Children die for religion

[Alyrium Denryle]

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/swan_19_1.htm

What kind of society would we have if everyone were allowed to violate laws that offended his or her religious beliefs? Most people would see that as anarchy. Children, however, die because of their parents’ religious beliefs about medical care, and the response of public officials is generally muted.

When pediatrician Seth Asser and I studied these deaths, we found that, of 172 U.S. children who died between 1975 and 1995 after their parents withheld medical care on religious grounds, 140 fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%.1 We believe that the cases in our files were only the minor fraction of the actual number of deaths. Only 43 of 172 deaths were prosecuted. In many cases public officials dismissed these deaths as due to natural causes.

Shortly after our research was published, the Oregonian reported that the Followers of Christ Church in Clackamas County lets children die without medical care. The congregation has its own cemetery and has buried 78 children there since 1955.

Surely these are astronomical death rates in a congregation with an estimated 1,200 members. Yet public officials remained indifferent for decades. In more than 50 cases, the state either did not bother to determine the cause of the children’s deaths or the records have been lost. Since 1987, the medical examiner has performed autopsies and brought cases to the district attorney’s office. The prosecutor, however, declined to file charges, claiming that the parents had a constitutional right to withhold lifesaving care from their children.

In the past year Followers children without medical care have died of a renal infection, a strangulated hernia, and diabetes. New Clackamas County District Attorney Terry Gustafson wants to file charges, but has concluded that Oregon laws providing religious immunity to charges of homicide by abuse or neglect and manslaughter, enacted in 1995 and 1997, prevent her from doing so.

An Idaho affiliate of the Followers has had 12 children die since 1980. None of these 90 children was known to Seth and me when we did our research for Pediatrics.

The United States has a vast array of religious exemption laws that allow parents to deprive children of health care. These include religious exemptions from criminal charges, civil abuse and neglect charges, immunizations, physical examinations, prophylactic eyedrops, metabolic testing of newborns, lead poison screening, and instruction about disease.

These exemptions have brought very serious harm to children. Many outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases have occurred in groups claiming religious exemptions from immunizations. Prophylactic eyedrops prevent blindness. Metabolic testing detects disorders that cause mental retardation if left untreated.

States with a religious defense to the most serious crimes against children include Iowa and Ohio (a religious defense to manslaughter); Delaware and West Virginia (religious defenses to murder of a child); Arkansas (religious defense to capital murder); and Oregon (religious defenses to homicide by abuse or neglect, manslaughter, criminal mistreatment, and nonsupport). Oregon laws extend religious immunity beyond medical neglect. A parent may be beating or torturing a child, but if he or she can show that the child was prayed for, criminal charges must be dismissed.

In 1996 the first religious exemption allowing parents to withhold medical care was placed in federal law. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act requires states in the federal grant program to include failure to provide medical care in their definitions of child neglect, but also states: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as establishing a Federal requirement that a parent or legal guardian provide a child any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian.” Thus, the federal government allows one class of children to be deprived of protections it offers to others.

Why does a country that prides itself on fairness allow this discrimination against children? The short answer is that the Christian Science Church, which does virtually all the lobbying for these exemptions, has money and power. Among the lawyers the church has retained to fight its battles are Ken Starr, Warren Christopher, and Michael McConnell. The church maintains a salaried lobbyist in every state and besieges legislators with letters, calls, and visits from church members.

A recent scholarly journal article estimates U.S. membership in the Christian Science church at 106,000, predominantly elderly members and says Christian Science may die out within a generation.2 Yet legislators and other public officials look upon the church as a towering giant to whom they must pay obeisance.

A fuller explanation for the church’s success lies in the low status of children in American culture. Children have neither the franchise nor financial power with which to influence the political process. Child welfare organizations are not as alert and energetic as they should be on public policy.

The very idea of children having rights is threatening to many Americans. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by 191 nations. Only the United States and Somalia have not. The United States has well-organized, vocal opponents who charge that the treaty threatens family structure and parental rights.

Hillary Clinton’s book It Takes a Village was attacked by some members of the Christian Right for claiming that society has an interest and a role in the well-being of children. For them children are the property of their parents.

The mass media have little interest in religious exemption laws. A few years ago the New York Times ran a sizable article about the Christian Science Church reissuing its textbook, a topic that cannot possibly be considered news, but was promoted by the church’s public relations firm. By contrast, the Times has never, to my knowledge, published an article about religious exemptions from health care for children. With the press unwilling to devote attention to state or federal exemption legislation, politicians are not penalized for enacting more exemptions nor credited for standing up to the Christian Science church and opposing them.

Too many public officials believe that the First Amendment gives parents the right to withhold medical care from children as a religious practice. As Lake City, Florida Mayor Gerald Witt said of local faith-related deaths, “It may be necessary for some babies to die to maintain our religious freedoms. It may be the price we have to pay; everything has a price.”

Courts have consistently ruled that the First Amendment does not include a right to deprive children of medical care, but legislators nevertheless continue to give parents such rights by statute. Some argue that parents motivated by religion do not intend for the child to be hurt and therefore should have an exemption from child abuse and neglect charges. But nearly all parents love their children and believe they are acting in their children’s best interest. It takes more than good intentions to nurture and protect a child.

The limits of religious freedom would not be hard to understand if adult interests were being compromised. No legislature has enacted religious defenses to crimes against adults.

The bottom line is that children are helpless and that parents have custody of them. Society must require parents to provide children with the necessities of life regardless of their religious beliefs.

[Alyeska]

Thanks for the article. It is good enough that I am going to take it into my Family Violence class at college. This is very good material.

[Joe]

Gandhi did something similar to this on a few ocassions; Orwell wrote a great passage on it:

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/ghandi.htm

Scroll down to about the middle of the page to read about it. An interesting read, if a depressing one.

[Frank Hipper]

Thanks Alyrium, you really know how to cheer a guy up!*reads article and sprays vomit*

[Alyrium Denryle]

your welcome

[ArmorPierce]

There will always be stupid people in the world that do stupid things like that. Unless they all die off because they don't accept medical help.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I'm completely for freedom of religion, even if I personally disagree with every religion that I've ever run across. However, what people fail to realize is that all freedom's are derived from natural law, the nature of human existence itself. All rights and freedoms depend upon life itself, natural law is derived from this right, it is the fundamental right of human existence (this should not to be confused with the right to live at another person's expense though). Any "freedom" or "right" which violates this right is no right at all, it has no philosophical justification whatsoever. For instance, no one in their right mind would claim that sacrificing virgins to the Gods of the Aztec is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. why? Because it violates the right to life upon which religious freedom and all other freedom's are based. In my opinion, that should be the sole criteria for judging the limits of religious freedom on any issue.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

That's quite a shocking article. And I'm sure most of these people who use religion as an excuse to beat their children, or deprive them of healthcare claim to be "pro-life".

That's the problem with society: Religous parents are too concerned about losing their Constitutional rights, but forget about the rights of their children.

[UltraViolence83]

Hey, this should seem optimistic for your point of view: Less religious kids, less religious adults.


Nevermind me, I'm being a smartass.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Hey, this should seem optimistic for your point of view: Less religious kids, less religious adults.


Nevermind me, I'm being a smartass.

No, just being an ass.

[UltraViolence83]

I'm not for the killing of children at all, mind you, but for some reason I can't get worked up over that. Apathy for your fellow man is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I'm not for the killing of children at all, mind you, but for some reason I can't get worked up over that. Apathy for your fellow man is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Im not bawing my eye out mind you, but feeling apathic is completely different then making callous remarks towards those that have needlessly suffed and died due entirely to dark-aged superstitions. You also shouldn't transfer the sins of the parent's to the children, just because the parents are religious sheelpe dosent mean the children will end up that way.

[UltraViolence83]

Well, I am a fan of horribly cruel and tasteless jokes, even if it is just for the "just plain wrong" factor. Not surprised that my jerk side came out, espeicially since I was high when I wrote that.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Well, I am a fan of horribly cruel and tasteless jokes, even if it is just for the "just plain wrong" factor. Not surprised that my jerk side came out, espeicially since I was high when I wrote that. :twisted:

Hiding behind illegal controlled substances is no excuse. What you said made you an ass, irregardless of the state you were in at the time.

[UltraViolence83]

I didn't add that as an excuse. Seems like one now that I look at that post. Ok, I'm an ass for saying that. It's fun to be an ass sometimes.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Aaggghhhh Flamebait! Dammit UV, I'm not even that offensive when I'm high, and I'm an Unholy Terror when I'm stoned! Yeesh!

[Queeb Salaron]

Well, I am a fan of horribly cruel and tasteless jokes, even if it is just for the "just plain wrong" factor. Not surprised that my jerk side came out, espeicially since I was high when I wrote that.

Hiding behind illegal controlled substances is no excuse. What you said made you an ass, irregardless of the state you were in at the time.

Side note: Irregardless isn't a word. Pet peeve of mine.

[kojikun]

There was an episode of Babylon 5 about exactly this, only instead Dr. Franklin saved the kids life and the parents ritually killed the kid because he was an abomination whos lost his soul.

[Morat]

Side note: Irregardless isn't a word. Pet peeve of mine.

Yes it is. It means "regardless."

[LadyTevar]

There was an episode of Babylon 5 about exactly this, only instead Dr. Franklin saved the kids life and the parents ritually killed the kid because he was an abomination whos lost his soul.

I saw that ep... one of the best ones, IMHO.

What's sad is that I've lost at least one cousin because some of my distant relatives reject medical aid. I recall very clearly my brother, a paramedic, had to make a choice. He'd grow up with this particular cousin, and had the bad luck to be on call. So, despite knowing that his cousin's parents wouldn't accept medical aid, he hooked my cousin up to every IV and medical device he had available to try to save him. (I will note here that said cousin was unconscious, and the only survivor out of the 3 in the car when the tractor trailer ran over it)

My cousin lived up to the point where his parents arrived at the hospital and told the doctors to stop the operation that *might* have saved him.

[Captain Underling]

The saddest thing about religion is the way people use it to justify what ever they want, or condemn what ever they fear.

[UltraViolence83]

Organized religion is an "asshole justifier" card pricks get to carry around. Same as racism in that respect.

[Yuri Prime]

How stupid. We don't let people sacrifice each other, even in the name of religion. Why do we let people deny their children healthcare on the grounds that, oh, it's part of their religion.

[Queeb Salaron]

Side note: Irregardless isn't a word. Pet peeve of mine.

Yes it is. It means "regardless."

ir·re·gard·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gärdls)
adv. Nonstandard
Regardless.

That word, "nonstandard," means NOT A WORD. They are oblighed to put in the dictionary BECAUSE it is not a word, so people who need to look it up when reading the ramblings of people who errantly use it can SEE that it's not a word. It's a bastardization, not a word.

Edit: That definition came from Dictionary.com

[Queeb Salaron]

Side note: Irregardless isn't a word. Pet peeve of mine.

Yes it is. It means "regardless."

ir·re·gard·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gärdls)
adv. Nonstandard
Regardless.

That word, "nonstandard," means NOT A WORD. They are oblighed to put in the dictionary BECAUSE it is not a word, so people who need to look it up when reading the ramblings of people who errantly use it can SEE that it's not a word. It's a bastardization, not a word.

Edit: That definition came from Dictionary.com

Edit: Dictionary.com also had this to say:

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.