Though there are really no experts in this discussion, many people have voiced valid arguments regarding the debate. Opinion expressed in an article on a child that had died due to a lack of medical attention:
“parents may not martyr their children based on parental beliefs.”

Rita Swan, the founder of Children's Health Is a Legal Duty (CHILD):
“states give social service authorities the right to go into homes and petition for the removal of children…but cases involving medical care often go unnoticed until too late.”

From a study by the American Academy of Pediatrics:
“the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not sanction harming another person in the practice of one’s religion, and they do not allow religion to be a legal defense when one harms another.”

Man commenting in an article done on a child that had died due to a lack of medical attention:
“If you or I did this to our child, we would be prosecuted.”

Conclusion to an article discussing the death of twelve-year-old Kara Neumann, who died from an easily treatable case of diabetes:
“that little girl wasn’t old enough to make the decision about going to a doctor…and now, because some religious extremist went too far, she’s gone”

The Other Arguments

Unlike the argument for morality, the remaining four arguments are much more concrete. From here, all the points are grounded in fact, and the debate becomes less of an ideological war.

In every case presented, it is important to establish whether or not medicine was necessary, or could have helped. Unfortunately for the evangelical argument, in essentially every instance medicine could have saved the child's life; if it couldn't have, there wouldn't be a mob with pitchforks waiting to crucify the criminally insane evangelicals for killing their children.

Because all the evidence practically screams that medicine would have saved a life, my supporting evidence here is easily found and abundant (sadly). One 16 year old boy was in pain for years due to an easily treatable urinary tract infection; he was ultimately killed from it, despite the availability of medicine.

On the other hand, the fundies have very little support. All they can argue is that prayer is the only answer to disease. But that doesn't change the fact that while their prayers went unanswered, medicine could have stepped in and done the necessary work. One family was willing to go to a doctor and use medicine, but their beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses prevented the son with leukemia from receiving a blood transplant. The blood was crucial for the treatment, but all the family did was put blood cell balloons in his hospital room to help him visualize the work his body needed to do. With medicine, he wouldn't have needed to visualize producing blood cells; all he would have needed was to let the transfused blood heal his cancerous body.

Having established that medicine was a necessity in each case, it remains to be decided whether or not the parents had the right to decide for their children that medicine was not an option for them.

When laws protecting the use of religion instead of medicine were first introduced during the 70s and 80s, parents were given greater freedom in deciding what was right for their children, with devastating effects. However, laws that allowed that kind of behavior are becoming less popular, and there are many instances of parents being brought to court on various charges, including child abuse, manslaughter, second-degree reckless homicide, and others. And these parents are not only being charged; some have been convicted. Though the number of convictions is not as high as it should be (100%), it is at least improving from what it had been in the years directly following the institution of religious protection laws. In addition, in some instances Child Services has been able to remove children from the custody of their parents.

Finally, at the crux of the matter is the argument for freedom of religion. No one is claiming that that freedom shouldn't be respected or upheld. However, critics of the demented fundamentalists have cited the need for a limitation of the extension of that right. Freedom of religion maintains that everyone is free to practice their own beliefs; but when those beliefs become harmful to others, there is no government protection. In the same way the members of a cannibalistic religion would not be protected if they began killing their fellow citizens and eating them, parents shouldn't be protected when they stand idly by as their children die. They have no right to any protection against so-called "religious persecution" if their actions are so directly detrimental to anyone.

Subtopic 1 - Moral Concerns/Value of the Beliefs

Although it is perhaps the least tangible of the arguments, the moral concerns associated with the issue are certainly the most compelling and inflammatory areas of discussion. Regardless of the legal parameters of any given situation, an observer or participant must ask themselves whether they can accept the death of a child when they could have been saved.

Death weighs heavily on everyone, and certainly no less so when it was a child who died. Who, then, could look directly at a dying kid and tell them that there is medicine that could save them, but God has said that using it would send them to Hell when they die? Even if someone were to believe that fetid pile of Biblical garbage, that doesn't mean a child should be allowed to die because of it. A belief system that supports the needless death of a child is no belief system at all; it is an excuse for murder. Anyone with a conscience can see that when a child dies due to something that could have been prevented, it is society's responsibility to cry out at the injustice.

The religious extremists who condone this behavior say that even though a child's death is tragic, it would be morally wrong for them to support an action that would, to their minds, send their child to Hell. But to the rest of us - so trapped on this mortal coil - it is a humanitarian offense when a child dies to go to some mythical afterlife, instead of living what could be a long and healthy life, which would only possibly end in the cruelly foretold Hellfire and eternal damnation.

So what the morality of the issue really comes down to is whether children should die because they might go to Heaven (the existence of which is disputed), or live because they might go to the equally-disputed Hell after living a long, happy life.

The Positions

On the one side, we have sanity. This group argues that minors should be protected and given medical attention, even if their psychotic parents say that to receive treatment, or even go to a doctor and diagnose the problem, is against their religion.

Proponents of this argument do not deny the freedom of religion. Rather, they are opposed to people claiming that freedom as a defense when their ridiculous actions lead to a needless death.

Those in favor of the use of medicine argue that children should be given treatment for their diseases and conditions, despite the beliefs they hold. Anyone determined to have the maturity to choose their own medicinal practices can make their own choices; if they want, they can refuse a simple shot of insulin to save them from their diabetes. But they can't make that choice for their children. These minors are generally too young to truly understand the choices their parents are making for them, which means they can't object when they are pointlessly sentenced to death because, as one guardian said, "Jehovah is using [them] in a mighty way."


On the other side we have the fundamentalists and the evangelicals. These groups believe that it is an affront to God and his commandments to receive medical treatment (although in some more moderate cases, they object only to portions of medical treatments, such as a blood transfusion). These beliefs, they argue, are protected under the freedom of religion. They can believe what they will, and act according to those beliefs.

To have those beliefs ignored when child-advocates argue for the medical treatment of children, they say, would be to violate a fundamental clause of the Constitution. Their children are under their protection, and they will treat them in the way they believe is right. If it happens that seeing a doctor violates God's law, then they will not put their children in mortal sin.


If by now you don't know which side I'm on, you haven't actually been reading this blog.

I think it is atrocious that parents are allowed to let their children die because their particular God tells them that to use the medicine that would save their life would be a sin.

I don't argue that we shouldn't respect the religious beliefs of others. I may think the beliefs are stupid or misguided, but it is not my right to prevent others from believing what they want. However, it is my place to cry out when those beliefs cost the life of an innocent child.

The tragedy is that, even if these kids were allowed the treatment and grew into adults, they would likely end up believing the same things as their parents, and would likely inflict similar consequences on their own children. But regardless of what they might someday believe, as children they don't have the maturity or awareness to agree to forgo treatment, and agree to die.

An Overview of the Topic

My research paper aims to analyze the conflict surrounding children's deaths as a result of medical negligence on the part of fundamentalist religious parents.

Many evangelical and fundamentalist groups consider the use of medicine as an affront to God.  They believe - in general - that disease is merely a facade put forward by the devil, and to "cure" it one only needs to have faith in God.  Because of this belief, such parents with sick children will refuse to seek medical attention for their kids.  Many children have died of easily treatable diseases or conditions because parents have refused to help them through science.  Most of the time these children were not old enough to themselves ask for medical attention, believing that their parents were doing all they could to help them.  

In general, the controversy surrounding this issue centers around the nature of child abuse or endangerment versus the right to freedom of religion.  The religious side argues that they can practice whatever methods they want, as in America we have freedom of religion.  Thus, they claim, they cannot be legally prosecuted.

However, the opposition argues that the freedom of religion does not apply in cases where a life is put in danger.  When that freedom allows a death to occur that could have been prevented, those responsible should be held accountable.  

I initially chose this issue because I had recently read a blog post entitled "One a Month" (to be found at http://www.the1585.com/oneamonth.htm).  The title refers to the average number of children that die each year as a result of parental negligence due to religious beliefs.  Any such singular occurrence is horrible; to know that it happens consistently is infuriating.  

On a broader scope, I have always been interested in the religious debate in America.  Siding with the atheists and secularists, I try to keep up with the various controversies of the issue in America.  This research topic is merely a sub-category of an area that appeals to me.