I submitted this to the Oregonian’s editorial page, and since it wasn’t published, I’m posting it here.
For those of you not from the Portland area, the Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City, just south of Portland, eschews any sort of medical treatment in favor of prayer and faith. Over the past few years, children have suffered and died because of their parents’ negligence…at least that’s what it looks like from where I sit. Child abuse, and to me there’s no way that refusing medical care to a child can be defined as anything but, is reprehensible under any circumstance. When it’s cloaked in the garb of religious belief, it’s even more disgusting because the parent have the means to assist their child readily available to them…and they refuse to care for their child. Believe as you see fit, but when a child’s health and safety are jeopardized by those beliefs, you’re forfeiting your duty as a parent.
Dale and Shannon Hickman were convicted of manslaughter in the death of their newborn child. David Hickman was born two months premature and lived less than nine hours. A pediatrician testified that had the Hickmans taken Daniel to a hospital, he would have had a 99.9% chance of survival. Instead, Dale and Shannon Hickman allowed their child to die. I believe their actions constitute first-degree murder; fortunately for them, I’m not the Clackamas County DA. A manslaughter conviction at least represents judgment that the Hickmans are criminally responsible for their son’s death, but how the negligence of the Hickmans doesn’t rise to the level of murder is something I simply can’t comprehend.
In following the trials involving members of the Followers of Christ church, I’ve found myself wrestling with a profound question. Should religious dogma supersede the health and well being of a child?
I’m not a Christian, and I have no theological dispute with the members of the Followers of Christ. In a country that guarantees freedom of religion, the members of the church have every right to believe as they see fit. I can’t help but wonder, though, where religious freedom ends and child abuse begins. If an adult member of the church chooses to forgo medical treatment in favor of prayer and faith, that’s their right as an adult possessed of free will. A child enjoys no such freedom. If the parents happen to believe that the power of prayer transcends the power of conventional medicine, does the health of a child factor into the equation? If that child has a treatable illness, does that child forfeit the right to receive treatment because of the religious beliefs of his parents? What if the child has a condition that, left untreated, could potentially be fatal? Must the child’s health (and possible survival) be subject to the dictates of their parents’ religious beliefs? Does God not help those who help themselves…and their children? Who looks out for a child when parents seem more concerned with dogma than the health of their child? Should the State step in on behalf of a child when it becomes clear that the parents’ failure to seek treatment places their child in peril?
As a society, we must continue to respect beliefs that we don’t accept or agree with. Those fleeing religious persecution in their native England founded this country as a haven where they could worship freely and without fear. Freedom of religion still distinguishes America from much of the rest of the world. Nonetheless, respecting religious belief can’t mean that all other considerations are secondary. In the case of the health of a child, the State has a legitimate interest and a responsibility to step in when a child is, or potentially may be, in peril. A child should never be allowed to suffer or perish from a condition that, if treated properly and early, can be prevented from doing serious harm.
We can argue the efficacy of the power of prayer, but that’s another argument for another time. My concern is with the welfare of children. We simply cannot allow parents to withhold medical care from their children because of their religious beliefs.
Gandhi once said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” I find it difficult to believe that Christ would require a child’s suffering or death as concrete, undeniable proof of devotion to Him. If parents refuse to seek medical treatment for an ill child, the State must step in and act on behalf of that child.
We cannot, and must not, continue to condone child abuse camouflaged as religious belief.
