Of Prayer and Penicillin[Posted by David Miller] LISTEN TO "Of Prayer and Penicillin" (24MB MP3) Faith healing is back in the news. In 1999, after several children in Oregon City's Followers of Christ Church died from conditions that could have been treated medically, the state legislature removed a religious defense from criminal negligence statutes. In particular, the new law meant that religious beliefs -- including the belief that prayer, not medical intervention, is the appropriate way to heal sick children -- was no longer a viable legal defense. (The legislative minutes from the bill's public hearing makes for interesting reading.) Nine years later, prosecutors have pursued criminal charges under this 1999 law for the first time. The case involves Carl Brent Worthington and Raylene Marie Worthington, whose 15-month-old daugther Ava died last month from bacterial pneumonia and a blood infection. A state medical examiner found that both conditions could have been treated with antibiotics. According to chief deputy district attorney Greg Horner, as quoted today in The Oregonian, the grand jury has charged that the couple's "failure to provide medical care caused the death of their daughter." This case may be new, but many of the questions it brings up have been with us for a while. At the heart of the issue is the tension between religious freedom and child welfare. But it also resonates with other sticky questions at the intersection of medicine, culture, and state law, such as the Texas Gov. Rick Perry's unsuccessful attempt to require that young girls be given the HPV vaccine. Or mandatory immunizations in public schools (and advice about how to avoid unwanted immunizations.) Have you had to deal with these issues in your own life -- as a religious adherent, or a doctor, or a patient? Have you chosen to seek medical care for your children as a result of Oregon's 1999 law? How do you personally navigate your faith, your approach to medicine, and your children's health? GUESTS:
As an Ex church member I am saddened for the little girl that had to give her life for her parents beliefs...She didn't have a choice and I am thankful that someone is finally noticing that this is child abuse.
The people at the Followers church are not bad people , just deceived. After leaving the church many years ago, I have found my way to a personal relationship with the true and only GOD, who is loving and who I believe would not be happy with the way the Followers interpret the bible to include faith healing.
Let us not confuse the issues in this case. The Worthington case cannot be recklessly linked with the debate over the power of a state government to require such things as mandatory immunizations and then mingled with the broad concept of religious freedom. This is largely an issue of the rights of Ava Worthington and every other victim of the reckless and negligent practice of faith healing. Every individual who has been injured or killed by faith healing is the very direct victim of another individual’s blind faith in the supernatural (see: God, religion, prayer, etc.), namely the power of prayer and the foolish belief it will inspire some unknowable, abstract something to heal people through magic. In this way, it is a debate on responsible, moral behavior and the reasonable limits on religious freedom as dictated by the liberties of others, our society’s general moral code and its value of human life.
As we all well know, we are judged by our actions, not out intentions. And the actions, or inactions, of the Worthingtons were directly responsible for the death of their daughter Ava. Any truly moral society would defend Ava Worthington and hold her parents accountable for their actions, which were clearly wrought by their ignorant blind faith in the supernatural. On that account, I am very pleased to see that Oregon law is competent enough to hold them accountable for Ava’s death. Unfortunately, in the developing Madeline Neumann case in Wisconsin, state law may see fit to protect the reckless and lethal superstitious beliefs of the Neumanns, though I am hopeful it will not. Blind faith in the supernatural (see again: God, religion, prayer, etc.) cannot not be allowed to be used as an affirmative defense for any species of injury or murder. To allow this is to willingly allow superstitious beliefs to trivialize our society’s system of law and our general code of morality. Quite simply, an individual’s right to be superstitious ends where the rights of others begin. Or more plainly, these rights end where they begin to harm others. Ava Worthington had dangerous but very treatable illnesses and died because her parents were irresponsible and lacked sound moral judgment. The result of imposing their superstitious beliefs in the form of faith healing on their child was nothing less than lethal. They willingly took her rights to a long, happy life and treatment by reasonable medical means away from their daughter. In the end, you can believe in any foolish things you want until such point as your beliefs harm others. The Worthingtons killed their 15- month-old child in this instance. To excuse this would be an outrage to reason and a perversion of the value of human life we claim to hold, not to mention a catastrophic failure of our society to protect those members in our society who are the most vulnerable. - Alexander the Atheist
There is much with religion I personally find to be objectionable, actually all of it. However, we allow religious freedom in this country! Most religions are bigoted especially towards homosexuals and this is thoroughly tolerated. Woman have also been treated as submissive and unequal for centuries. This widespread religious vitriol is rarely challenged because its the mainstream.
These minority religions can't be treated differently even if their actions results in the loss of life, to treat them differently is discrimination. They truly believe their faith is god's will and their claims are hardly more unscientific then any other religions. Nor can their claims be disputed or challenged by our current standards of religious non-proof. If we want religious freedom then these are the results. The religious xenophobia from other religions is ironic and very, very pathetic. -Portland, Oregon
I grew up in Oregon City, and knew many Followers when I was growing up. (We always called them "Kissers" I think because they inter-marry so much that they became kissing cousins?) My mother is a teacher in Oregon City, and has had two of her students lose younger siblings to juvenile diabetes.
I find it interesting that there has become such a false dichotomy in this area. I believe that faith can heal, but I also belive that a loving God expects us to do all in our power to heal ourselves as well. I don't think that availing ourselves of modern medicine means that we don't have faith, or that miracles can't happen, but it does mean that we are self-reliant. My biggest concern with this debate is that it may push families who want to practice faith healing underground. I would hate to think that the children of Followers would be pulled out of public schools and then have no interaction with those outside their faith community. As someone who was raised LDS, I am aware of how the excommunicated members of the polygamous communities have been isolated, and the further abuse that happens to their children in those circumstances. I think that everything that can be done to keep the "mainstream" influences in the lives of my classmates children is a good idea.
I wonder if there is any education given to the parents about what is easily treatable. When I was a new parent, I called my mom to see what I should do when my child was sick. How does a parent in the Follower's of Christ community-which is a closed community-know when a simple cold or fever has turned into something more dangerous?
Are we going to prosecute all parents who mis-judge the need for medical care? People without health insurance often post-pone or avoid medical treatment. How do we guarentee that all children get the care that they need?
Scottmil, if the intolerance of a mainstream religion resulted in the death of a homosexual, the people responsible would be held accountable to the law. They are not getting special treatment.
As far as parents who are willing to gamble with their child's life against their faith, I think it is perfectly fair and reasonable that they should also be putting their own freedom to walk the earth into the same ante. Prosecute!
What an excessively overreaching and fallacious comparison!
As much as I abhor what they are doing, their motivation and intent is most definitely not what you are suggesting. To the parents they are not gambling with their child's life, they are following god's desires as they see them. Withholding treatment is enormously different then intentionally causing harm to, most likely, a homosexual adult. Additionally this is their young child and the law allows the parents to indoctrinate a child in any faith and a lot of other things I may not agree with.
I think that freedom of religion is very important. However there is a difference between religion and a cult. A cult is defined as any group that is harmful to the members. I would not say that their religion is a cult, I would say that no one truly has a religion until they can decide for themselves.
The line between a "cult" and a mere "religion," is practically impossible to determine. One has to think the term cult was invented by the religious to criticize other religions that they found to be extreme. The catholic church certainly is a cult by definition, albeit a homogenized mainstream version; a cult nonetheless. It is pretty plausible to argue all religions are cults. They are just so commonplace that no one notices.
I am an attorney, mother, Christian and liberal. My husband and I have chosen to give birth to all three of our children at home and to treat our children, at times with only naturopathic medicine. We are behind, by choice, in our children's immunization. We make decisions based on scientific or lack of scientific evidence, treatment sucess and what is comfortable to us as parents. If something would have happened and a child were to have died during being born at home, how would a prosecutor know we had made a choice based on religion or not? Further, what is the percentage of children who die from infections recieved in a hospital versus infections not treated by antibiotics?
Had I just prayed for my one year old many years ago in order to heal her from a 104 temperature and her inablity to stand or walk as she had been doing since 9 months she would not have lived. I took her to the doctor immediately and she was admitted to the hospital. One knee was 2 inches bigger than the other one. She had a heart murmur. She had been a normal healthy infant until this incident. Her knee was tapped for fluid and it took three days to discover she had a staff infection that had settled in her knee. She had no cuts on her knee! She was in hospital for a week and on antibiotics for a month and her leg was placed in a cast from top to bottom. I was told to keep her off her feet. nearly impossible but I could put her in a playpen to limit her activity. At two weeks her cast was changed. She had it on another two weeks. I was told the staff could reoccur but it did not.
I'm over 60 and I remember my mother telling me that a neighbor, a member of the 7th Day Adventist, had refused to allow her son to be treated for Scarlet Fever. The Sherrif went into the home, took the boy to the hospital where he was treated with 1940's medications and survived.
The parents were no poor dirt farmers. The father had been a member of the Oregon Legislature for years. Not a political decision.
I have been an atheist for many years but I was raised in the Christian Science Church where my grandmother was a practitioner. It gave me a great respect for the power of belief and of faith.
But although my grandmother was a gifted healer she knew there were limits to it and that one of the biggest pitfalls was hubris - believing that your faith was an infallible source. A compassionate, responsible healer does not put people at risk, and there is no defense for withholding needed care.
As medical science advances I think it is critical that we continue to revisit bioethics issues and fine-tune this legislation. Most people would agree that it's negligent not to provide antibiotics to a sick child or insulin to a diabetic child, but I can also imagine a future America in which parents are put on trial for bringing a child into a life of extreme suffering by refusing to follow the advice of genetic counselors. As we accept new treatments and research, will we think that parents are negligent who choose not to terminate a pregnancy in which the child is predicted to suffer a severe genetic disorder?
Do you advocate the converse: that we all be obliged to pay and otherwise remove the resources from healthy children, stunting their potential, to provide extreme care for readily preventable mistakes?
Hmmm: that pretty well describes the status quo, doesn't it? 8-( The resources of the planet are not infinite. A conservative choice allocates them wisely.
Parents do not own their children and have a moral (and I would argue a legal) obligation to respect the inherent rights children have as persons. Those rights include the right to an open future, a future in which they can freely exercise all their rights as adults. That open future is jeopardized or denied when children are indoctrinated or otherwise negatively impacted by their parents' religious belief. As the U.S. Supreme Court famously held an adult has the right to make a religious martyr of themselves, but they don't have the right to make religious martyrs of their children. When it comes to medical care, or any other issue that has the potential to harm child or deny their rights, children's rights must trump parental rights.
Perry Bulwer - Canada
An article in the Oregonian about this case claimed that Followers used to take their children home from car wrecks rather than to the hospital, in order to heal (or not) at home.
I would have a great deal more sympathy for parents who don't believe in the power of antibiotics and modern surgery for their children, if they at the same time eschewed the power and convenience of 20th-century technology for themselves. What are these same Followers doing driving cars (and using electric appliances and air conditioning) while allowing their children to suffer? Do they not have enough faith that they will be delivered to work every morning without relying on the temptations of the internal combustion engine?
I consider myself an expert, having been raised in a Christian Science home, and remembering my embarssment at being the only child in the class not getting the shots. One child asked me, "didn't my parents care what happened to me?" At age 80, I still am paying dearly for not having a broken back due to a serious skiing accident taken care of by physicians.
I think I have a solution. Have faith cure parents apply for a license that would protect them from criminal charges. For that protection, they would have to agree to contact a specified medical worker if a child met certain criteria: degree of pain (numerical) stated by the child, communicable diseases would be handled by their agreement to be out of public contact, and other specific items. The agreement would be breached by failure. One sentence should appear: We understand that in a serious situation, medicine, according to our belief system, could not harm. gordie albi - eugene |
04/01/2008 10:38:12 PM
