Do you think these parents should go to jail and have their other children removed from their care?

Abusing Children in the Name of God
By Shawn F. Peters

A hemophilic boy in Pennsylvania bleeds to death over a period of two days from a small cut on his foot. An Indiana girl dies after a malignant tumor sprouts from her skull and grows so enormous that it鈥檚 nearly the size of her head. A boy in Massachusetts succumbs to a bowel obstruction. (His cries of pain are so loud that neighbors are forced to shut their windows to block out the sound.)

None of these children benefit from the readily-available medical treatments that might save their lives, or at least mitigate their suffering. Because the tenets of their parents鈥?religious faiths mandate it, their ailments are treated by prayer rather than medical science. The results are tragic.

It is difficult to determine precisely how many children in the United States lose their lives every year as the result of the phenomenon that has come to be known as religion-based medical neglect. A landmark study published in the journal Pediatrics uncovered more than 150 reported fatalities over a 10-year period 鈥?a tally that one of the study鈥檚 authors later said represented only 鈥渢he tip of the iceberg鈥?of a surprisingly pervasive problem. Assessing whether forms of religion-related child abuse pose a greater risk to children than more widely publicized threats, such as ritual satanic abuse, a wide-ranging study funded by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded that 鈥渢here are more children actually being abused in the name of God than in the name of Satan.鈥?br>
Since the late nineteenth century, hundreds of such instances of abuse have resulted in tangled criminal litigation. The parents charged in these cases 鈥?many of them Christian Scientists or members of small Christian churches that ground their doctrines in narrowly literal interpretations of the Bible 鈥?often have argued that the First Amendment safeguards their decision to adhere to their faiths鈥?religious traditions and treat their ailing children solely by spiritual means. Prosecutors, meanwhile, have balked at the notion that constitutional protections for religious liberty provide an absolute bar to state regulation of religious conduct, particularly when that behavior puts the safety of children at risk. Their task often has been complicated, however, by murky state manslaughter and abuse statutes that appear to provide exemptions for religious healing practices.

Arguing that they were 鈥淐hristians first, citizens afterward,鈥?a prominent Christian spiritual healer once urged his followers to disregard secular laws that might compel them to forsake their religious beliefs regarding healing. Such is the dilemma that confronts parents who choose to treat their sick or injured children with prayer instead of medicine. Not only must they safeguard the health of their sons and daughters; they also must try to reconcile their devotion to God with their duties as citizens in a society that boasts a long and sometimes checkered history of regulating uncommon religious conduct.

Defining these obligations through the enforcement of secular laws 鈥?especially ones that are constitutionally fuzzy 鈥?can be a complicated business. Moreover, there is no guarantee that it will deter devout and stubborn parents from engaging in religious practices that endanger the health of their children. But the alternative 鈥?simply ignoring the suffering of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our nation鈥檚 churches 鈥?seems unconscionable.

Shawn Francis Peters鈥?latest book, "When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law," was published in October by Oxford University Press. He teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

White Tornado: Why are you making this personal? Yes, I am pro choice and rather flattered that you follow my posts. I don't see a relationship between pro chice and this question unless it is that pro life interest and protection ends at birth.

I ran into a bizzarre website last year run by this guy who espoused, among other things, that our culture is fundamentally flawed in treating a child as property of the parent(s).

Situations like these make me wonder if perhaps he's on to something there.

Wicked is right, children don't get to choose their parents. Society has an obligation to rescue those who are unfortunate enough to be born to people who are unable to provide the most basic needs... whether the problem is crack addiction or medical neglect due to religious belief shouldn't confuse the issue.

the decadence, ignorance, obscurantism has set in, coinciding with a mighty fall in the dollars value against world currencies...

yes

This is why religion is a complete waste of space, time and sh*t!

They should go to jail. The children shouldn't have to live like this.

sadly for the children, the parents cry religious freedom on these issues and they win. It comes under 'freedom of religion' -- and their parental rights.

They should be charged with murder because they are STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!


Another reason to hate religion, in my opinion.

Yes, and yes. I think it falls under child abuse.

Not necessarily. I'm not saying that what they are doing is right, but as in America we have freedom of religion and beliefs, it is ultimately their parent's decision.

they should go to jail but the government can't do anything about it(unless it has a direct correlation to the government)

That's shockingly appalling.
Those kids most definitely should be taken from them.

I find this very disurbing and thoroughly disgusting. Yes, to answer ur question these people should not be allowed to care for kids. WTF is wrong with these people! how can u let ur chils suffer and die for religion?! I think its just absurd, i dont understand it

I think this is unacceptable. Someone like the gouvernement has to draw the line between medical care and religion. I think the parents need psychiatric help to make them realize that even though you are respecting your religion you're killing your kid...and killing is a sin! so i think it's nuts!

How does this compare to all the lives of unborn children killed in the womb which is a far greater number?

well now youve just opened a right can of worms- in my opinion yes lock them up! but this is what they believe in, like that woman who bled to death when having twins, it was her belief that she shouldnt have blood- i watched that in total disbelief! if it wasnt a religious reason and a perent let their child bleed to death then yeah! but because it is religious, oh well thats ok then isnt it! waste a life because some bright spark thought it was a good idea- be atheist it saves so much time and effort, it really does, none of this namby paby i dont want this that and the other

I think you should butt out of things you have merely a speculative knowledge of.

I think you should be rendered incapable of reproduction for your beliefs. Doesn't that sound socialist to you also?

I thought you were pro choice...

The alternative is Government run and sponsered child rearing institutions. The ones we have now called Orphanges have had cases of child abuse that put those in the article to shame or at the least compare. We know how well the Government acts towards individuals, how effective it is at such things. It is not the answer.

I'm a Christian and I believe that God made doctors and medicine for a reason. My sister is a minister and she said that if I were dying and needed medical assistance, she would pray for me while I'm receiving medical treatment. That is not of God to have a person to suffer and not receive medical treatment. If God doesn't come down personally and tell them to do it, they shouldn't. God also gave some people common sense not saying people use it. I've heard of religions who practive this and I don't get it.

that's easy to answer for me. yes i think children should be removed from homes where personal religious beliefs pose an imminent danger to the life of a child.

children don't pick the situations into which they are born and someone has to speak for them when they can't speak for themselves.

It's a serious legal problem in the US.. People have the right to practice the religion of their choice (or none). Yet children, unable to speak for themselves legally, also have the right to live. I think this is one of those cases where the parents rights should end where the child's rights begin but until the US actually gives some legal rights to children, they will continue to suffer and die needlessly.

From an almost entirely humanistic point of view, I'm not comfortable with forcing parents to provide their children with one type of medical care. If you want to have this be child abuse under the law, then is using alternative medicine also child abuse? Medical care decisions are personal. Some people would argue that having a child undergo chemotherapy or other medical procedures is child abuse, and most modern medicine is not 100% effective. I would opt to use traditional medicine 9 times out of ten, but I wouldn't like my choice to opt out taken away by law. Good question!

4 sure

i think they're going to hell..

Religion is of course very important .. But all of these parents the moms & dads along w/whoever there religous advisor was should serve life sentences & whatever children left @ home go be adopted out cause they will need lots & lots of reteaching & counseling !! My God why take a blessing from God & abuse it & torture it ??? Shame on them they too need to feel the same pain & torture they allowed these children to endure !!!!!

i think it is terrible, but as a health care professional you cannot force people to seek treatment and must respect one's religion. the parents of these chldren have the right to inflict their religion on their childrn. true the children are at harm and medically neglected but separation of state and religion exist making these scenerios different from plain old neglect, the state cannot legally step in and remove children based on religious practice even if it puts the children at harm. it is simply the right we all have to believe in something. those parents are in a way attempting to protect their children, protect them from what they believe is the most meaningful aspect of life, passing to the "other side" or "heaven" or whatever it may be called, rather then eternal suffering or the eternal alternative to "heaven"...hell. life is indeed short but the afterlife is infinite...if that is what one believes.

While I don't believe parents have the right to let their children die for *any* reason, and I don't believe parents have the right to treat their children like their property...

You aren't asking a question, you're preaching.

Though their lives are not our business, and I can understand that everyone has a right to privacy, the CHILDREN may-no wait, most CERTAINLY want to live, so far above sending anyone to jail the kids must be saved, and taken and given medication, then if the parents accept them back o.k. if not then adoption would be far better than such parentage.

We must all live with one another, but we cannot just allow children to be 'put' into a situation by their parents, if so then this means that we in the west would have the right to decide whether our child lives or dies, and it hasnt been this way since Lord only knows when and it should never have been either!

They are right to have beliefs, but wrong to think it can allow them to have the right to allow their child to die or suffer. The child would never want this.

Also, to be fair though, when in Rome do as the Romans, so it is especially wrong to try to bring a way of living into another country, where that way is legally forbidden, and morally so also.

However, once again, children are not able to be used, this cannot be. If an adult decided, as they are capable to do so, that they wish to await the results of a prayer or such, then so be it.

Those parents should be imprisoned, sterilized, and the remaining children should be removed from their custody permanently.

Forgive me for saying this, but no God, nor religious belief is worth more than the life of a child.

<< 150 reported fatalities over a 10-year period 鈥?a tally that one of the study鈥檚 authors later said represented only 鈥渢he tip of the iceberg鈥?of a surprisingly pervasive problem. >>

About 15 a year is known? And they speculate this is pervasive without any proof? I don't believe it. I've been in Christian circles a long time now and I can tell you this is not true. The rare occurrence that this report did uncover may be correct. But you can find many cases such as this where it has nothing to do with religious belief. Especially when you talk about malignant tumors in heads. There is more to these stories than what you present.

Government should stay out. They already take children from homes that they deem the parents unstable. Giving government another weapon against the freedoms of families is not the answer. I'll take the small amount of bad over the large loss of freedom any day. Severe cases of neglect can be judged when they are known. Such as leaving loaded guns around so children can access them.

There is no way to remove all of the problems from any society. You can't protect all people from themselves. We can only ensure we keep our freedom and not allow the authorities to run our every day lives. It is not the business of governement to parent our children. And that's much more important than a handful of bad parents.

No and no...no more than parents that choose to seek medical attention and forgo prayer should go to jail and have their children taken from them! Personally, I think failure to do either (seek medical attention AND prayer) is child abuse using the criteria used in this article as the basis for judgment!

The article focuses solely on the children that died (150 over the course of 10 years in the study cited)...but it says nothing about the children that were healed. Focusing just on deaths, studies also show that about 2/3 of the children that die during chemotherapy did so because of the chemotherapy not the cancer (opportunistic infections that took advantage of the weakened immune system directly caused by killing the healthy cells with chemicals)! Were those parents abusing their kids by making them undergo questionable medical treatments?

Personally, in most cases, I think it is totally nuts to disregard any options for saving the life of your child. I do understand why parents would reject certain medical treatments (such as chemotherapy for certain types of cancer) and rely instead on prayer (and/or something else...homeopathy, nutrition, etc...), but didn't God put us here to help each other? Why would we reject the help of someone that had a God-given talent for healing people using medical knowledge (even if he or she doesn't acknowledge the source of their gift)?

taking action requires thought, picking up the phone, asking fellow human beings for help.

self-deception is laziness, weakminded-ness, selfish, selfcentered, and deadly (in these cases)

So, funny how no answer came for all this religious fervor that the "Lord" would save the children. but not funny like a clown.

God and Jesus totally rock as human behaviour guide - markers - but somehow they never reached these parents-

Even God couldn't cut through the hubris and arrogance of these parents who's mis-begotten belief systems so completely failed

Why can't some people see how, yes, God helped human beings to get through medical school, build hospitals, become administrators, nurses, etc...

thanks for the thought provoking post!

=0
Omni

And you expect me to read all that