members to avoid doctors and hospitals.

Religious exemptions in child abuse laws:

In 1974, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare first required states to have clauses in their child abuse and neglect legislation that permits exemptions from prosecution of parents on religious grounds. If a state refused, they would not receive federal child abuse protection grants.

In 1983, the federal government allowed states to repeal these clauses. However, most state still allow parents to use a religious defense if their child dies because prayer was used instead of medical treatment.

Some recent activity at the state level:

bullet 1994 Oregon: Legislature committees heard testimony on two House bills that would require all parents to obtain medical help for their seriously sick or injured children. The bills had strong backing from both major parties, law enforcement, physicians, social workers and child advocates. "...there was limited testimony from Christian Scientists who warned that eliminating the so-called spiritual defense from Oregon's homicide statutes and other areas of the law would unfairly impose upon their religious rights." 4 The House later endorsed a compromise faith healing bill that allows defendants to claim faith healing as a defense.

bullet 1994 Minnesota: The state passed a law which requires parents or guardians to alert child protection services if they have withheld medical treatment and that their children were endangered by their decision. Few if any parents or guardians report under this law.

bullet 1998 Texas: Critical-care pediatrician Seth Asser said:

"Kids die from accidental deployment of air bags, and you get hearings in Congress. But this goes on, and dozens die and people think there's no problem because the deaths happen one at a time. But the kids who die suffer horribly. This is Jonestown in slow motion."

The American Medical Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the Academy of American Pediatrics and a growing number of local and state legislators agree with him.

bullet 2001: The Academy of American Pediatrics went on record in opposition to these exemption laws.

Colorado as well as Oregon had experienced an increase in juvenile death rates that paralleled the growth of anti-medical faith groups. Amanda Bates, 13, suffered a horrendous, lingering and painful death from diabetes and gangrene in early 2001. She and her family attended the General Assembly and Church of the First Born. She was the third child to die in that church in three years. This motivated legislators to eliminate an exemption from the child abuse law that had protected parents from abuse charges if they withheld medical attention from children.


bullet 2002: 38 states had laws that shield parents from persecution if they reject medical treatment for their children in favor of faith healing. However, most of these state laws specify that if a child's condition is life-threatening, then a physician must be consulted.


bullet 2009: Rita Swan is the executive director of the Iowa based Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty. They advocate charging parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. She reports that about 300 children have died in the United States during the previous 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds.

Child abuse laws in 30 states still provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters.

Some state laws exempt parents only if their children are faced with a non-life threatening condition or disease. The Oregon law covering criminally negligent homicide requires that the prosecution prove that the defendant failed to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that is "a gross deviation" from what a reasonable person would observe in a similar situation. Both are difficult to prove in court. Parents can claim that they did not realize that their child's condition was very serious; they can claim lack of medical knowledge. A British law requires parents to seek medical help for their children, if the child's condition does not improve after 72 hours of non-medical treatment. That type of legislation may be more effective.


References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
1.Dirk Johnson, "Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine," New York Times, 2009-JAN-20, at: http://www.nytimes.com/
2."State, church clash over faith healing beliefs," Beloit Daily News, Beloit WI, 1997-APR-21 at: http://www.beloitdailynews.com/
3.S.M. Asser & R. Swan, "Child fatalities from religion-motivated medical neglect," Pediatrics, 1998; 101(4), Pages 625-629
4.Home in Zion Ministries has a home page at: http://users.southeast.net/
5.Jessica Reaves, "Freedom of Religion or State-Sanctioned Child Abuse? Rising death toll fuels debate over parents who choose prayer over medical treatment on behalf of their children," Time.com, 2001-FEB-21, at: http://www.time.com/
6."No Cure for Cancer: Tenn. Mom, Preacher Accused of Letting Girl Die by Turning to God," ABCNews.com, 2002-OCT-3, at: http://abcnews.go.com/
7.Steven Mayes, "Fate of Oregon City faith healers now with jury," Oregon Live, 2009-JAN-29, at: http://www.oregonlive.com/

 

Child Fatalities From Religion-motivated Medical Neglect
Seth M. Asser, MD*, and Rita Swan, PhD‡

ABSTRACT. Objective. To evaluate deaths of children
from families in which faith healing was practiced
in lieu of medical care and to determine if such deaths
were preventable.
Design. Cases of child fatality in faith-healing sects
were reviewed. Probability of survival for each was then
estimated based on expected survival rates for children
with similar disorders who receive medical care.
Participants. One hundred seventy-two children
who died between 1975 and 1995 and were identified by
referral or record search. Criteria for inclusion were evidence
that parents withheld medical care because of reliance
on religious rituals and documentation sufficient
to determine the cause of death.
Results. One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions
for which survival rates with medical care would
have exceeded 90%. Eighteen more had expected survival
rates of >50%. All but 3 of the remainder would likely
have had some benefit from clinical help.
Conclusions. When faith healing is used to the exclusion
of medical treatment, the number of preventable
child fatalities and the associated suffering are substantial
and warrant public concern. Existing laws may be
inadequate to protect children from this form of medical
neglect. Pediatrics 1998;101:625– 629; child abuse, child
neglect, child fatality, Christian Science, faith healing,
medical neglect, prayer, religion and medicine.


http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/PDF Files/Pediatricsarticle.pdf

 

Faith Healing:

Medical Healing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The problem is, the faith healing death number does not even come close to childhood death due to medical malpractice, which could have been avoided if they stayed home on that day and prayed. Does anyone have an estimate of the total number of prayers (procedures) versus the 180 death attrition to see the percent yield. A hypochondriac may have to pray all day long with each session a procedure.

These medical malpractice statistics can be found at any lawyer site that makes money off malpractice. The higher death toll of medicine is checked by free market lawyering. On the other hand, the atheist want big government to deal with the smaller number of faith healing malpractice cases. It seems big government should go after the big guys and leave the little guys alone. Maybe bullies don't want victims to fight back. But it also has to do with profit, lobbyists and campaign contributions. Faith healing is not a lobby group and does not buy politicians the same way.

 

you cant compare general death each year with deaths of minors.
Plus the [incomplete as noted by author] study of 180 deaths was over a 20 year time span so its roughly 9 minor deaths per year.

Heres one case of 5 minor deaths:

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2014/04/lawsuits_over_childrens_hospit.html

Additionally, when reading the study we find a good/fair prognosis is classed as:
Good 50%–89% expected survival*
Fair 10%–49% expected survival*

*I am assuming this is based on the typical 5 year survival rate used in medical studies.

 

Universal intelligence is bigger than death. He won't here us if we pray for help, he doesn't need any. So he won't give any. Pray for links that our present in our world to the world of perfection and spirits, like logic and reason. Happiness, and satisfaction.

 

My life partner, Gloria, suffers from asthma. A few years ago, a child died during an asthma attack due to parents who believed in praying instead of getting medical help. The following is a paraphrase of Gloria’s POV

 

Very understandable. Tho I wouldn't go that far, I do think they should be seriously penalized but that is after. There is much disagreement about threats of punishment affecting would-be criminals but I think it would have no affect on the fanaticly faithful. What can we do to prevent it? PSAs on TV & billboards? Conferences with DAs, doctors & religious leaders?

 

Nothing... as horrible as it is, this is what natural selection is all about.

Personally, I'd like to see all the warning labels stripped from everyday items... if you REALLY need a warning label to tell you that using your electric hairdryer in the shower while sleeping is a bad idea... then you know what... we do NOT want or need you in the gene pool!

 

Kittamaru: From your Post #54

You have the right idea.

Have you ever heard of the Darwin awards? They are given to people whose activities remove their genes from the pool. Circa 5-10 years ago one was given posthumously to two teenagers who died falling off a steeply gabled roof. Not an ideal place to make love.

One was given a year or two ago to a teenager who put a lit firecracker on his lap while he called his girlfriend. He wanted her to see it explode, but the connection was not completed in time for her to see the explosion.

 

I do not agree, many people do absolutely stup1d things, and its always too late when they think.

So i agree with warning labels, some are absurd, but they are needed, lol

 

everything.

Once,long ago(it seems) bags of cement, pails of ready-mix, etc.... came with recipes, and tips for use, now they just have warning labels.
Warning labels suck, and have replaced real life information that had value.

Are we being victimized by tight assed loonies or trial lawyers?

 

One problem that needs to be addresses is death because of malpractice is the 5th leading cause of death. This creates a dilemma, since bringing the child to the doctor exposes them to one of the surest paths to death; #5.

As an analogy, say you had a doctor who was partially crazy. Some days he is excellent and can cure anything. The next day he is a fruit loop attempting things that can cause harm. One is not sure which doctor will show up on any given day. If you love your child, how do you deal with this risk factor? On the one hand he can help your child, but on the other hand if he is in his fruit loop mode, he can kill your child faster than diseases that rank #6 or better. You may opt to only bring the child if you sense the child's condition is # 1, 2, 3 or 4, since anything less harmful than #5 (malpractice) is too risky. If you look below, the top four, that have more attrition than malpractice, are not as common to children.

Another analogy is having child with a cold and needing to use a hospital with ebola patients. If your bring the child he is exposed to something worse than he has. But this is socially acceptable. But if you keep the child home and he dies of the cold, this is taboo. Is seems irrational so one needs to look at who benefits by this and see of they have lobbyist in Washington.

 

Since I was young, the Tort laws have been modified to provide lawyers with big payoffs. Consider the following.

In my youth, the jury would decide on both he amount of the damages & the amount to be paid by each defendant.

In the above case, a jury could decide that Mrs. Liebeck was entirely to blame (McDonalds owes nothing) or responsible for some lesser amount (perhaps 90% to blame, leaving McDonalds responsible for only 10% or perhaps some other division of the expenses).

In a situation involving an accident while an employee is using a company car & the insurance does not cover the full amount of the damages. One of the following could have been decided in my youth.

90% to 100% blame to the driver who hid his alcoholism from his employer.
90% to 100% to the company who knew the employee was an alcoholic.
50% to each party.
60-40 or 70-30 either way.​

Today, the one with deep pockets ends up paying the entire amount. This does not seem like justice to me, but it sure helps the lawyers who lobbied for the modern tort laws.

BTW: Note that many legislators are lawyers.

Back to the basic issue of this Thread. A parent who does not provide medical attention to his children deserves to be punished for child abuse or manslaughter if the child dies due to lack of medical care. The parents' religious beliefs should not be allowed to over rule mainstream medical opinion.

BTW: Parents should not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on children. It is brain washing. It is not likely to happen, but legislation should require parents to allow children to become adults without using their authority to impose their own religious beliefs on children.

In the case of religions known to not believe in the use of mainstream medical care, the state should assign a guardian to the children who is responsible for making medical care decisions.

At least religion has matured since the days of the Salem witch trials, although I wonder if some fanatics would continue the practice if they thought they could get away with the behavior.