Prayer, Medicine, and a child's death.
I wanted to further elaborate on the case of the death of a four year old child we discussed in class. In this case, a Christian Science couple decided to rely on prayer as the only means to treat their sons obstructed bowel instead of seeking medical care. The negligence of the parents resulted in the death of their child. The parents were charged with involuntary manslaughter. Ten years later, the verdict was overturned on the grounds that the state could not charge the family with manslaughter based on their moral stance and their religious beliefs. In my opinion, the case is very difficult and I have trouble picking a side. On one hand, I think that parents who would rather pray to save their child, than seek medical care ,for an easily treatable condition, is ridiculous. I know the parents believed what they did was right for the child and right for their religion, but it still doesn't make sense. I have no problems with praying to God and asking for guidance, but asking God to heal your sons obstructed bowel instead of taking him to a hospital is just absurd. I truly feel sorry for this poor child and the suffering he must have endured.
On the other hand I personally believe that the state ought not to get involved in religious matters. I wouldn't want the state telling me what I can and can't do based on my religion. That's what makes this case so tricky. Although I wouldn't want the state getting involved in my religious matters, I would want them to get involved if my negligence caused the death of a child, that otherwise could've been prevented. I think that the verdict of manslaughter shouldn't have been overturned and that the kids family should've been in jail for causing their sons death. This case is more about life and death than it is about religion. If a religion states that prayer alone is enough to cure a persons illnesses than that religion is not worth following or practicing. The child's death could have and should have been prevented. That s what it boils down to, and that's why I believe that the charges of manslaughter against the parents shouldn't have been overturned.
I agree with you the case should not have been overturned. There should be limits to religious freedom when it comes to children. Adults have legal consent unlike children so the courts need the right to over rule religious freedom since children are not autonomous. The welfare and safety of dependants should be prioritized over religous freedom. The faith of another person can not determine the well being of another individual who has not consented to that faith.
ReplyDeleteIn this case I feel that the state should have charged the parents as Patrick stated. However in my opinion, I feel that the state should get involved in religious matters if it involves a possibility of harm done to someone. And in this case for the child who did not consent to this religion should have been interfered with as Rachel stated. The parents had the opportunity to pick their religion and how they follow it; however the innocent child had no choice and therefore died because of it. Therefore, I believe that the case should not have been overturned.
ReplyDeleteOk so I know that it was bad that a child died in this situation, but I would just like to point out that this is not any different than when people from any religion completely refuse treatment in hospitals or from doctors merely because they believe that is not right. As for the thought of weather or not the state should be allowed to get involved when children are the concern, what about when a woman refuses to give birth in a hospital; does the same thing apply here since a child's life could possibly be at harm without immediate medical attention available if necessary? Furthermore, I do not think it is fair for all of you to say that it is the religion's "fault" that the child died. The religion had nothing to do with his death, he died because of an obstructed bowel, and the religion of the child is reflective of the religion of his family that he was born into who upholds this certain religion and therefore that is also his religion.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I appeal to the arguments made by Patrick, Tierney, and Rachel in favor of overturning the case because the parents choice to adhere to their religious beliefs and it ultimately cost them their child's life, I find the 'right' thing to do in this situation is to side with Hannah and the judge. I choose not to overturn the case because, as Hannah stated, although a child died this case is ultimately just like any other that illustrates the rights of religious freedom (which is part of what can be argued as one of the most important amendments). I feel that it could be seen a greater injustice to deny the parents their religious freedom because I cannot will that it be the case that in all situations such as this that the parents be stripped of their first amendment rights.
ReplyDelete