We are Guardians of our Children

[Phred]

So... a girl's parents in WI have been charged with reckless homicide because they prayed as she died of diabetes. She was 11. Here's the article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24357277/from/ET/)on MSNBC.

Diabetes is a totally treatable condition... there is simply no reason for this child to have died. According to the article the parents face up to 25 years in prison if convicted.

Now... here's my two cents. We do not own our children. We are guardians of them. It is up to us to do the best we can to raise them. For most of us this means to bring them up in our own likeness. Religion, family... so on. But we also live in a society that has the responsibility to look over our shoulder and, when the child is being harmed, step in on occasion to ensure that the child is safe. That may mean that the parent's belief is trampled. So be it. Faith is not the be-all, end-all. It is just as we all acknowledge it to be... belief. When someone gets a belief in their heads that harms a child that child should be removed from the care of that adult.

If people want to get sick and pray 'til the cows come home that's up to them. They don't have the right to do so when the health of their children are concerned. They should have taken this girl to a doctor.

Let the arrows fly. :001_smile:

[Melinda in VT]

I'm pretty sure there is a thread about this case already, I think from April or early May.

[Phred]

Oh well, nobody ever said I was prompt.

[Ishki]

I'm on my way out the door, but: our next door neighbors, when I was a child, belonged to a church that forbade any type of medical intervention. They would pray, bless with oil, etc., but no doctors. That family had 10 children, and they all lived. However, I remember 3 different occasions when a child in that church died. One time was from a ruptured appendix, another was from pneumonia. I can't remember the other. Then just a few years ago, one of the younger daughters of these neighbors lost her little boy due to a hernia. I'm not sure if the causes of death were from a post mortem, or if they could refuse that based on religious beliefs. That's just 3 or 4 deaths of children here locally I knew about. There was a larger group of them in another state, and I read several articles about the higher than average child mortality rate in that area. Oh, and there was a young woman, probably about 20, mother of 4 children who died of pneumonia. I actually met her when she was sick through my friend who belonged to the same church. I remember going home and telling my parents how upset I was. She couldn't get her breath and she was burning up with fever. The next week my girlfriend told me she had died. As I said, she was over 18.

Yes, at that point the government needs to step in and do what is right for the children. Needless deaths don't serve anyone, even God.

Janet

[elegantlion]

You know I'm a christian, I believe God has and does heal people. However, I believe just as strongly that he has given us people with a calling to bring about that healing, people in the medical field.

I am a cancer survivor of 14 years. I prayed the entire time I went through endless appointments, two surgeries, and 6 weeks of radiation tx. I never doubted God's hand was upon many of people involved in my journey to recovery. I never quit going to my appointments either!

I can't imagine sequestering yourself and simply praying alone. God does send a boat during the flood (remember that old joke) but we have to recognize the boat and get in it.

We are indeed guardians of our children. What's the scripture about faith without works?

[Peek a Boo]

You know I'm a christian, I believe God has and does heal people. However, I believe just as strongly that he has given us people with a calling to bring about that healing, people in the medical field.

I am a cancer survivor of 14 years. I prayed the entire time I went through endless appointments, two surgeries, and 6 weeks of radiation tx. I never doubted God's hand was upon many of people involved in my journey to recovery. I never quit going to my appointments either!

I can't imagine sequestering yourself and simply praying alone. God does send a boat during the flood (remember that old joke) but we have to recognize the boat and get in it.

We are indeed guardians of our children. What's the scripture about faith without works?

I agree.
Don't forget about Christ's own words: Do not test the Lord your God.

God could have kept the infant Christ safe among Herod's tyrrany, but He told Joseph to get off his butt and FLEE.

I cringe when i hear of Christians saying to sit down, shut up and pray [ok, that was a pretty crass nutshell, but close enough]. I see that a lot in Christian marriage advice. It wasn't until i stuck to my guns and filed for divorce that i saw a HUGE change in dh's heart and attitude. Some people need a sizable steel beam upside the head.....

I do understand some ambivalence on medical interventions, especially w/ cancer--- the treatment can be questionable: it's a race to see which you kill first- the patient or the cancer. even w/o "traditional" medical intervention there are holistic approaches one can take. But w/ a medical condition that has a known rate of success.... I'm all for using the brains and technology God gave us to ACT.

a neat saying i saw on a cup at a store:

For every ailment under the sun
There IS a remedy, or there is NONE.
If there be one, try and find it
If there be none, never mind it :)

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Sometimes God gives us a complete healing, sometimes He gives us the strength to go through what we are going through.

In the case of children, we are guardians of them. They have been entrusted to us by God in order to care for them in the best possible way. Sometimes, we can pray and they are healed. Sometimes, we bring them to the doctors and believe that God will give them the skill and knowledge to care for our children. In the case of the family from Wisconsin, they were negelgent. But, others around them were neglegent as well.

Someone should have known what was going on and called for help.

[SnowWhite]

That is just so wrong. ITA with everything posted before.

[Crissy]

Let the arrows fly. :001_smile:

No arrows from this camp. I agree with you completely.

[lauriep]

Well said!

[Mama Lynx]

As long as by "society" we mean this family's peers, their friends and family, their neighbors, their church family, etc., and not the government.

Yes, they should have taken this poor child in for medical help. Her death was preventable, and this is a tragedy. But where is that line drawn? Should you all step in because my children are unvaccinated? What if I use alternative treatments for my children, decisions I've made after serious and thoughtful research? What about unassisted childbirth? What about parents who want to refuse quality of life-altering surgeries for their child, even if the surgery would likely extend their child's life?

I don't know. While I would have urged this family to take their child to the doctor (and although I'm alternative minded, I have urged alternative-type friends to the doctor when I thought it was warranted), discussions about children "belonging to society" with society having the responsibility to look out for them when their parents are making unwise decisions make me nervous. I do want us to look out for each other, and help each other. I don't want it to turn into a CPS and law issue. Too often when people say "society" they mean "government."

No arrows flew at you, Phred, but maybe I'll get a few :001_smile:

[Laura K (NC)]

where the parent was clearly in the wrong, there is another one where the government was clearly in the wrong to intervene.

Common sense says you shouldn't need to sacrifice your brains upon the altar of your G/god OR your government.

But then common sense is not reckoned universally, so "your mileage may vary" with it.

[Peek a Boo]

As long as by "society" we mean this family's peers, their friends and family, their neighbors, their church family, etc., and not the government.

Yes, they should have taken this poor child in for medical help. Her death was preventable, and this is a tragedy. But where is that line drawn? Should you all step in because my children are unvaccinated? What if I use alternative treatments for my children, decisions I've made after serious and thoughtful research? What about unassisted childbirth? What about parents who want to refuse quality of life-altering surgeries for their child, even if the surgery would likely extend their child's life?

I don't know. While I would have urged this family to take their child to the doctor (and although I'm alternative minded, I have urged alternative-type friends to the doctor when I thought it was warranted), discussions about children "belonging to society" with society having the responsibility to look out for them when their parents are making unwise decisions make me nervous. I do want us to look out for each other, and help each other. I don't want it to turn into a CPS and law issue. Too often when people say "society" they mean "government."

No arrows flew at you, Phred, but maybe I'll get a few :001_smile:

no arrows from me --I'm totally w/ ya on this one ;)

[Mamagistra]

As long as by "society" we mean this family's peers, their friends and family, their neighbors, their church family, etc., and not the government.

Yes, they should have taken this poor child in for medical help. Her death was preventable, and this is a tragedy. But where is that line drawn? Should you all step in because my children are unvaccinated? What if I use alternative treatments for my children, decisions I've made after serious and thoughtful research? What about unassisted childbirth? What about parents who want to refuse quality of life-altering surgeries for their child, even if the surgery would likely extend their child's life?

I don't know. While I would have urged this family to take their child to the doctor (and although I'm alternative minded, I have urged alternative-type friends to the doctor when I thought it was warranted), discussions about children "belonging to society" with society having the responsibility to look out for them when their parents are making unwise decisions make me nervous. I do want us to look out for each other, and help each other. I don't want it to turn into a CPS and law issue. Too often when people say "society" they mean "government."

No arrows flew at you, Phred, but maybe I'll get a few :001_smile:

No arrows here. :iagree: ;)

[jacqui in mo]

To me, this kind of "faith" (as in never going to the doctor) is like saying "God will feed me" but not going to the grocery store even though you have the means to buy food. There is nothing in the Bible that would lead me to believe that going to a physician is demonstrating a lack of faith in God. I think I agree with Mama Lynx though, that I would want peers & neighbors to try & convince these people to take a child to a doctor. I don't like the thought of a Big Brother type government. Jacqui

[elegantlion]

As long as by "society" we mean this family's peers, their friends and family, their neighbors, their church family, etc., and not the government.

Yes, they should have taken this poor child in for medical help. Her death was preventable, and this is a tragedy. But where is that line drawn? Should you all step in because my children are unvaccinated? What if I use alternative treatments for my children, decisions I've made after serious and thoughtful research? What about unassisted childbirth? What about parents who want to refuse quality of life-altering surgeries for their child, even if the surgery would likely extend their child's life?

I don't know. While I would have urged this family to take their child to the doctor (and although I'm alternative minded, I have urged alternative-type friends to the doctor when I thought it was warranted), discussions about children "belonging to society" with society having the responsibility to look out for them when their parents are making unwise decisions make me nervous. I do want us to look out for each other, and help each other. I don't want it to turn into a CPS and law issue. Too often when people say "society" they mean "government."

No arrows flew at you, Phred, but maybe I'll get a few :001_smile:

No arrows here either.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I think that once a child is born, that child should have the right to be treated in such a way that he will likely live to be able to exercise all of his other rights at a future date. If, upon becoming legal age, he chooses to not seek medical care for himself, that should be his right as an adult.

If I practiced a religion that involved massive drunken feasts and I get pulled over after trying to drive home afterwards, I wouldn't get a free pass for religious reasons.

[Ishki]

As long as by "society" we mean this family's peers, their friends and family, their neighbors, their church family, etc., and not the government.

Yes, they should have taken this poor child in for medical help. Her death was preventable, and this is a tragedy. But where is that line drawn? Should you all step in because my children are unvaccinated? What if I use alternative treatments for my children, decisions I've made after serious and thoughtful research? What about unassisted childbirth? What about parents who want to refuse quality of life-altering surgeries for their child, even if the surgery would likely extend their child's life?

I don't know. While I would have urged this family to take their child to the doctor (and although I'm alternative minded, I have urged alternative-type friends to the doctor when I thought it was warranted), discussions about children "belonging to society" with society having the responsibility to look out for them when their parents are making unwise decisions make me nervous. I do want us to look out for each other, and help each other. I don't want it to turn into a CPS and law issue. Too often when people say "society" they mean "government."

No arrows flew at you, Phred, but maybe I'll get a few :001_smile:

I totally understand what you're saying; you have a very valid point. But I am wondering: at what point does society aka 'the government' have the responsibility to step in?

I'm thinking when child's life could potentially be in danger. I don't think any of us would argue about CPS taking a child out of a home where there is true physical/sexual abuse of a minor happening. What about lack of medical care? At what point does it become equal to physical abuse.

In the family I knew, they NEVER went to a doctor. Ear infections, illnesses of any kind were treated at home with prayer and annointing. No dentists, no cavities filled. But a 7-8 yr old boy with appendicitis?

I liken to homeschool regulations. Give them 'the government' an inch, they'll take a mile. I pick and choose what vaccinations my children receive. We rarely go to a doctor I don't want to be told what I have to do as a parent. But still, it seems there's a point where society needs to step in. I'm thinking I'd rather take a few risks with the government and protect innocent children.

It's sure a hard call.

Janet

It's sure a hard call.

[SnowWhite]

No arrows here, Stephanie, as I believe in parents' rights too. I don't think Phred said children "belong to society" or advocated CPS taking children away (though I am sure that might have been the only way to keep this girl safe). He simply said *we* (I thought, meaning the community) need to ensure this child was safe. In perhaps the same way we have legislated car seat laws.

The parents *are* being charged with negligent homicide. We already *have* the laws which should have prevented them allowing their daughter's death.

I'm not sure any of us can say what intervention would have saved this girl's life. It's still just way too sad.

[strider]

As long as by "society" we mean this family's peers, their friends and family, their neighbors, their church family, etc., and not the government.

Yes, they should have taken this poor child in for medical help. Her death was preventable, and this is a tragedy. But where is that line drawn? Should you all step in because my children are unvaccinated? What if I use alternative treatments for my children, decisions I've made after serious and thoughtful research? What about unassisted childbirth? What about parents who want to refuse quality of life-altering surgeries for their child, even if the surgery would likely extend their child's life?

I don't know. While I would have urged this family to take their child to the doctor (and although I'm alternative minded, I have urged alternative-type friends to the doctor when I thought it was warranted), discussions about children "belonging to society" with society having the responsibility to look out for them when their parents are making unwise decisions make me nervous. I do want us to look out for each other, and help each other. I don't want it to turn into a CPS and law issue. Too often when people say "society" they mean "government."

No arrows flew at you, Phred, but maybe I'll get a few :001_smile:

It's a difficult issue, and all too often a slippery slope. Unfortunately giving the government an inch often means it takes a mile. I agree that the parents in the cited case should be charged with negligent homicide. I also agree that the government should NOT have the right to interfere with my choices re: vaccination or other debatable issues. One walks a difficult tightrope when trying to define where the line gets drawn.

[Mama Lynx]

I think that once a child is born, that child should have the right to be treated in such a way that he will likely live to be able to exercise all of his other rights at a future date. If, upon becoming legal age, he chooses to not seek medical care for himself, that should be his right as an adult.

If I practiced a religion that involved massive drunken feasts and I get pulled over after trying to drive home afterwards, I wouldn't get a free pass for religious reasons.


I understand what you're saying, but I think this is a bad analogy. Your religion might involve drunken feasts, but I would imagine that said religion would be unlikely to stipulate that you had to drive after them, or that you should not wait until sobriety after the feast to get back into your car.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

You're right- bad analogy. Ok we'll say cannibalistic feasts then. Works much better.

[Peek a Boo]

I also agree that the government should NOT have the right to interfere with my choices re: vaccination or other debatable issues.

...and a lot is dependent on one's idea of "debatable."

for some, vaccinations are imperatively important: they are BEYOND debate. Ditto for "standardized education."

[Brigitte]

As long as by "society" we mean this family's peers, their friends and family, their neighbors, their church family, etc., and not the government.

Yes, they should have taken this poor child in for medical help. Her death was preventable, and this is a tragedy. But where is that line drawn? Should you all step in because my children are unvaccinated? What if I use alternative treatments for my children, decisions I've made after serious and thoughtful research? What about unassisted childbirth? What about parents who want to refuse quality of life-altering surgeries for their child, even if the surgery would likely extend their child's life?

I don't know. While I would have urged this family to take their child to the doctor (and although I'm alternative minded, I have urged alternative-type friends to the doctor when I thought it was warranted), discussions about children "belonging to society" with society having the responsibility to look out for them when their parents are making unwise decisions make me nervous. I do want us to look out for each other, and help each other. I don't want it to turn into a CPS and law issue. Too often when people say "society" they mean "government."

No arrows flew at you, Phred, but maybe I'll get a few :001_smile:

You are absolutely right.

[Spy Car]

No arrows flew at you, Phred, but maybe I'll get a few :001_smile:

OK, I'll send an arrow (of a non-flaming variety) :D.

I don't want to live in some over-reaching police-state, but I'll be d*mned if I don't want the proper authorities [read: the Government] stepping in when a parent's zany ideas put a child's life in grave danger.

Bill

[Mama Lynx]

OK, I'll send an arrow (of a non-flaming variety) :D.

I don't want to live in some over-reaching police-state, but I'll be d*mned if I don't want the proper authorities [read: the Government] stepping in when a parent's zany ideas put a child's life in grave danger.

Bill

Fair enough. But now, define "grave danger."

[Spy Car]

Fair enough. But now, define "grave danger."

"Grave danger" to me would mean, if not treated, the child would have a high likelihood of dying a preventable death.

[Peek a Boo]

Fair enough. But now, define "grave danger."


yup.

"debatable"

"grave danger"

"moral"

those are all going to be subjective terms.
I do think that we all need a system of checks and balances on how to determine the welfare of a child. But then again, i think mamlynx did a pretty good job stating that ;)

pppssst! i need TWO MORE rep points to knock me up to 5 green squares! someone? anyone? hint! hint!
and yeah-- they mean as much when you ask as when you get 'em for no other reason, lol! so HA!
UPDATE: got 'em! thankyouverymuuuch!

[Peek a Boo]

"Grave danger" to me would mean, if not treated, the child would have a high likelihood of dying a preventable death.

how high is "high likelihood"? at what cost? i tend to agree w/ you, but there are many medical issues where different forms of treatment /situations end up w/ a similar positive result or the results don't outweigh the costs [for some].

[Phred]

As long as by "society" we mean this family's peers, their friends and family, their neighbors, their church family, etc., and not the government.
But... technically we are the government. In that sense "we" the government are who should have been called by the family, peers, neighbors and the like.

Yes, they should have taken this poor child in for medical help. Her death was preventable, and this is a tragedy. But where is that line drawn? Should you all step in because my children are unvaccinated? Since you asked, yes. TB is on the rise, whooping cough, polio and measles. All preventable diseases that are once again starting a resurgence to parents who, for one reason or another, have decided that they can get by without vaccinating their children. It used to be that these diseases were a real threat... parents could see the kid down the street in the iron lung and so the .0001% chance that a child could see some other sort of symptom from the vaccination was a worthwhile risk. But now... no... you don't see that risk anymore so the minuscule chance that a child might get polio suddenly seems like an outlandish thing to vaccinate against. Besides, everyone else is vaccinated, aren't they? Well, recently a case was brought back here from Switzerland. And eight kids who were unvaccinated in one class got it from the kid who was exposed. All eight had "religious" exemptions from vaccinations.

Should the government, "we" the people, step in? *I* think that if you want into a public school you need to be vaccinated. *period*

What if I use alternative treatments for my children, decisions I've made after serious and thoughtful research? What about unassisted childbirth? What about parents who want to refuse quality of life-altering surgeries for their child, even if the surgery would likely extend their child's life?All good, thought-provoking questions. There was that one kid who had cancer and his parents wanted him to go to Mexico to get treatment. The doctors sued to have him get treatment here... as I recall the kid won, went to Mexico and died shortly thereafter.

I don't know. While I would have urged this family to take their child to the doctor (and although I'm alternative minded, I have urged alternative-type friends to the doctor when I thought it was warranted), discussions about children "belonging to society" with society having the responsibility to look out for them when their parents are making unwise decisions make me nervous. I do want us to look out for each other, and help each other. I don't want it to turn into a CPS and law issue. Too often when people say "society" they mean "government."I don't think children belong to society... I think society, like parents, are guardians for children until they can care for themselves. Had anyone known in time the child should have been taken to get care, regardless of the parent's wishes.

Sadly tho... it is a law issue. If your kid falls into a pool and you watch while they drown did you commit a crime for your inaction to save them? Even if you prayed really hard that they wouldn't drown? Same thing... it's inaction that in the end contributes to the death. And if your child is saved, do you deserve to continue parenting that child?

Besides, as you might know, I'm an atheist. To me, prayer is useless. There isn't anyone listening. So in my mind these parents... sitting there with a sick child just praying to ... nothing ... it's beyond my comprehension that they didn't go get some sort of help. Even from a pastor or some sort of religious authority. Anything more than an email that asks for emergency prayer. A bigger spoonful of nothing is still nothing.

[Karen sn]

To me, this kind of "faith" (as in never going to the doctor) is like saying "God will feed me" but not going to the grocery store even though you have the means to buy food. There is nothing in the Bible that would lead me to believe that going to a physician is demonstrating a lack of faith in God. I think I agree with Mama Lynx though, that I would want peers & neighbors to try & convince these people to take a child to a doctor. I don't like the thought of a Big Brother type government. Jacqui


So True.

Makes me want to be a visiting nurse practitioner. There is a way to mix healing with the god these people worship ON THEIR OWN TURF and in their own terms. I do not pray to their god anymore. But I respect that they do and would accomodate that.

I could quote to them their own scriptures - I give you every seed bearing plant, the body as a temple, Jesus healed all the time, etc....

I actually WOULD go to a doctor or hospital in a real emergency myself - otherwise you will not catch me there unless I am working! We criticize these parents who lose a child - yes it was preventable for more reasons than just not involving the doctors.....why did she have diabetes? Diet, genetics, WHY?.....which they seldom answer. But do we criticize the parents who lose children because the chemo/radiation kills them as we use it to fight the cancer?

I think you can't really talk about it TOO much if you don't reallly know these particular people..... We can assume and discuss the details given us. But we don't know all the facts.

In all honesty, I wonder if we had traveling, home visiting doctors - would more people be receivng better care?

[autumndivona]

I believe in balance. I believe that God/dess does heal, but I also believe in using the medicine and technology we have been able to develop. This child should have had BOTH medical treatment AND prayer. She deserved nothing less.

[Jenny in Atl]

As long as by "society" we mean this family's peers, their friends and family, their neighbors, their church family, etc., and not the government.

Yes, they should have taken this poor child in for medical help. Her death was preventable, and this is a tragedy. But where is that line drawn? Should you all step in because my children are unvaccinated? What if I use alternative treatments for my children, decisions I've made after serious and thoughtful research? What about unassisted childbirth? What about parents who want to refuse quality of life-altering surgeries for their child, even if the surgery would likely extend their child's life?

I don't know. While I would have urged this family to take their child to the doctor (and although I'm alternative minded, I have urged alternative-type friends to the doctor when I thought it was warranted), discussions about children "belonging to society" with society having the responsibility to look out for them when their parents are making unwise decisions make me nervous. I do want us to look out for each other, and help each other. I don't want it to turn into a CPS and law issue. Too often when people say "society" they mean "government."

No arrows flew at you, Phred, but maybe I'll get a few :001_smile:

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Mama Lynx]

Just a quickie as I've got to get dinner:

First, I agree with you about that definition of government. Yes, I think people as individuals, as families, as a community, should have stepped in to urge the parents. I wanted to be clear about my definition, because I have a very, very hard time with "government officials" having a legal "right" to do away with parental rights. I far, far prefer other methods.

You're right in that measles and whooping cough are on the rise. I haven't checked into TB lately. But you're wrong about polio. Here is the info I have:

From 1980 through 1999, a total of 152 confirmed cases of paralytic poliomyelitis were reported in the United States (an average of eight cases per year). Six cases were acquired outside the United States and imported. The last imported case was reported in 1993.

Two cases were classified as indeterminate (no poliovirus isolated from samples obtained from the patients, and patients had no history of recent vaccination or direct contact with a vaccine recipient). The remaining 144 (95 percent) cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio caused by live oral polio vaccine.

But ... I don't really want this to turn into a vaccine debate post. I just wanted to correct that tiny bit of info, and bring up the vaccine issue as one of those that is sticky and slippery, once we begin to have this kind of discussion.

If we required all children in ps to have vaccines, and allowed no religious exemption, that's akin to saying that people of certain religious convictions cannot attend public school. That equates to government discrimination on the grounds of religion.

[Peek a Boo]

All good, thought-provoking questions. There was that one kid who had cancer and his parents wanted him to go to Mexico to get treatment. The doctors sued to have him get treatment here... as I recall the kid won, went to Mexico and died shortly thereafter.

yeah... and lots of kids die in treatment here in the US too.
I'd have voted to let him go to Mexico.

i do agree that "we" are the government, but "we" in general have no authority to remove a child from the home: it is up to us to make sure those that have the *authority* to step in are notified.

We help and inform and elect our government-- we don't really govern or have authority to do a majority of things The Government has authority to do.

I'm on the fence about vaccinations --i do agree that for some cases the benefits aren't worth the risks, but that deserves a whole new thread ;)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

TB is on the rise, whooping cough, polio and measles. All preventable diseases that are once again starting a resurgence to parents who, for one reason or another, have decided that they can get by without vaccinating their children.

One point -- we don't vaccinate for TB. We test for exposure to it, but we don't vaccinate.

It's on the rise because people didn't finish their course of antibiotics and created resistant strains. (Pesky natural selection, that.) We *wish* it were preventable, but as of right now it's not.

[Jenny in Atl]

But... technically we are the government. In that sense "we" the government are who should have been called by the family, peers, neighbors and the like.

Is this the same government many of us don't trust to execute the war in Iraq, protect a woman's right to choose, etc. When you start giving so much personal power over to a centralized source, you run the risk of loosing what it means to be truly an adult. Does this mean people will make stupid choices, kids will get hurt, and some may even die... yes, but, the other vision to me is far more horrific.

[Laurie4b]

There was also a case of a 16 year old in Virginia who did not want chemo. His parents did not want him to have chemo and the state was going to take him away and force it on him. The parents and 16 year old won the right to make their own medical decision and the kid is now cancer free.

It *is* a slippery slope, no way around it.

What about kids with ADHD? What if "we the people" guvmint decide that it's better for a kid to be on medication rather than be impulsive, distractible.... and creative and engaging. Oh wait! The state, pushed by the public schools, did decide that one time too many. It was a long, hard battle for parents to win back the right to say no to medication.

The presumption should be on the side that the parents have the child's best interests in mind and there should be a lot of latitude given to differences of opinion. In the case of the diabetes, yes. In a situation where there is a clear way to treat a fatal disease and there is not medical debate about it, then yes. The state should have taken custody and saved the child. But the 99% of other cases? No. Even with the vaccine issue, I don't think the government should interfere. (We vaccinate.)

[Michelle in MO]

To me, this kind of "faith" (as in never going to the doctor) is like saying "God will feed me" but not going to the grocery store even though you have the means to buy food. There is nothing in the Bible that would lead me to believe that going to a physician is demonstrating a lack of faith in God.

I've read and heard of too many of these situations, unfortunately. People who take extreme positions like this do not have a clear understanding of Scripture, IMO. Luke was a physician, yet he authored two books of the Bible. I don't see any contradiction between faith and seeing a doctor, particularly in a life-and-death situation and when the death is so preventable.

[LauraGB]

I agree with all who stated that the government getting involved is a "slippery slope". Especially when the government is infringing upon religious beliefs. I also agree with everyone who suggested that not addressing this child's medical issue was negligent.

The trouble I have with this whole thing is the sentence (imposed by government participants). These parents, however mislead/troubled/whatever you can call it, are being charged with 2nd degree reckless homicide. This sentence carries up to 25 years in prison. I don't see them as being careless, intentionally neglectful parents. I'm guessing they deeply loved thier daughter (and other children) and did what they felt was necessary to help her (again, I disagree with the method and immediately choose to judge them). How many of us would make a choice against the grain of society for our children? Think about it. How many of us would deserve a 25 year sentence because of it? Because society deemed it so?

I'm not defending them. This is a terrible tragedy, where faith has been played to an extreme. But, I wonder if these parents really deserve a prison sentence. Mental assistance, perhaps, but punishment? I'm not convinced.

Ah, but then there is the trouble with the state getting involved in faith and calling it mental illness. Who would accept that? Not me.

Horrible, nasty, tragic. No good answer.

[PariSarah]

"Parents have a right to become martyrs for their faith, but they do not have a right to make martyrs of their children," or something to that effect. I don't have the case handy, but I can chase it down if somebody needs it.

I agree as well, but it's easy for me to do so, as my faith teaches me that my child is not my own. My child dies in baptism, and the child that is given back to me has been raised up God's child. I don't own him, and he is not mine to do with as I please.

[PariSarah]

It's called The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down (http://tinyurl.com/269xh2), by Anne Fadiman.

It's the story of a Hmong family with an epileptic daughter, and their clash with the medical establishment. Wonderfully written, weaving a generous and compassionate account of Hmong culture with the story of the family's personal tragedy, dealing with all of the ethical (legal and medical) problems along the way. I can't recommend it highly enough.

[lighthouseacademy]

The rights of parents and the children is very dear to me. It baffles my mind that medically speaking the doctors and government can and do try to force treatments on children sometimes under dubious circumstances. My older brother had a brain stem cancer at the age of 15. He went through chemo, lost his hair, couldn't run track anymore, went through several brain surgeries, etc. He went into remission. A year later it was back. He suffered so greatly from all the treatments that at 16, he asked to be left alone to die in peace and that was what he did. That was 19 years ago when I was 10. As a 10 yr old, I couldn't understand why he made that decision. I still am so sad that I didn't get to know him better (he lived with his mom and I lived with my mom), but I also am grateful for him that his wishes were honored. Today he would have been forced into treatment.

About a year ago, there was a young woman with a baby in WA who had some sort of kidney thing going on. The hospital wanted to do surgery to implant a dialysis aparatus into the baby. The mother wanted another opinion from a natural health care provider in OR. She left the state with the baby (took it out of the hospital AMA). There was an amber alert issued with the dire warning that if this baby was not returned to children's within 24 hrs or so the baby would die. It turned out later that the baby did not have an immediately life threatening condition but the drs had said he did because they didn't want the baby to leave the hospital.

As an herbalist who treats her children for whatever befalls them except for emergencies (split chin needed stitches, broken arms, etc) I take extreme defense over people dictating what is "hairbrained" or "reckless" or "extreme" and therefore feeling that they should have the right to force me to take my children to take drugs. Every time they have ever been seen by an MD, they amaze the DR with their health. If I ever found myself in a position unable to care for them, yes, I would take them to someone else, but that should be for me to decide because I love my children fiercely and do not wish to see harm come to them.