Death By Religious Exemption:
An Advocacy Report on the Need to Repeal Religious Exemptions to Necessary Medical Care for Children
January 1992
Download Full Report Here
Table of Contents:
Click on section name to jump to that section
Introduction – Purpose of Report
Appendix I –
Appendix 2 – Supporting Statements Issued by Organizations
Introduction
The purpose of this Advocacy Report is twofold:
- To provide the essential historical, legal, and policy analysis necessary for a legislative campaign to repeal the
- To identify and rebut the primary arguments used by groups opposing repeal of the
Proponents of religious exemption laws have developed many unsupported, yet reasonable sounding arguments which they skillfully employ to influence public and legislative opinion. This Report seeks to expose, in detail, the many contradictions and distortions contained in the arguments of those who demand that parents have the right, for religious reasons, to deprive their children of necessary medical care even at the cost of preventable suffering, disability, and death.
Religious Exemption Laws Lead to the Cruel and Unnecessary Deaths of Helpless Children; These Laws also Falsely Mislead Parents Regarding their Legal Duty to Provide Necessary Medical Care for their Seriously Ill Children
The deadly consequences of religious exemption laws are apparent nationwide: over the past 25 years there have been over 150 reported deaths of children whose parents chose to rely on faith healing rather than medicine.
There are at least 20 different sects and religious groups in the
Christian Science is the largest and most prominent of these groupings. Church membership is estimated at 100,000 - 200,000 persons. The church estimates it has 1,800 churches and societies active in all parts of the
Forty-four states have had religious exemption laws in force since the mid-1970's. (In 1990 South Dakota became the first state to repeal its religious exemptions from health care requirements for sick children.) Furthermore, the above deaths are only those that have come to public attention. Certainly there are other known and unknown cases of death, injury, prolonged suffering, and permanent disability of children whose parents have refused effective medical treatment.
In 1988, the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union made the following statement regarding state religious exemption laws:
Children have rights too, and parents have certain rights which end when they intrude too far into a child's right to live...the parent's right to bring up the child in the way the parent thinks best-an important right...ends at the point at which the parents' actions endanger the lives of kids...there cannot be in our view a religious exemption no matter how sincere a parent's belief...
Prior to 1982, "For nearly seven years after religious immunity was put under federal mandate, no charges of child abuse, neglect, or manslaughter were filed in any cases of religiously-based medical neglect. Beginning in 1982, though, prosecutors filed charges in some deaths of children due to religious beliefs against medical care. From 1982 through 1989, criminal charges were filed in 29 such cases. To date there have been 21 convictions, 5 acquittals... of the 29 cases, 7 involved Christian Scientists, with a result of 5 convictions for manslaughter and child endangerment." (Swan, The Law's Response When Religious Beliefs Against Medical Care Impact on Children, 1990).
How is it that parents can be prosecuted in the deaths of their children when states have legislated religious exemption? Prosecutors and courts have determined that the state religious exemption laws do not necessarily exempt parents from responsibility from obtaining medical care if a child is seriously ill or if the illness results in the child's death. In 1988, the California Supreme Court (People v.
Not only do the religious exemption laws leave children vulnerable to death and disability, the laws can mislead (and be used by their churches to mislead) parents into believing that the state allows the substitution of prayer for medical care. Only when it is too late, after the agony of a child's death, do parents come to realize they are accountable under the law. In effect, religious exemption laws are punitive rather then preventative.
It would be better, however, to make a parent's legal duty clear before a child dies. Many parents would be relieved to obey the law if the state would make its standards clear. They do not comprehend the risks they are taking with their child when the state seems to endorse the withholding of medical care.
Rita Swan, "Barriers to Medical Care for Children: How You Can Help," The Exchange, Jan. - Feb., 1988.
Swan, in the same article, further went on to state:
No one is trying to outlaw prayer. Doctors are willing for people of any denomination to pray for their patient. Religious exemptions appear to make prayer a legal substitute for the medical care needed by a sick child.
Prayer cannot be a substitute for medicine in serious childhood illnesses in which medical treatment has proven its effectiveness over decades or when medicine is expected to have some reasonable likelihood of success.
Faith and reason may both have their place in healing, but not the same place. The state must remain neutral between religions, defending everyone's right to believe. But that does not mean it must remain neutral between "treatment," as if spiritual healing and science were equal options for curing a bowel obstruction.
Ellen Goodman, "Healing: Faith vs. Reason,"
But where the issue is beyond real scientific dispute - as for exampble, with an operable malignant tumor, a case of acute appendicitis or treatable condition like juvenile diabetes - the state must have the power to compel parents to treat their children medically until they become adults.
Alan Dershowitz, "Let's Not Sacrifice Kids to Religion,"
Religious exemption laws are unconscionable because they deprive a group of children of the basic rights and protections of life and health guaranteed by law to all other children. In effect religious exemption to medical care constitutes an apparent state sanction of child abuse/neglect.
The conviction that led to a sentence of 10 years' probation for David and Ginger Twitchell ought to alert Americans to a legal double standard that subjects the children of Christian Scientists to risks that are not tolerated for any other child. In ordinary circumstances, parental failure to safeguard a child's health, including seeking medical care for a grave illness, constitute child neglect or abuse and is subject to prosecution. But 43 states, including Massachusetts...provide an exemption for Christian Scientists, whose faith rejects medical care in favor of "spiritual healing." Given modern scientific knowledge, the legal exemptions can't be excused. Society has a duty to say that Christian Science parents may take whatever personal hazards they choose on practicing their religion - but they may not expose their children to the risk of death and disability by refusing medical treatment. Editorial,
Lawrence Tribe, a leading constitutional lawyer at Harvard, stated in a Boston Herald article on July 7, 1990: There should be a very clear duty on the part of all parents to take children to the doctor when a certain threshold is reached. Repealing the religious exemption would make it clear in the future that people like the Twitchells have to call in a doctor.
Cases of Childhood Deaths Due to Parental Religious Objection to Necessary Medical Care
Christian Science Children
The following case summaries of children who died due to their parents' choice to adhere strictly to their religious beliefs against medical care is taken, with permission, directly from material copyrighted by CHILD, Inc.
Seth Ian Glaser, 17 months, died March 28, 1984, in
Symptoms on the 27th were fever, coughing, and rapid breathing and heart rate. The next morning the baby's body turned blue and he vomited up food. At 11 a.m. the parents decided that Seth's condition was serious and that they should take him to the "healer." However, they had to wait for a 1 p.m. appointment. En route Seth went into convulsions that lasted for 90-second periods. His arms and legs became rigid. Even at this point, Seth's parents testified that they did not seriously consider taking Seth to an emergency room. Alarmed at the severity of Seth's illness, the Christian Science practitioner called the church legal advisor who told her that they had the legal right to withhold medical care.
At 2:45 p.m. Seth stopped breathing. At this point another practitioner who reputedly had succeeded in resurrecting the dead was contacted. Not until 11 P.m. that night was Seth's body allowed to be taken by mortuary personnel. Seth's mother was charged with manslaughter and child endangerment; however, in a trial conducted without a jury, the Court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Natalie Rippberger, eight months, died December 9, 1984 in
On December 4th, Natalie was going through periods in which her eyes were rolling and jerking (the disease organism attacks tissue controlling eye muscles) and her legs became rigid. On the 6th, Natalie was having very heavy convulsions. She was very rigid and her eyes were rolling back in her head. She also was very hot to the touch on the 7th, and the heavy convulsions continued. The only care provided to Natalie by the nurse involved Christian Science nursing "care": bathing, changing Natalie's sheets, bible reading, and prayer. Not once was a doctor called, although medical care has a 92 percent success rate in treating the disease.
In the spring of 1984, six months before Natalie's death, two sets of Christian Science parents were already under indictment in
Shauntay Walker, age four, died March 8, 1984, in
A Christian Science practitioner was retained by Laurie Walker for her daughter on February 21st-over two weeks before her death. She visited Shauntay only twice during her deadly illness. The practitioner denied seeing the symptom of Shauntay's stiff neck (an immediate sign of possible meningitis) and lack of responsiveness pointed out to her by Laurie. Laurie Walker was charged with involuntary manslaughter, and on June 21, 1990, over six years after her daughter's death, she pled guilty to that charge in a negotiated plea which left her no room to appeal. Laurie was sentenced to 600 hours of community service, and was instructed by the Court to provide medical care for her remaining daughter until the daughter's eighteenth birthday. Ms. Walker is currently appealing the decision.
Amy Hermanson, age seven, died September 30, 1986, in
In August, Amy became thinner, her bones started to protrude through her skin, she developed dark circles under her eyes and her skin developed a bluish tinge. At school she often could not keep awake and would put her head on her desk and fall asleep. Amy's aunt reported that in the 2 weeks before her death Amy had lost 10 pounds, that her eyes were sunken and were functioning separately and that she could barely walk and often had to be carried.
On Friday, August 26th, four days before her death, Amy's appearance was skeletal, according to a teacher. Amy told the teacher that she had been vomiting a lot and had been unable to sleep for a few nights. At the end, Amy had lapsed into a coma; she was lying on a bed without sheets; the sheets were found soaking nearby in several buckets with black vomit on them.
A Christian Science "practitioner" had been retained to "treat" Amy, with prayer, on August 22nd. Following Amy's death, Chris Hermanson, Amy's mother, stated that Amy had been healed by Christian Science the morning of her death, but that Amy had make her own decision to pass on. Mrs. Hermanson had constantly claimed during Amy's illness that Amy was having an emotional problem deciphering her identity. She also states that Amy had become sick because of negative vibrations received from outside the home. Amy's parents were charged with felony child abuse and third degree murder. Both were convicted on the charge of third degree murder.
Ian Lundman, age 11, died May 9, 1989, in
On October 9th, 1989, the parents and the Christian Science practitioner attending Ian were indicted for manslaughter by a grand jury. However, in April, 1990, a trial court judge dismissed all of the manslaughter charges, citing a
Ian Burdick, age 15, died November 10, 1987, in Sherman Oaks,
Robyn Twitchell, age two, died in April, 1986, in
According to medical experts who testified at the inquest, common practice among parents in the community with a child manifesting Robyn's symptoms would have been to wait no longer than 48 hours before seeking medical attention. In July, 1990, the Twitchells were convicted of manslaughter.
Elizabeth Ashley King, age 12, died June 5, 1988, in
Doctors determined that Ashley had bone cancer that had progressed too far to be arrested with medical treatment. The tumor on her leg was over one yard in circumference; it had metastasized to her lungs. Her heart had enlarged from the strain of pumping extra blood to the tumor. Ashley told nurses and doctors: "I'm in so much pain...You don't know how I've suffered."
Given the terminal prognosis, the state agreed to have Ashley placed in a Phoenix Christian Science nursing home. This was done despite the protests of one of the doctors who examined Ashley: he said Ashley was experiencing one of the worst kinds of pain known to mankind. Ashley died 24 hours after being committed to the home. Nursing home records show 71 calls to the Christian Science "practitioner" for "treatment" (i.e., prayer) of Ashley's pain. Indeed, this is the only kind of treatment a Christian Science nursing home will provide for pain. The parents, John and Catherine King, pleaded no contest to the felony of reckless endangerment in their daughter's death.
Kimberly Sartore, age one, died in 1969 in
Matthew Swan, 16 months, died in 1977 in
Lisa Sheridan, age five, died in 1967 in
Clayton Scott Zimmern, age nine, died in 1968 in Park Forest South,
The following additional cases were compiled by the
Michael Schram, age 12, from
Ronald Rowan, age 11, from
Andrew Pinkham, age three, from
Kris Ann Lewis, age 13, from
Six weeks later the hospital learned that Kris was receiving treatment from a Christian Science practitioner. Mrs. Lewin refused any communication from the hospital on the advice of an attorney provided by the main Christian Science Church in
The hospital filed an abuse report with Protective Services who determined that the mother was within her rights because of
Debra Ann Kupsch, age 9, from Wisconisn, contracted diphtheria at a Christian Science Camp in
The remaining cases were compiled by CHILD, Inc. and are presented here with its permission:
Faith Tabernacle
The Faith Tabernacle Congregational was founded in 1987 in
Justin Barnhart, age two, died September 1981, in
Five children of the Winterbourne family of suburban
Baby Girl and Baby Boy Still, of
Melinda Sue Friedenbeger, age 18 weeks, died of starvation and dehydration on April 25, 1991, in
Clayton Nixon, age eight, also died in
In early 1991, six children died in the
End Time Ministries
End Time Ministries, led by Reverend Charles Meade, has been active in
Michael David Boehmer, four days old, died March 15, 1990, in
Other End Time Ministries not prosecuted:
Libby Cooke, four days old, died December, 1978, in
Infant McDowell was born dead in January 1979 in
Infant Ruzicka was born dead in February 1981 in
Sarah Handy, born prematurely, died in July 1981 in
Church of the First Born
This sect is primarily active in
Jason Lockhart, age nine, of Enid Oklahoma, died of a ruptured appendix due to parental religious beliefs. Parents, Dean and Patsy Lockhart, in December 1982, were acquitted of first degree manslaughter because of
Desiree Camren, age three, of
Angela Sweet, age seven, of
Travis Drake, age 14, of western
Lukas Long, a newborn baby, of rural
Saundra Arnold, age 13, died in the 1960's in
Jordan Northrup, age four months, died January 1991 in
Faith Assembly
The church is active in
Juliana Keys, six months, of
Joel Romine, 20 months, of
John David Ricks, five months, of
Sean Woodrun, six months, of Nobles, Indiana, died in April 1990 of untreated bronchial pneumonia, after being sick for several days. In June, Roberta and Robin Woodrun plead guilty to withholding medical care form their baby. They were subsequently sentenced for criminal recklessness and reckless homicide and received three and four years suspended sentences. They were also ordered to involve a doctor in the care and treatment of their four other children, including immunizations, examinations and medical or surgical care; to report any illnesses of their children within 12 hours; to complete a first aid course; to use a fever thermometer and baby scale; and to authorize monitoring of their children's health by probation officers and provision of emergency medical care for their school-aged children.
Allyson Bergmann, nine months, of
Carla Northrup, a baby girl, died in 1983 of pneumonia.
Joel Winkelman, three weeks old, of
Other Sects
Wesley Parker, age 11, died in the early 1970's in
Infant McCourt was born dead in July 1987 on a
Aaron Norman, age ten, died December 1987 because of medically untreated diabetes. Bob Norman, the father, was convicted of first degree manslaughter in
Loren Willliamson, age five, died June 1989, of lymphocytic leukemia in
Five children, whose parents belonged to the
Micaiah Edwards, age 15 months, died July 1991, in
Why Repeal of the Massachusetts Religious Exemption Law Does Not Violate Fundamental Religious Freedoms
The first amendment to the United States Constitution provides guarantees of religious freedom. The "free exercise" clause states: "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." Repeal of the
The U.S. Supreme Court, which has final authority in interpreting the Constitution, has for over one hundred years consistently ruled that the first amendment does not permit one person, in the name of religion, to endanger the life of another.
The U.S. Supreme Court, as far back as 1879, in Reynolds v. U.S., (the case striking down Utah's polygamy laws), drew a clear distinction between religious beliefs which are absolutely protected and religious expression or practice, i.e., an individual's actions, which the state may limit. In the Reynolds case, the court ruled that an individual's religious practice does not include the right to endanger the life of another person.
In Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the U.S. Supreme Court unmistakably declared that parents do not have the right, in the name of religion, to endanger the lives of their children:
The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation...The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death...
Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they can make that choice for themselves.
More recently in 1972, in
The power of the parent, even when linked to a free exercise claim, may be subjected to limitation under Prince if it appears that parental decision will jeopardize the health or safety of the child.
In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court made it absolutely clear in Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith that first amendment guarantees of religious freedom do not constitutionally require states to grant religious exemptions to child neglect and manslaughter laws. (Religious exemptions to medical care for children in most states are exemptions to child neglect statutes; proponents of exemptions have also claimed that such exemptions also extend to manslaughter laws.) The first amendment does not grant parents the right to let their children suffer and die because of their refusal, on religious grounds, to obtain essential medical care. The court ruled that to allow religious exemption to a wide variety of criminal laws would make it impossible for our society to function, and
...would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind - ranging from...the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulations, such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws and traffic laws...
These cases make clear that the
The U.S. Supreme Court has more specifically addressed whether a parent may constitutionally, on religious grounds, allow a child to die by entirely substituting prayer for life-saving medical care:
In Oklahoma v. Funkhauser (1989), the Court let stand the manslaughter conviction of a couple who withheld medical care from their three-year-old son, who subsequently died of pneumonia. The parents, because of their religious beliefs, chose only to pray for their son during his two-week illness. The conviction of the parents by a jury was reviewed and upheld by
In Pennsylvania v. Barnhart (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote let stand a
Decisions by
On January 15, 1991, the
The right of free exercise of religion, including the interests of parents in the upbringing of their children is, of course, a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. However, these fundamental principles do not warrant the view that paretntstreatment for their children on religious grounds...When a child's life is at issue, it is not the rights of the parents that are chiefly to be considered. The first and paramount duty is to consult the welfare of the child.
The court went on to say that the State has a clear interest in "having a dangerously sick child receive medical treatment over her parents' religious objections."
This decision should be a clear communication to the
Recently, several state courts have ruled that religious exemption laws do not entitle parents to withhold necessary medical care from a seriously ill child, nor do such exemptions to child neglect laws provide a defense to the separate crime of manslaughter when a child dies due to lack of medical care.
In Massachusetts, in 1989, in the Twitchell case (two Christian Science parents were convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of their two-year-old son from an operable bowel obstruction), the trial court judge ruled that the Massachusetts religious exemption law does not exempt parents from their duty to obtain medical care if a child is in jeopardy of "serious bodily injury or death." The judge also ruled that the religious exemption to child neglect did not exempt the parents from the separate crime of manslaughter.
Both the
Any claim by faith-healing groups of a religious right to withhold necessary medical care from children must fail in the light of court decisions striking down other, less harmful, religious practices. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Mormons do not have a protected right to practice bigamy. Courts have repeatedly ordered blood transfusion for the children of Jehovah's Witnesses - even though such transfusions go against religious beliefs of the parents. In
Right of the Christian Science Church to Claim Religious Exemption is Undermined by its Condradictory Position Concerning the Use of Medical Care:
The Christian Science Church has been in the forefront of efforts to claim protection under religious exemption laws for parents who choose to withhold essential medical care from their children. Legally, a claim of religious exemption cannot be maintained unless objection to medical care is a fundamental doctrine or central tenet of the religion; if a church permits each member individual discretion for the utilization of medical care according to a variety of considerations and circumstances, then objection to medical care could not be considered a strongly-held belief and would, therefore, not be subject to religious exemption.
However, the
- that complete reliance on spiritual healing to the exclusion of medicine is a fundamental requirement for being a Christian Scientist, and
- that a Christian Scientist may remain a Christian Scientist if he or she occasionally chooses to rely on medicine.
Which of the two disparate claims is made by the church, and when they are made, depends on which position will have the greatest political value in time and place. In court cases, when the assertation of a defense under religious exemption laws requires the position that Christian Scientists must entirely refuse medical care for their children, the church has no qualms about taking an inflexible position:
Christian Science provides that no person may become a member of the church unless he or she is prepared to rely completely on spiritual healing as practiced in Christian Science...Thus spiritual healing is the sine qua non of Christian Science and a religious imperative for members of the church.
(From an amicus brief filed by the church in People v. Walker to the U.S. Supreme Court)
However, when the political context requires the church to appear flexible and reasonable, such as before legislatures and in various public fora, the church then asserts that members have the freedom, based on their individual judgement, to occasionally seek medical treatment.
...the church sets up no abstract criteria for determining what injuries should be treated by prayer or other methods but rather leaves such questions to individual decisions in concrete instances...If some turn, in what they think is an urgent time of need, to medical treatment for themselves, or their children, they are not, contrary to some recent charges, stigmatized by their church.
Nathan Talbot, international spokesman for the church, in "The Position of the
Hence a claim by the Christian Science Church that it should be protected by religious exemption laws is clearly suspect.
State religious exemption laws, and particularly the
According to the
...it can be argued that the states' exemption of a religious group from legal responsibility in an otherwise prosecutable offense (child abuse or neglect) is showing favor to one religion in the establishment of law; thus being unconstitutional.
More specifically, according to Wendy Mariner, associate professor of health law at
The religious exemption appears to violate the establishment clause because it exempts from misdemeanor liability only those who provide spiritual treatment that is both in accordance with a recognized church or religious denomination and provided by duly accredited practitioner. [This is the working of the
There is no secular purpose to justify the preference given to the very few church members that qualify for the exemption. The exemption was expressly enacted to protect one or two religions. That is an unconstitutional preference.
In fact, in 1971, the
The court stated that such wording granted a preference to church members as opposed to non-members who wished to pray. This decision has a direct bearing on the constitutionality of the present Massachsuetts religious exemption law.
Religious Exemptions to Necessary Medical Care for Children are Morally and Religiously Indefensible:
A civilized understanding of religious values does not permit the religious sanction of the unnecessary and preventable death of children due to parental refusal to provide necessary medical care.
Some proponents of religious exemption laws have argued that the relatively small number of preventable childhood deaths does not warrant interference with religious freedom and the practice of certain religious groups. However, our deepest values should hold that not even one child is unimportant, nor should even one child be allowed to die an unnecessary and preventable death. Religions cannot expect such unreligious privileges at the expense of even one sacred life.
And what of the religious rights of the child? Alan Dershowitz, a leading advocate of the first amendment rights, has written:
Once the children have become adults, they will have an entire lifetime to practice their chosen religion. But children don't always follow their parents' religious practices into adulthood. Children have the right to make an eventual choice as to their religious and secular destiny. But if their parents' choices are imposed on them in life and death situations, the children of Christian Scientists may never get the opportunity to make their own religious decisions as adults.
"Let's Not Sacrifice Children to Religion,"
Why the Abuse Reporting System and Court Orders are Not Sufficient to Protect the Life and Health of Children Whose Parents Rely on Spiritual Healing to the Exclusion of Medicine
The Christian Science Church and other proponents of religious exemption laws claim that the preservation of the religious exemption to the parental duty to provide children with necessary medical care does not unduly threaten the life of children. Supporters of religious exemptions argue that, under the Chapter 119 child abuse and neglect reporting system, a Massachusetts court can order necessary medical care for a seriously ill child through a temporary custody proceeding.
Why deprive parents of their right to practice their religion when, if it is absolutely necessary, a court can order necessary medical care?
The dangerous fallacy in this argument is that very often, seriously ill Christian Science children and children in other sects never come to the attention of a reporting authority until it is too late to prevent permanent disability or death.
Serious illness in Christian Science children often occurs completely outside the reporting system; unlike Jehovah's Witnesses who will use doctors and hospitals, Christian Science parents, in many cases, deny the effectiveness of medicine and will not take their children to doctors. A doctor or a hospital cannot request a court order for a child they are unaware of.
Christian Science utilizes its own organization of "spiritual healers" and (non-medical) "nurses" to treat childhood illnesses, including serious and life-threatening illnesses. These practitioners are not mandated reporters under the
In fact, Christian Science healers believe that illness does not result from physical causes, but rather occurs because of lack of spiritual closeness to God. They believe that medical care can be an obstacle to health because it mistakenly treats the body rather than the spirit. The sole method of treatment is prayer and most often this treatment is conducted at a distance by telephone. Moreover,
The
Rita Swan, "The Law's Response When Religious Beliefs Against Medical Care Impact on Children," 1990
Because Christian Science healers and nurses cannot be expected to either identify or report serious childhood illness, Christian Science children are often insulated from the reporting system.
Additionally, school teachers and other public authorities cannot be counted on to make the reporting system work for seriously ill Christian Science children. The following is a direct quotation from the "Legal Rights and Obligation Handbook of Christian Science Parents in
But it should be recognized that care of children is given special importance under Massachusetts laws relating to the protection and care of children, to the extent that the right of the parent can be usurped by court order...Thus, if a child is being given Christian Science treatment for an illness, inquiries made by school or other public officials as to care of the child should be answered with assurance that such child is being given good care and is having treatment for the illness. Otherwise, such official may incorrectly conclude that the child is a neglected child. In talking with such officials, a parent should stay clear of statements such as "belief of illness" or "claim or sickness" which may result in the official thinking that the illness is being ignored...
In other words, the Church is not encouraging its parents to help the reporting system work.
The combination of the religious exemption law and the Massachusetts Chapter 119 reporting system seriously exacerbates the threat to the lives and health of children whose parents choose to rely exclusively on spiritual healing. Because the religious exemption appears to allow parents to rely solely on prayer, parents may try to shield an ill child from the reporting system so that they may continue to avoid medical care.
The religious exemption creates an incentive for parents to keep a child's illness hidden, thereby avoiding necessary medical assessment. This contradiction fails to meet a proper moral and practical standard for guiding responsible parental behavior and ensuring protection.
The
Why the Repeal of the Massachusetts Religious Exemption to Medical Care for Children is Not an Undue Infringement on Parental and Family Rights
Proponents of religious exemption laws argue that repeal (the effects of which would compel parents to obtain medical care for seriously ill children) would be an unwarranted invasion by the state of the basic right of family privacy and of the rights of parents to raise their children according to their own values and beliefs.
The boundary between parental freedom in child rearing and the interest - or even basic rights - of the child is unclear. The limits to parental decision making for children are uncertain but it is widely accepted that parents will generally make decisions that to not directly threaten the welfare of their children.
Committee on Bioethics,
Children have rights too and parents have certain rights which end when they intrude too far into a child's right to live. A parents cannot act in such a way, that is essentially, criminally negligent. And so the parent's right to bring up the child in the way the parent thinks best - an important right and one which government has no business fooling around with, ends at the point at which the parent's actions endanger the lives of kids.
National Office, American Civil Liberties
In 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court in Prince v.
The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. An neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. Acting to guard the general interest in youth's well-being, the state as parens patriae may restrict the parent's control. Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience. The right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.
The
- ...family autonomy is not absolute and may be limited where...it appears that parental decisions will jeopardize the health and safety of a child.
- Parents have the legal and moral obligations to support...and care for their children's development and well-being...They have the primary right to raise their children according to the dictate of their own consciences. However...parental rights do not clothe parents with life and death authority over their children...The parental right to control a child's future is grounded not in any absolute property right which can be enforced to the detriment of a child, but is rather akin to a trust, subject to a correlative duty to care for and protect the child...
- A child may be taken from the custody of his parents on a showing that the child is without necessary and proper physical care and that the parents are unwilling to provide such care. The essential inquiry involves application of...the best interest of the child principles.
More recently, in January 1991, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court In the Matter of Elisha McCauley ruled explicitly:
The right to free exercise of religion, including the interest of parents in the religious upbringing of their children is, of course, a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. However, these fundamental principles do not warrant the view that parents have an absolute right to refuse medical treatment for their children on religious grounds.
Rita Swan, in her monograph, The Law's Response When Religious Belief Against Medical Care Impact on Children, 1990, wrote:
Some claim that repeal of religious exemptions would give the state too much power to intrude upon family privacy...The state should not mandate medical treatment for trivial, self-limiting complaints. It should not mandate medical treatment that cannot improve children's quality of life or that carries risks which outweigh benefits. Cultural and religious practices that differ from prevailing community standards should not constitute a basis for state action unless they present a specific threat to the welfare of the child. The state's power should be limited, but also evenhanded. All families deserve privacy in certain spheres and all children deserve equal access to necessary medical care. Repealing religious exemption simply establishes a uniform standard.
This last point concerning a uniform standard is absolutely critical. There must be no legal double standard that subjects the children of faith-healing groups to risks that are not tolerated for any other child. All children are entitled to equal protection under the law.
History of the Massachusetts
In 1967, five-year-old Lisa Sheridan of
In his instruction to the jury in the Sheridan case, the judge referred to a section of the state's then existing child neglect law (Chapter 273, section 1) which set criminal misdemeanor penalties for any parent of a minor child who "...willfully fails to provide necessary and proper physical care." The judge ruled the phrase "proper physical care" to mean "medical attention."
Religious Exemption - 1971
In 1971, in an effort to eliminate any requirement under the child neglect law that Christian Science parents must provide their children with medical attention, the Christian Science Church successfully lobbied the
- A child shall not be deemed to be neglected or lack proper physical care for the sole reason that he is being provided remedial treatment by spiritual means alone in accordance with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof.
Twitchell Death - 1986
In 1986, another tragic and preventable death of a Christian Science child came to the attention of the
...is a criminal statute and it expressly precludes imposition of criminal liability as a negligent parent for failure to provide medical care because of religious beliefs.
This language was taken directly from the 1976 Attorney General's Opinion regarding the menaning of the religious exemption law. Notice, however, that the opinion does not state that the parent is exempted from the crime of manslaughter should the child die due to lack of medical care.
The parents subsequently did not seek medical attention for Robyn who died within 48 hours.
Following a judicial inquest, the Twitchell parents, in 1988, were indicted for involuntary manslaughter in the death of Robyn. In a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment, the Twitchell's lawyers argued that the 1971 religious exemption law provided a bar to any prosecution based on the parents' actions in providing Robyn with only spiritual care rather than with medical care. In refusing to dismiss the indictment, the Trial Court ruled that the religious exemption law was not a bar to the Twitchell's prosecution for two reasons:
First, the religious exemption law does not exempt parents using spiritual healing from child neglect for failure to provide medical care when the child's life is in "imminent danger." The judge's ruling on this matter was based on the phrase "for the sole reason" contained in the religious exemption. The judge wrote: "The court construes this phrase to protect from prosecution for neglect those parents who regularly use spiritual healing when nothing more is necessary to protect the health of their children. However, when other factors exist, such as significant trauma or serious illness, additional remedial measures might be required to ensure the health of the children." In other words, a parent cannot be prosecuted "for the sole reason" of using spiritual healing, but there might be additional reasons that medical care might be required. The judge was fully supported in her interpretation by court rulings in other states on the meaning of this key phrase.
Secondly, the Twitchells should stand trial for manslaughter since the religious exemption law refers only to the crime of child neglect and does not carry over to the separate crime of manslaughter. The judge was supported on this point by a prior ruling by the California Supreme Court.
In 1990, the Twitchells were convicted of involuntary manslaughter by a jury for recklessly endangering the life of Robyn by failing to fulfill their parental duty to provide Robyn with necessary medical care.
For the ruling of the Superior Court judge on the application of the religious exemption law (in the Twitchell case) to become effective law in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would be required, on appeal, to uphold the judge's ruling. However, the Christian Science Church and the Twitchells may decide not to appeal in order to avoid the risk of permanently losing (unless the legislature were to intervene) their claim of religious exemption to children's medical care. (This is what happened in the
The actions of the
As stated above, only days before Robyn's death, Mr. and Mrs. Twitchell, worried because Robyn was not improving under Christian Science care, anxiously called Nathan Talbot, a senior church official and a lawyer, for guidance. According to David Twitchell's testimony, Talbot referred the Twitchells to an interpretation of the
If the religious exemption law is repealed, the Christian Science Church and other faith-healing sects should no longer be able to tell parents that
Should the case be appealed and the trial court judge's decision on the meaning of the religious exemption law be overturned in favor of the church, the only recourse for children would be repeal by the legislature of the religious exemption. In any case, a decision on appeal may take years. During this time the rights of children will continue to be in doubt. The legislature should take responsibility now by undoing what it did in 1971; that is, repeal the law.
Repeal of Child Neglect Statute - 1986
In the mid-80's, the Department of Revenue was attempting to reform and simplify state statutes dealing with desertion and non-support of children. Chapter 273, section 1, contained definitions and penalties for non-support and desertion, as well as language defining the crime of child neglect. Since it wished to simplify Chapter 273 so that it would only relate to the crimes of desertion and non-support, it recommended that the child neglect language be removed. In 1986, shortly after the death of Robyn Twitchell, the
The result of this legislative action is twofold: first, there is now no child neglect law in the criminal code that requires parents to provide their children with proper physical care, including medical care. Second, the actual legal status of the religious exemption law is made even more problematic since the law it was attached to no longer exists.
Additionally, a decision by the
In 1971, while the Massachusetts religious exemption bill, soon to become law, was making its way through the legislature, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in the Dalli case struck down a Massachusetts law providing for a religious exemption from compulsory inoculations granted for members of a "recognized church or religious denomination." According to Leo Damore, in his book, The "Crime" of Dorothy Sheridan:
Mrs. Beulah Dalli of Lowell, Mass., had been unable to fulfill the terms of the religious exemption...The terms (of the law) required an affidavit signed by a church official whose tenets proscribed vaccination, in lieu of a physician's certificate, before her child could enter public school - but Mrs. Dalli was not a member of any Church.
Mrs. Dalli believed the Bible forbade vaccinations. The
Despite this decision, Christian Science lobbyists did not alter the "recognized church or religious denomination" language of their bill, which was passed into law. Hence, the present religious exemption law is unconstitutional because it violates the establishment clause.
Given Repeal, Circumstances Under Which Massachusetts Parents Who Are Adherents of Spiritual Healing Would Be Required to Obtain Medical Treatment for their Children
With repeal, parents who are adherents of spiritual healing will be held to the same legal standard for obtaining medical help for their children as all other parents in
What is the requirement? Naturally, the law does not and should not compel a parent to take the child to the doctor for trivial, self-limiting illnesses such as the usual childhood cold or nosebleed. But at what point does the law declare that a parent is required to seek medical attention for a sick child?
Under Chapter 119, the only remedy for the medical neglect of a child is a temporary custody proceeding: a child, by court order, may be temporarily removed from parental custody for the purpose of medical treatment. In 1991, In the Matter of Elisha McCauley, the
Chapter 119 establishes the State's responsibility to provide necessary medical care to children, but what duty does state law establish for parents themselves (without resort to the custody process) to provide necessary medical care for their seriously ill children?
While
In
A person's conduct may be found to be wanton and reckless even if the person does not foresee the consequences of his action or his failure to act:
The standard of culpability to be applied...is based in part on the knowledge of facts which would cause a reasonable man to know that a danger of serious harm exists. Such knowledge has its roots in experience, logic, and common sense, as well as formal legal standards. (Commonwealth v. Godin, 1977)
Even if a particular defendant is so stupid [or] so heedless...that in fact he did not realize the grave danger, he cannot escape the imputation of wanton and reckless conduct in his dangerous act or omission, if an ordinary normal man under the same circumstances would have realized the gravity of the danger. (Commonwealth v. Michaud, 1983)
The
...the defendant should have been aware of the increased risk of harm and thus [her] failure to remedy the situation was the kind of conduct which constitutes wanton and reckless conduct.
Therefore, under
The question is then raised: does not the
Summarizing the above discussion, the present inadequate and dangerous mixture of laws for the protection of
- a civil reporting and custody process for state provision of necessary care (Chapter 119). The proper functioning of the system presupposes that the condition of the seriously ill child will be reported in time.
- An unenforceable legal duty of parents, themselves, to provide their living, seriously ill children with necessary medical care (common law). At present, there is no criminal child neglect statute which establishes a parental duty to provide necessary medical care and which establishes a penalty for parental failure to comply. Therefore, religiously-motivated parents have, and may continue to, overlook or ignore their legal responsibility, especially when this legal responsibility may appear to be waived by...
- An ambiguous and legally doubtful "religious exemption" law. The Massachusetts Superior Court has ruled that the exemption does not apply when a child is "in jeopardy of serious bodily injury or death." (Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 1990) Still, the Christian Science Church claims the exemption allows parents to reject the use of medicine for seriously ill children.
- The involuntary manslaughter law which allows for prosecution of parents whose seriously ill children die because of lack of medical care due to parental refusal to provide such care.
The contradictions and flaws in this legal arrangement are so serious as to jeopardize the lives and health of children whose parents rely on spiritual healing; it was this flawed legal arrangement which in part led to the terrible and unnecessary death of Robyn Twitchell, and therefore, to the unavoidable and tragic prosecution of the parents.
Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the present legal arrangement is that the penalty for serious medical neglect of a child only attaches after the child's death. The most useful function of penalty is to deter. Penalty for specific behavior is society's clear warning that the behavior is unacceptable.
Children whose parents practice spiritual healing are in grave danger when the law establishes no enforceable legal duty for parents to provide necessary medical care while the child still lives, but instead leaves parents vulnerable only after a preventable tragedy. This legal arrangement provides parents who wish to rely on spiritual healing an incentive to risk their child's life up until the very last moment, believing the law does not deter their behavior while the child lives. The current laws may well encourage parents to avoid medical treatment close or past the point of no return.
It would be better, however, to make a parent's legal duty clear before a child dies. Many parents would be relieved to obey the law if the state would make its standards clear.
Rita Swan, The Exchange, Jan./Feb., 1988
The Christian Science Church in counseling the Twitchells as to their religious right to pursue spiritual healing and refuse medical care referred to the religious exemption, but did not counsel the Twitchells (according to Court testimony) of possible manslaughter charges if Robyn were to die. The Church's failure to instruct on this point has led a number of legally naïve parents in other states to face serious felony charges. Again, the solution is to set a clear, pre-death warning against serious medical neglect.
Without such a pre-death standard, there is also no incentive for parents to seek medical care for children suffering from non-life-threatening (but serious) illnesses or conditions which involve prolonged pain or which may result in permanent disability.
Children are also put in jeopardy as a result of the fact that the only alternative for pre-death enforcement of parental medical neglect is a civil custody proceeding for state provision of medical care. Parents utilizing spiritual healing are discouraged from providing medical care: 1) by the religious exemption; and 2) by the lack of a child medical neglect statute. If a parent believes he or she may continue spiritual healing and avoid medical care so long as no one reports the child's illness, then the incentive is to shield the child's condition from responsible public authority. Since Christian Scientists and some other faith-healing groups shun most medical care, there is often no way the child's condition will come to the attention of the reporting system. Among such groups, often fellow members are the only persons who know about a child's illness.
Christian Science healers have no training in medical diagnosis, nor do they often report the serious medical conditions of children they are treating to public authorities. The fate of such children cannot be left exclusively to the reporting system. Parents must be required to provide their seriously ill children with necessary medical care. Having twenty-four hour custody and care of their children, parents are usually in the best position to assess their children's health. The state cannot continuously monitor the health of children whose parents subscribe to faith-healing methods.
In order for children of parents who subscribe to spiritual healing to be adequately protected against unnecessary suffering, disability, and death, two major statutory changes are necessary:
- In order to eliminate the remaining ambiguity caused by the religious exemption, the exemption must be repealed
- A new child neglect statute requiring parents to provide their seriously ill children with necessary medical care must be passed into law.
Should parents who religiously object to medicine be required to provide their children with medical care? Because of the inherent right of all children to live and grow, and because of society's responsibilities to protect that right, all parents must be expected to exercise a basic standard of judgment regarding the need for effective medical care in the case of serious childhood illness.
Federal Legislation Regarding Religious Exemption Laws
Religious exemption from state child abuse and neglect laws is due in large part to federal regulations adopted subsequent to enactment of the "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974." The Act established federal standards and financial support for implementing state child abuse prevention, reporting, and treatment programs. The Act provided federal financial assistance to states for operating child abuse programs, provided that the states complied with federal standards.
Unfortunately, as a result of lobbying by the Christian Science Church, the regulation that implemented the law required the states, as a condition of receiving federal assistance, to grant an exception
...which provides that a parent or guardian who does not provide medical treatment to a child because of the parent's religious beliefs is not considered, for that reason alone, to be a negligent parent or guardian.
Prior to 1974, only eleven states had religious exemption statutes (
However, in 1983 the Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services at least partially recognized the contradiction between establishing protections for most children while at the same time mandating death and disability, through religious exemption, to a smaller group of children. The regulations implementing the "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1983" state that:
Nothing in this part should be construed as requiring or prohibiting a finding of negligent treatment or maltreatment when a parent in practicing his or her religious belief does not, for that reason alone, provide medical treatment for a child; provided, however, that if such a finding is prohibited, the prohibition shall not limit the administrative or judicial authority of the State to ensure that medical services are provided to the child when his health requires it. 45 CFR p. 1340.2(d)
In other words, the 1983 amended regulations grant states the choice of whether to maintain or repeal religious exemption to legal determinations of parents' neglect. However, according to the regulation, state religious exemption may not interfere with the state's obligation to provide a child with necessary medical care. The absence of such religious exemption is no longer a bar to states obtaining child abuse monies. Further, the new law expresses the judgment of Congress that there is no obligation on the states, legislative or constitutional, requiring religious exemption.
The
Note: The Christian Science Church has adamantly argued that the existence of the Christian Science Church and its religious practice would not be possible if the state religious exemption laws are repealed and if its parents no longer have the choice of relying exclusively on prayer, even in the case of serious or life-threatening childhood illnesses. In fact, the
An Evaluation of Christian Science Claims for the Effectiveness of Spiritual Healing in the Treatment of Childhood Illness
The Christian Science Church has claimed that its methods of healing solely by prayer is as effective or superior to medicine in healing all childhood illnesses.
In an effort to prove this assertion, the Church has presented what it claims are two statistical studies of its "healing record."
- An Analysis of a Christian Science Study of the Healings of 640 Childhood Illnesses
The first study of Christian Science healings of children is presented in a recent church publication, Freedom and Responsibility. The study is titled, "An Empirical Analysis of Medical Evidence in Christian Science Testimonies of Healing, 1969-1988." The study is based on the Church's methods of documenting healings by "testimony."
According to the study, "All testimonies are submitted on the initiative of the respective testifiers..." The study admits, "These testimonies are manifestly religious rather than medical documents..." Moreover, "The medical specificity of the testimonies also varies greatly...a large number of testifiers refer to healings of diseases or conditions that are not medically named." Further, "Some have questioned the reliability of details reported in the testimonies, since most, like the example just given, are by persons who are not medically trained...Even in diagnosed cases, testifiers are often reporting in their own words what physicians have said to them. The possibility that in some cases individuals have misinterpreted, misremembered or otherwise inaccurately reported the remark of doctors cannot be ruled out any more than the possibility in some cases of medical misdiagnosis." Finally, "Cases listed as medically diagnosed, for example, include only those where a diagnosis was specifically mentioned or reasonably indicated by the testimony."
How are we to have confidence that a diagnosis that is "reasonably indicated" actually corresponds to the true diagnosis; who made these diagnostic judgments based on second or third hand information - a doctor, a church official, or a statistician? While we cannot say that some healings from medically diagnosed illnesses did not take place, it is clear, based on the study's methodology that the study's results have no scientific reliability.
Furthermore, the study provides no access to the medical documentation it cites, so it is impossible to independently verify the study's claims. It would be completely irresponsible to base critical public policy decisions regarding the effectiveness of spiritual healing on children on an unverifiable "study."
In the study's section, "Healings of Children," the church summarizes the results of its compilation of 640 healings (which occurred between 1969-1988) which it claims were medically diagnosed. Of these 640 healings or conditions, 88 are claimed to have been pronounced, by a physician, to have been life-threatening. Of the remaining non-life-threatening illnesses, the study provides no breakdown as to which illnesses were self-limiting (illnesses from which a person will normally recover, with or without treatment), such as colds, headaches, small cuts, etc. Christian Science cannot claim that its methods of prayer are effective in healing all childhood illnesses based on recoveries from non-serious, self-limiting illnesses.
The study does list approximately 50 claimed healings from illnesses that would be classified as serious but which were not pronounced as life-threatening. These conditions included asthma, convulsions, pleurisy, bone disease, hernia, hearing loss, and physical deformities. Again, though some of these conditions may be resolved without medical treatment, without extremely detailed data it is impossible to know to what extent Christian Science methods contributed to recovery.
It is also impossible to know, because of the lack of medical documentation, how many of the children were actually healed: an illness such as asthma may recur periodically - a subsiding of symptoms may look like a healing but may instead be a temporary remission. Without better medical evidence, a portion of these healings may not have been healings at all. The value of these testimonial claims is further eroded by the flawed methodology in not obtaining diagnostic verification (as discussed above).
Next, the study summarizes the healing of 88 "life-threatening" illnesses:
...at least two of spinal meningitis...five of pneumonia or double pneumonia, one of food poisoning, one of diphtheria, one of wet lung, one of brain fever and chorea, two of heart disorders...one of stomach obstruction...Two healings of ruptured appendix involved teenagers.
Although these illnesses can be life-threatening, some are not necessarily fatal if left untreated. As in the illnesses classified as serious (above), it is impossible to know if Christian Science prayer was actually responsible for the healings or whether the children would have recovered anyway, without prayer treatment. Particularly, given the small number of cases in each diagnostic category (five cases of pneumonia, three of spinal meningitis, etc.) it is quite possible that the recoveries are not to be attributed to Christian Science but to the natural resistance of the children involved.
Of course, any claim by the study that it demonstrates the effectiveness of Christian Science healing is entirely nullified by the fact that the study lists only claimed successes in each diagnostic category. No comparative listing of failures is given to establish a demonstrated record of the number of successes compared with the number of failures in particular diagnostic categories.
Taking pneumonia, for example: the Church claims five healings over a 20-year period. The Church does not also indicate how many deaths from the same illness occurred in the same time period. (If there were five deaths in the same time period, this would not represent a very good record compared with medicine, or even with no treatment at all.) Prior to the introduction of penicillin and other antibiotics, a significant number of children eventually recovered from pneumonia, albeit after much suffering; and a significant number of children died. With the advent of antibiotics, the percentage of children dying of pneumonia decreased dramatically, and today children do not normally die of pneumonia.
Based on the study, Christian Science cannot claim that its treatment is effective in curing pneumonia since, 1) the five recoveries might have occurred without prayer, and 2) because there is no comparative recording of failure. Nor, based on this "study" can Christian Science claim that its method of treating pneumonia compares favorably to medical treatment of the illness. Medicine keeps clear statistics of its recovery rate and failure rate for pneumonia; Christian Science can make no comparison because it has no statistical record to compare with that of medicine. It is ludicrous to assert, based on five recoveries (and no record of failures), that any child with pneumonia should be deprived of the benefits, proven over the last 50 years, of antibiotics and modern medical treatment.
The preceding is not to say that Christian Science methods may not be helpful in aiding the healing process for certain types of childhood illness. Medical science has recently begun the study of the mind/body effect in promoting physical healing. Belief in recovery, peace of mind, and the placebo effect can be powerful aids to healing. But the ability of the mind to promote physical recovery has clear and definite limitation; in the case of childhood illnesses, the very uncertain and scientifically undocumented effects of prayer cannot be responsibly substituted for the proven effectiveness of antibiotics and other forms of medical treatment. There is no reason that prayer and medicine cannot be combined if a parent so wishes, but Christian Science claims that the use of medicine can prevent prayer from working.
There is a last category of childhood illness which is largely excluded from the Christian Science "study." These are the childhood illnesses that are usually fatal without proper medical care. The study, apparently, does not contain one healing of this type of illness. Unfortunately, there is a tragic public record of Christian Science's failure to save children from a number of normally fatal illnesses.
Between 1986 and 1989, two Christian Science children in the
The Christian Science Church, in a second, separate "study" (see below) estimated that annually there are approximately 7,000 Christian Science children (between the ages of 4 days and 15 years) in the U.S. who are exclusively under Christian Science care for all illnesses and who receive no medical treatment.
Hence, for the 4 years between 1986 and 1989 the annual death rate of Christian Science children in the U.S .for diabetes was .5 per 7,000 or 7 deaths per 100,000. The annual death rate for all children in the
In
Some statistical comparison between the rate of death of Christian Science children in
No figure is available for the number of Christian Science children in
Based on the three deaths in
In conclusion, simply put, there is no evidence presented in this "study" that even remotely suggests that society could responsibly allow Christian Science care to be substituted for medical care in the case of serious childhood illness.
- An Analysis of a Christian Science "Study" That Claims That Christian Science Healing Methods Are Twice As Effective As Medicine In Treating Childhood Illness
The second "study" presented by the Church claims to demonstrate that Christian Science healing is twice as effective as medicine in healing all childhood illnesses. Rita Swan, in her 1990 monograph entitled, "The Law's Response When Religious Belief Against Medical Care Impact on Children," partially analyzes this study:
Despite its deposition statement that it keeps no record on its dead children, the church claimed in 1989 to have developed statistics indicating that Christian Science is twice as effective as medical care in healing all diseases of children. The church claims that only 23 children per 100,000 die under Christian Science treatment, while 53 per 100,000 children die under medical treatment. The only deaths of Christian Science children that the church acknowledges during its five-year study period are six that prosecutors filed charges on.
The Church claims (as a basis for its statistics) that approximately 7,000 Christian Science children in the
This figure of 7,000 children is further undermined by the fact that a large percentage of Christian Science children probably receive some medical care, thereby making any estimate of Christian Science children solely under Christian Science treatment virtually impossible. Perhaps as many as one-half of Christian Science marriages are mixed; Church doctrine stipulates that if the non-Christian Science partner wishes to obtain medical care for his/her child, then such treatment should be permitted. Furthermore, even when both spouses are Christian Scientists, the parents may turn to medical care when prayer is having no effect on a serious illness. So the Church's arbitrary estimate that only 7,000 Christian Science children exclusively receive Christian Science care is even less reliable given these complicating factors. From the Swan monograph:
One also questions whether 53 children per 100,000 are dying "under" medical treatment or from lack of it. The church states that these children are dying "in a society that claims some of the best and most modern medical technology on earth." Nevertheless, many children in the
The Christian Science "study" appears to be entirely spurious, or essentially just made-up. It demonstrates no comparison between Christian Science healing and medical care. - Christian Science Treatment Methods Lack Necessary Legal Accountability and Scientific Credibility
The following excerpt from Swan's monograph outlines critical considerations as to why Christian Science care should not be accorded equal status with medicine and why religious exemption laws should be repealed:
The Christian Science Church has testified in Congress that it has a "system of health care...without legal restriction." Perhaps here is the heart of the matter. A system of health care should have legal restriction and if the state is going to endorse it as appropriate care for sick children, the state should license it.
The
Should the state be endorsing such a slipshod system as appropriate health care for a sick child? Religious exemption laws appear to do just that although the faith healers have no accountability to the state of their patient and no scientific data on the effectiveness of their methods.
Religious healing does not deserve to be a state-recognized system of health care as the exemption laws appear to make it. Medicine is a state-licensed system with well-defined responsibilities to the state and its patients. The effectiveness of medical treatment is established by rigorous, repeated testing. A doctor is obligated to use the most effective medical treatment available against a disease. If a doctor deviates from that standard, there are civil and criminal remedies available.
The state cannot regulate religious healing. It cannot set standards for the training of faith healers or certify their credentials to take life and death responsibility for helpless children. It should, therefore, not be endorsing religious healings as appropriate health care for seriously ill children.
Of course, no one is trying to outlaw prayer for the sick. The courts are simply ruling that prayer cannot be a legal substitute for necessary medical care for children. What the Christian Science Church asks for is the right to deprive the child of medical help for all diseases whatsoever and instead place the child in the care of a church practitioner who has only two weeks of training, cannot make a diagnosis, does not know when she/he is failing to heal, and will not refer cases to other health care providers.
To merit state recognition as health care for children, the
As has been previously demonstrated, the Christian Science Church has presented no scientifically credible evidence that its methods can heal serious childhood illness.
Norman Fost, Chairperson of the Bioethics Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated on ABD-Television's Nightline program that:
...this exemption that the Christian Science Church is asking for is...higher than any physician would ask for or would claim, that is, to practice any kind of healing - no matter what the scientific basis, no matter what the outcome - and to be absolutely immune from state intervention. They're not asking for equality with medicine. They're asking for a total immunity that physicians don't have.
By means of religious exemption laws, Christian Science and other faith-healing groups want all of the privileges of a state-sanctioned health care system with none of the critical and necessary responsibilities. Christian Science officials often attempt to defend their healing method following the death of a child with the following argument:
When we lose a child, we get prosecuted. When they lose one under medical treatment, there's no question of prosecution.
Nathan Talbot, Church Spokesman
The fallacy here, of course, is that while many children do die under medical care, many such deaths occur because medicine cannot yet treat a particular illness successfully. Deaths may also occur, from time to time, because of complications, error, or negligence. Such deaths, however, do not invalidate the known and proven effectiveness of established medical treatment. Unlike medicine, Christian Science cannot claim a scientifically documented and established standard of treatment effectiveness.
Parents may be prosecuted for reckless conduct for failing to provide medical care which has been scientifically established as effective treatment for a particular childhood illness. On the other hand, in the event of medical error or negligence, a physician or other licensed health care provider may be sued for malpractice or prosecuted for criminal negligence.
Should the state punish parents who love their children and are acting out of their sincere religious beliefs? To establish a duty under law, that state has to spell out a penalty for failure to obey. That is the only way to establish a duty. At the least, the state should have the option of prosecution available so that parents have a legal duty to provide medical care.
Until Christian Science can present medically verifiable data that it can successfully treat serious childhood illnesses, Christian Science parents should not be exempted from the legal responsibility of all other
Christian Science treatment is reimbursable by several health insurance plans. Such recognition, however, does not imply that these insurance companies support the notion that Christian Science cures children of serious illness. Rather we should recognize that from the insurance companies' perspective, it is simply a matter of good business to offer such insurance coverage.
Appendix I
Massachusetts
American Academy of Pediatrics, MA Chapter
American Jewish Congress
Boston University School of Public Health
Brightside for Families and Children (West Springfield)
Bristol County District Attorney
Cambridge Family and Children's Services
Cape and Islands District Attorney
Children's Advocacy Network
Children's Friend and Family Service Society (Salem)
Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts
Communities for People, Inc. (Boston)
Disability Law Center, Inc.
Concord-Assabet Adolescent Services
Harbor Schools (Newbury)
The Humanist Atheist and Ethical Organizations of Massachusetts
Italian Home for Children (Jamaica Plain)
Jewish Big Brother and Big Sister Association of Greater Boston
Jewish Family and Children's Services (Boston)
KEY, Inc. (Framingham)
Legislative Children's Caucus
Massachusetts Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE)
Massachusetts Child Welfare League of America - Executive Group
Massachusetts Committee for Children and Youth
Massachusetts District Attorneys Association
Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
Massachusetts Medical Society
Massachusetts Nurses Association
New England Home for Little Wanderers (Boston)
Office for Children, State Advisory Council
Parents Anonymous of Massachusetts
Plymouth County District Attorney
Suffolk County District Attorney
Appendix II
Supporting Statements Were Issued By These Organizations:
American Academy of Pediatrics,
In a letter addressed to Senator Edward L. Burke, Chairman, Committee on Health Care, from Eileen Ouellette, M.D., Chapter President, expressing support of H3519, "An Act to Ensure the Provision of Medically Necessary Care for Children."
April 8, 1990
National District Attorneys Association
In an Official Policy Position approved by the Board of Directors, that the National District Attorneys Association "shall join with other child advocacy organizations to support legislation to repeal exemptions from prosecution for child abuse and neglect."
July 14, 1991
National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse (currently Prevent Child Abuse America)
Position Statement adopted November 1990, that "all child abuse, neglect, and medical neglect statutes should be applied to provide equal protection to all children without potential or actual exemption for the religious belief of their parent or caretaker."
In a testimony issued to the House of Representatives, urging it to "support H2362 - An Act Relative to Neglected Children, which would strike the portion of Chapter 271, Section 1 that provides an exemption to necessary medical care for children whose parents practice faith healing."
May 1991
Council on Ministries, Iowa Conference, United Methodist Church
In a letter addressed to Massachusetts Committee for Children and Youth, from Karen J. Tisinger, Director of Communications, acknowledged the adoption of its Resolution 8304, which "supports changes in Iowa law to maintain that children are entitled to life-saving medical care along with food, clothing and shelter regardless of their parents' religious beliefs."
December 17, 1991
Newman A. Flanagan, Suffolk County District Attorney
In a letter to the Coalition to Repeal Religious Exemptions to Child Abuse Laws, from Newman A. Flanagan, expressing his "support to the growing list of child advocates who favor passage of House Bill 2362. This bill, entitled 'An Act Relative to the Care and Protection of Neglected Children, ' would help save the lives of neglected children throughout the Commonwealth by deleting the existing statutory language dealing with the 'religious exemption' to medical care for children."
April 25, 1991
American Jewish Congress
In a letter to the legislature, from Sheila Dector, Executive Director, New England Region; and Jonathan Brant, Chairman, Committee on Religion and Medicine, regarding H4728, Medically Necessary Care for Children, that the legislation "concerning the abuse and neglect of children whose parents are believers in spiritual healing.....would amend section one of chapter 273 of the General Laws so that the abuse and neglect statute would apply to such parents when chidlren are in a life-threatening" but that it" does not address the probelm sufficiently." Included is a proposal for legislation with language that "is not intended to prevent adult believers in spiritual healing from practicing their religion. Rather, it protects children who are not old enough to choose a method of treatment themselves."
June 22, 1989
Civil Liberties Union of
In a letter to the legislature from Karen Hudner, Legislative Agent, urging the House to "Please vote YES on H-2362." The letter states "...the Civil Liberties Union supports H-2362 which would repeal the last paragraph of Chapter 272, Section 1." The letter continues "We believe the language of that paragraph, which says that a child is not suffering from abuse or neglect if he is being treated 'in accordance with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof,' violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in that it favors certain kinds of religious views over others."
June 19, 1991
Massachusetts District Attorneys Association
In a letter to the legislature from William C. O'Malley, President, states that the Association "has formally resolved to support House Bill 2362 - An Act Relative to Neglected Children - which repeals the portion of Chapter 273, Section, that purports to exempt parents from the requirement that they provide necessary medical care to children."
May 13, 1991
Appendix III
Christian Science Beliefs:
What is Christian Science? What Do Christian Scientists Believe? How Do Christian Scientists Attempt to Heal Illness by Prayer?*
- Introductory Summary
The following is a summary of the basic religious beliefs of Christian Science; it is based on an evaluation of the religious text of Christian Science, Science and Health With the Key to Scriptures (1971 edition) by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science:
The physical body is not real; it is merely a false idea, or image of the mind - an "error" of the mind.
The only true reality is "Divine Mind," God, Love. However, according to Christian Science, there is a false state of mind called "mortal mind;" this mortal mind or false consciousness then produces the false belief that the physical world and the physical body are real. There is no reality to physical things; they are merely false thought.
Disease, evil and death are opposite to good or God. Only God is real; therefore, disease, evil and death do not exist - except as false thoughts.
Sickness occurs only because false "mortal mind" believes in the existence of the physical body and that the physical body can become sick. Disease only occurs if we believe it can occur.
Sickness, as a false thought, will cease when a person realizes the thought was false: that there can be no disease because sickness is physical and there is no reality to the physical. The only reality is Spiritual, God; God being perfect can only create perfection; man cannot be sick because sickness is imperfection and God cannot create imperfection. Sickness is a false thought. By giving up the false thought and returning to divine mind, the false thought of mortal mind, i.e. sickness, vanishes.
*NOTE: Recently the Christian Science Church has claimed that its method of healing by prayer alone is equal or superior to medicine in the treatment of childhood illnesses. Because these claims have very serious implications, it is only necessary and fair that Christian Science theory for the claimed effectiveness of spiritual healing be fully examined. - Quotations
The following are quotations that further reveal the beliefs and practices of Christian Science. The quotations are from a variety of sources - the preponderance are directly from Christian Science sources. Citations are provided; where the citation is only by page number, the source is Science and Health With the Key to the Scriptures, 1971 edition, by Mary Baker Eddy. Bracketed selections within a series of quotations are used, sparingly, for explanatory purposes.
Christian Scientists believe that God is the very source and substance of man's life and well-being and that disease is mentally caused and stems from an overall human alienation from God.
Committee on Publication for
All disease ultimately stems from mental attitude. In Christian Science, illness is seen as an aspect of human alienation from God. The limited views of human beings and the fears proceeding from them are objectified as disease.
Nathan Talbot,
The following quotations are from Science and Health With the Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy:
Mind governs the body, not partially but wholly. [p. 111]
Mind governs the body, not in one instance, but in every instance. [p. 162]
Christian Science explains all cause and effect as mental, not physical. [p. 114]
Man's belief produces disease and all its symptoms. [p. 159]
Christian Science teaches that matter is the falsity, not the fact of existence; that nerves, brain, stomach, lungs and so forth have, as matter, no intelligence, life, nor sensation. [p. 127]
All disease is the result of education. [that is, knowing about disease and thinking about disease] [p. 176]
Sickness is a growth of error, springing from mortal ignorance or fear. [p. 188]
When fear disappears, the foundation for disease is gone.
[p. 368]
A physical diagnosis of disease, since mortal mind must be the cause of disease, tends to induce disease. [p. 370]
The cause of all so-called disease is mental, a mortal fear, a mistaken belief or conviction of the necessity and power of ill-health... [p. 277]
A May 12, 1990, Boston Globe article reviewed the testimony of Nancy Calkins, the Christian Science practitioner who "treated" Robyn Twitchell:
...as a Christian Scientist she believes physical pain and illness are illusions caused by "errors of the mind," such as fear, hatred, envy and dishonesty. Since it is a law of mortal mind that certain diseases should be regarded as contagious, this law obtains credit through association, calling up the fear that created the image of disease and its consequent manifestations in the body. [p. 154]
...mortal mind, not matter, contains and carries the infection. When this mental contagion is understood, we shall be more careful of our mental conditions, and we shall avoid loquacious tattling about disease... [p. 153]
When there are fewer prescriptions and less thought is given to sanitary subjects, there will be better constitutions and less disease. In old times who ever heard of dyspeptic, cerebrospinal meningitis... [p. 175]
Erring mortal mind confers the power which the drug seems to possess. [Healing from drugs occurs not because of any real action in the drug but only from the belief that the drug will work.] [p. 157]
Because Christian Scientists believe that disease results from a lack of understanding of God's purpose for individuals and the world, they believe that prayer, not medical treatment, is curative. They say that prayer is a process of counteracting that lack of faith and consequently disease. Church members typically do not believe in being treated by doctors.
Elizabeth Neufer, The
It is a fundamental part of Christian Science teaching that spiritual care cannot be simultaneously combined with medical treatment because Christian Science doctrine differs so strongly with medical theory on the cause of disease and sickness.
Committee on Publication for
The following description of the healing practice of Christian Science practitioners appeared in the St. Petersburg Times of Florida, June 4, 1989, in an article titled, "Christian Science on Trial: How Practitioners Heal":
Each described the work a bit differently, but there were some basic similarities. All said their practice is conducted largely by phone, though some patients may request a home or office visit. All said they heal by praying and may suggest some religious reading. All expressed certainty that most of their patients are healed, sometimes in minutes and that any human disease can be healed spiritually.
Science can heal the sick, who are absent from their healers, as well as those present, since space is no obstacle to mind. [ p. 179]
In the same St. Petersburg Times article cited above, Frederick Hillier, the Christian Science spokesman for
And on rare occasions, they claim, Christian Science practitioners bring dead people back to life. My own Christian Science teacher appeared to have passed on because he was hemophiliac and he was brought back by a Christian Science practitioner who was not on the scene at the time. It is rare, but not unheard of. But we don't publicize those because it is so unbelievable. It would only increase the skepticism of what we do. Aging may seem inevitable, but that doesn't have to be the case.
Christian Science "spiritual practitioners" receive no medical training; in fact, their entire formal training for church accreditation consists of a two-week classroom course in metaphysical prayer healing.
Leo Damore, in his book, The Crime of Dorothy Sheridan, described the technique of Christian Science healing as follows:
Christian Science functioned on three levels of practice: the first, and most widely used, specifically "corrected" the belief in disease at its easiest level by verbal confrontation through argument, turning the patient's attention away from his symptoms by "arguing down" the disease's reality. This was usually followed by prayers and readings of the Bible and the Christian Science textbook. But oral prayer was subservient to the second level of practice: the strictly "mental argument" of the silent or metaphysical prayer. Practitioners attained "an absolute source of healing" when they were able to read the human mind and discover the "error" of thinking to be destroyed. The third level of healing was the most radical, that of "impersonal treatment" in which the practitioner did not address the patient at all but gave himself over to "self-correction" and arguments against the false beliefs with which he himself was plagued.
For treatment of children, Christian Science practitioners also focus on the treatment of the false thoughts of the parents, since the minds of children are thought to be heavily influenced by the minds of parents.
Therefore, the efficient remedy [to an illness] is to destroy the patient's belief [in the illness] by both silently and audibly arguing the true facts in regard to harmonious being - representing man as healthy instead of diseased and showing that it is impossible for matter to suffer, to feel pain, to be thirsty or sick. [p. 376]
When the first symptoms of disease appear, dispute the testimony of the material senses with divine science...dismiss it with an abiding conviction that it is illegitimate...meet the incipient stages of disease with as powerful mental opposition as a legislator would employ to defeat the passage of an inhumane law... [p. 390]
Banish the belief that you can possibly entertain a single intruding pain which cannot be ruled out by the might of mind and in this way you can prevent the development of pain in the body...fear is the foundation of a sickness. [p. 391]
If the case to be mentally treated is consumption [tuberculosis], take up the leading points, show that, inflammation, tuberculosis, hemorrhage and decomposition are beliefs, images of mortal thought superimposed on the body, that they should be treated as error and put out of thought, then these illnesses will disappear. [p. 425]
What sets Christian Scientists apart are the extremes to which they carry their faith, to the denial of a physical world, to the contention that any disease is curable, to the belief that medicine is not an aid to spiritual healing but an obstacle, to the idea that your body doesn't have to age.
Dr. Norman Fost, Chairperson of the Bioethics Committee of the
But were smallpox, cholera, eradicated because of prayer? People prayed for centuries without much change.
Perhaps the following quote summarizes the fundamental position of Christian Scientists on this issue:
Insist vehemently on the great fact which covers the whole ground....there is no disease. [p. 142]