Oregon takes a stand against faith healing

In Oregon, faith healing has been a legitimate legal protection against certain kinds of homicide charges. Yesterday, the Oregon state House voted unanimously in favor of a bill that would remove that special protection, and stipulate mandatory sentencing for parents whose children died because the parents chose to give those children faith healing rather than medical treatment. Basically, you can make the choice yourself as an adult, but you can't choose to deny life-saving treatment to your kids. The bill's sponsors say that, in the past two years alone, two Oregon children have died, and another was severely disfigured, when those children's parents denied them medical care.

Maggie Koerth-Baker is the science editor at BoingBoing.net. She writes a monthly column for The New York Times Magazine and is the author of Before the Lights Go Out, a book about electricity, infrastructure, and the future of energy. You can find Maggie on Twitter and Facebook.

Maggie goes places and talks to people. Find out where she'll be speaking next.

MORE: Science

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

mellowknees

It’s too bad we have not had this law on the books in Oregon for years. Even one child dying from something that is easily cured because his/her parents chose prayer over care is too many, and it’s already happened more times than I care to count.
netdiva

what I don’t understand is why the faithful don’t pray, etc. in addition to medical treatment. It seems to me that that is for the good.
Antinous / Moderator

Someday, we’ll stop regarding children as chattel property.
RedShirt77

Child ownership begins at conception for these folks.

Put em in prison before they concieve again.
Anonymous

Here’s a [not "the"] Christian perspective on this – AMEN!!! Now, I’ve prayed at the bedside of a guy who OD’ed on heroin, whose parents had been told that the “miracle outcome” would be if he ever blinked his eyes open again, and then seen the same guy walking out of the hospital two weeks later. So yeah, I’ve seen some pretty amazing stuff. But I sure as heck didn’t pray for that guy and then say “OK, now take him off of life support.” Fer cryin’ out loud!

And it’s not really a stand “against faith healing.” It’s a stand against stubborn stupidity in the guise of faith. The whole idea of rejecting medical treatment is an aberration in the Christian tradition. The broad consensus (Orthodox, Roman, & Protestant) is that God gave us the gifts of our minds, and we should USE THEM. (This is why it is actually a real minority of Christians who have a problem with evolution; they get the whole “God created brains” concept, which, in insider lingo might be termed “first article” (after the first article of the Creed) reflection.)

I go to hospitals, nursing homes and hospices a lot. I pray with a lot of people. And I’ve never prayed with a single person who has felt that since God was involved, they could ditch the docs. In fact, I’d bet most are far more comfortable with the idea that God would care for them through the work of the docs, meds, nurses, therapists, etc. than the idea that he would miraculously heal them.

But for some reason, it’s the loudmouthed idiots who get all the attention. Kyrie eleison.
Yotebeth

I wonder how this will effect Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions.

Also, I’m surprised that these Christians don’t see medicine *as* a gift from god…
- cruise
  
  There are a considerable number of alternate and demonstrably better treatments than blood transfusions available in almost all situations. We do not reject treatment at all. We merely, in some, very specific situations, disagree with one of the options available.
  
  Appointed individuals within our congregations have the responsibility to explain our beliefs and liase with hospital staff to ensure this is understood. We have bought medical equipment for hospitals to make bloodless surgery easier and safer. We’re very appreciative of the efforts of the doctors involved, and do our utmost to minimise the stress and responsibility that may be created due to our decision.
  
  If God exists, and created us for a reason, then any advice he gives on how to live our life should be for our benefit. So, if your “faith” requires abandonment of reason, wilful ignorance of facts and a reckless disregard for your life, then claiming a divine origin for it is an insult to everything God stands for.
- dunnright
  
  Totally different circumstances.
  JW’s accept the best medical procedures available, just not blood.
  
  And the fact is, more and more Dr.s and Hospitals are starting to see the benefits of bloodless surgery.
  
  I do however see how this can connect with parents of young children if a Dr feels the need to transfuse.
  - Brainspore
    
    I do however see how this can connect with parents of young children if a Dr feels the need to transfuse.
    
    Most blood transfusions aren’t performed for recreational purposes.
- RedShirt77
  
  Do you think God failed to mention microbiology in the bible for no good reason? Its the work of the devil.
- Stooge
  
  They might if they didn’t have to re-mortgage their houses to pay for it.
redstarr

Denying kids proper medical care should be covered under child neglect laws. If they felt like prayer was an adequate substitute for food, they wouldn’t be allowed to let their little ones starve. They’d be charged with neglect and the kids would be taken from their custody. I see no difference with choosing to not get a child necessary medical treatment.
cory

It just so happens that I only exist because my grandmother stood up to faith healing. My father came down with pneumonia and my grandfather, a Christian Science believer, laid down the law and said he was going to be healed through prayer, not medicine. My grandma (also Christian, but not that kind) said, basically, “bullshit” and took him to the hospital.

And still, I feel like this law may not be a good idea. Two deaths and one disfigurement.. I don’t want to dismiss those children (how could I?–my dad was almost one of them!), but every new law automatically creates harm by its very existence. That harm must be weighed against these apparently rare cases.
- tiamat_the_red
  
  I’m curious about the logic behind your comment that laws cause harm by existing. Could you elaborate for me?
  - cory
    
    Every law has a cost in terms of: legal complexity, future unintended consequences, and hassles for law enforcement.
    
    * Legal complexity: Adds just one more way they can “get you”. I forget the exact quote so I’ll paraphrase here: Laws are a way to control your population, so they never know whether what they’re doing is legal or not. If you want to nail someone for political reasons, just find some law they’re breaking. Since laws never go away, this gets incrementally worse and worse, until everyone’s always doing something illegal. A “nation of laws” only works as long as the law is finite.
    
    * Hassles for law enforcement: Cops trying to do the right thing (they exist) are never quite sure whether to enforce something or not when there are so many laws. This is the flip side of the first point.
    
    * Unintended consequences: Law is subject to interpretation. Some day, this new law will be interpreted in a way that hurts you.
    - Beelzebuddy
      
      While I agree with you in principle, cory, I’ve come to distrust that particular argument as being somewhat disingenuous – it strikes me as odd that I only see it raised against laws I personally would like to see, for which no one can think of any better objection.
      
      Simply put, stupider shit gets passed every single day without anyone batting an eye at its potential abuse. THIS might actually do some good.
      
      @Anon #5: Since you profess that God expects us to think, would you mind allowing me to sow a seed of doubt and heresy? The effect of prayer, or televangelism, or any form of faith healing, can be objectively measured as any other treatment is: by comparing recovery rates in controlled trials. The answer, I’m sure you can already guess: nope.
- asbuuu
  
  Nicely put, Cory.
  
  I do worry that such laws could be used as a form of religious persecution, with regular ‘checkups’ by the state on particular religious families. But with that said, these children did not choose to be born into what is really an abusive family. That is when the State needs to step in, hopefully before it’s too late, and then hold the parents accountable.
- Anonymous
  
  As it happens, this law isn’t on the table because of Christian Science treatment. I am a Christian Scientist and we have no “directive” to refuse medical treatment. It is discouraged as counter-productive to effective faith healing, however, if we see that we aren’t effective, then clearly something is wrong and alternatives are must be considered (“The time for thinkers has come” [Science and Health, preface, vii:23]).
  
  The deaths in question are actually a result of “faith healing” performed by members of “Followers of Christ Church” which happens to be located about a mile from my house. I have never heard of this sort of disfigurement or child death withing the Christian Community.
  
  http://search.katu.com/default.aspx?ct=r&q=faith+healing+oregon+city+followers+of+christ&x=0&y=0
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Followers_of_Christ
  - ginandjesus
    
    It [medical treatment] is discouraged as counter-productive to effective faith healing, however, if we see that we aren’t effective, then clearly something is wrong and alternatives are must be considered (“The time for thinkers has come” [Science and Health, preface, vii:23]).
    
    By the time “alternatives are considered”, it may be too late. When it comes to medical issues, you don’t have the extra time to rely on faith healing. To wait and see if it works can be considered nothing else but negligence.
    
    The “Christian Science” denomination (and others with similar directives) is an unBiblical bastardization of mainline Christianity that allows such negligence and child abuse to occur and it is a tragedy.
  - Anonymous
    
    Don’t worry, Christian Science has been responsible for a number of deaths too. Faith healing has been shown time and time again to be identical to doing nothing.
    
    If you want to use faith healing, then at LEAST be resopnsible and have the medical treatment simultaneously. To wait for the outcome of a non-treatment is irresponsible at best.
    
    Malevolent at worst.
    
    You can choose to eschew proper medical treatment as an adult, but for you to place it lower on the priority list for a child who depends on you to make rational decisions is immoral.
  - chgoliz
    
    The deaths in question are actually a result of “faith healing” performed by members of “Followers of Christ Church” which happens to be located about a mile from my house. I have never heard of this sort of disfigurement or child death withing the Christian Community.
    
    I find this statement incredibly difficult to parse.
    
    The “Followers of Christ Church” are not within the “Christian Community”? Please explain.
    
    And as long as I’m trying to understand what you’re saying:
    
    You are the first Christian Scientist I’ve ever read who has stated that conventional medical treatment is accepted by your faith. Why are Christian Scientists so often in the news for refusing medical treatment and insisting on only prayer/faith healing instead? Is that some splinter group within your faith? Or are many of your faith confused about what treatment is considered acceptable?
    - Emily
      
      Hi chgoliz! I can clarify. There is nothing explicitly saying that one should NOT seek medical treatment, just that it isn’t necessary (because you’re seeking Christian Science treatment). Sure there might be specific people in churches that judge you for going to the hospital, but that is a) just plain mean of them, and b) certainly not condoned by the church.
      
      Also, it’s difficult to put CS in the same group as “faith healing” because that carries an implication that it’s God’s will that one lives or dies, etc. That’s not what we believe – we’re not hoping and praying that things will get better, we’re knowing what we believe as truth – which is that the person that is sick is already healed. This is a tricky thing to explain on a comment thread, so I’ll recommend that if you’re interested in asking more about this, you contact the Christian Science Committees on Publication, who answer these questions (understandably) all the time.
      
      http://christianscience.com/media-inquiries/committee/
- RedShirt77
  
  This is the elimination of an exemption, not an additional level of legal restriction.
Micah

We’re talking about faith in Jenny McCarthy here, right?
Anonymous

As someone who had numerous surgeries as a child, I have to say that one surgery in particular I had when I was 12 left me extremely traumatized and very strongly coloured my highschool experience and my whole life. I found out just after I turned 18 that the surgery had been ‘experimental’ and that the information fed to my parents and I was complete bullshiat. The surgery was neither necessary nor urgent, and my opinion of doctors (surgeons in particular) is that some of them are jaded, sick fucks who do not consider anything outside of the operating room relevant to their work.

I hate to agree with religious people ever, but if it’s to say that doctors need to be kept on a short fucking leash, it needs to be said.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  Hospitals have ethics committees. A doctor wanting to override parental wishes will still need to go through a major oversight process.
  - Anonymous
    
    I assume you’re replying to me.
    
    My parents thought the doctors were smarter than they were. I was twelve and thus not taken seriously when I brought up concerns which proved valid upon finding out wtf was going on when I turned 18. Ethics only go as far as plausible deniability and kids are easy prey for doctors like those who cut me up.
    
    Another anecdote: I spent several years on a medication which had, as a listed side-effect (among many others), nausea. Only when I got my own computer hooked up to the internet did I find this out. The drug was unnecessary but my family had been trained to follow the whims of the doctors – they did, after all, save my life (according to one another)…
    
    Honestly, I don’t think parents should have total control over their childrens’ medical care, but passing that control over to the ‘experts’ in the medical field is equally as foolish.
    
    The only time I’ve ever seen anything that’s even remotely sane is when teens and young adults provided advice to parents via an advocacy group that was created by a group of teens. The program was financially suffocated but it did work for a while..
Anonymous

> any dis-ease (as Religious Science founder Ernest Holmes would
> put it) is a culmination of negative beliefs that express
> through feelings, actions, thoughts and words.

One word: bullshit.
Anonymous

Sooo, while the two cases that this helps prevent (a congenitally blocked urethra and an abscess) were infinitely treatable, I wonder what impact this is going to have on other cases! Like, say you have a baby born very premature where one could have massive interventions and possibly help it live and survive to adulthood (with guaranteed massive defects) or allow the newborn to die without assistance and have it labeled a stillbirth. This isn’t a clear choice, a living outcome would occur in say 40% of cases but regardless the neonate would undergo a great deal of pain and anguish to live and when does one consider the actual costs financially? I mean, millions of dollars in short order.

I am incredibly uncomfortable making someone live because they can if it means a great deal of pain for them to get them to an unassisted life.

Or a neonate who has congenital defects incompatible with life unless say they have something forcing them to breath, one could either allow the neonate to die or make them live – even though they don’t have a cortex. I have faith that sometimes treatment is worse then death, that sometimes parents do make good choices that we have a hard time with, that this bill will cause a great deal of pain and anguish despite good intentions.
forgeweld

For those who are opining about the intrusiveness of this bill, I would suggest you read with closer comprehension. The bill just removes an affirmative defense to homicide that people who don’t act to preserve their children from death now have. There aren’t going to be any faith-healing police trolling for practitioners.
duncan

So I wonder where the law is protecting those that medicine has disfigured or killed. I’mjustsayinisall.
Nadreck

Good news! Here in Canada you have carte blanche to slaughter your children as long as you claim a religious motive. Maybe this statue will serve as an example. In the States there has long been a movement, mostly (as in cory’s case) peopled by grandmothers whose grandchildren’s lives were threatened or lost to this sort of Human Sacrifice. Up here, of course, we’re much too polite for such trouble-making.

I particularly remember little old lady telling me of the death of her grandson through third degree burns. He spilt a pot of hot oil off of the stove onto himself. The parents, of course, saw this as perfect opportunity to troll for a miracle and immediately started preying. The neighbours and the authorities had long been looking for a case to intervene and the child’s dying screams gave them a chance to go in on a noise complaint: too late for Junior though. No serious legal consequences for the parents either as they acted in “Good Faith”.

The latest case (that got wide coverage, many don’t) here in Ontario was a little kid who died a slow, lingering death by malnutrition caused by some faith healer’s spiritual diet. No problems for the parents or the healer in this case either.
Mister44

Absolutely! They should be properly categorized as foodstuffs.

—————-

Although I am usually one to allow a lot of shenanigans in the realm of faith, faith healing of serious illness, especially of children, is where I draw the line.

They should also target/watch out for ‘crunchy’ parents who treat serious illness with vitamins and herbs (pronounce ‘herbs’ because there is a fucking ‘h’ in it).
V

Four Oregon cases among the list of faith healing harms:

http://whatstheharm.net/faithhealing.html

Actually, the whole whatstheharm.net site is excellent for helping one become apoplectic at peoples’ general beliefe in quackery of various sorts.
Jean-Luc Turbo

As a former Religious Science practitioner, there is a family resemblance when it comes to understanding “healing” between the R.S. faith and the Christian Science faith.

Since the faith is about the unity of all life: the unity of the Divine with humankind (i.e. – there being no separation between what we describe as “God” and what we describe as “Being” in human form), then there isn’t a “healing” taking place, rather, a revealing of our already perfect, whole and complete nature.

The challenge, like Emily stated above, is it’s a tricky thing to explain on a comment thread, however here goes: any dis-ease (as Religious Science founder Ernest Holmes would put it) is a culmination of negative beliefs that express through feelings, actions, thoughts and words. Over time this compounds and physically manifests in a variety of ways. The challenge however is, even though our “mind” is one (i.e. – unified) with the Divine Mind, our misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of this is what got us in the mess of the dis-ease manifesting in the first place. So it takes a major mental, emotional and spiritual regime change to overcome the dis-ease and create, not a healing, but a revealing of our true nature. Possible? Yes. Is there data out there? Yes, it’s a growing field. Harvard’s Medical School has explored this extensively (the fascinating history of this Mind and Body study can be found here.

But the problem is, one has to overcome a lot of mental and emotional “stuff” to let the healing/revealing take place AND even with all the meditation and prayer, it seems like the body is the last to know. So time can also be an issue. So Religious Science is similar to mainstream Christian Science in that we follow the Quaker theme, in this case when it comes to overcoming a dis-ease challenge: pray and move your feet (i.e. – find a great doctor, pray for the process and transition to well being is successful and already established even before it’s physical manifestation).

It was said already above. Divine Intelligence takes a gazillion of forms. It’s just as much in my mind and yours as it is in the doctor’s, dentist’s and anesthesiologist’s. It’s also in that pill or syringe.

In case y’all are curious, there are a number of books that have been around forever like “You Can Heal Your Life” by Louise Hay or “Feelings Buried Alive Never Die” by Karol Truman explore the correlation between physical dis-ease and its mental or emotional nexus.

Regardless, Oregon got this one right.
- djn
  
  I’ve always felt that idea to be a very cruel case of victim blaming, really.
  “Oh, you got breast cancer? It’s all your fault, because you had bad emotions or something. Oh, and if you’re not bubbly-happy during the grueling months of chemotherapy, you’re making things worse for yourself.”
  
  See also Barbara Ehrenreich.
  - Jean-Luc Turbo
    
    “Victim blaming” was exactly the tone of my post, the message of the books I cited and is the practice of the R.S. and C.S. faiths .
    - djn
      
      It’s good to see that we agree.
      
      … sarcasm aside, let’s look at it. You’re basically saying that “any disease is a culmination of negative beliefs that express through feelings, actions, thoughts and words“. How does that not boil down to “if you get sick, it’s your fault”?
      
      As for treatment: “So it takes a major mental, emotional and spiritual regime change to overcome the dis-ease and create, not a healing, but a revealing of our true nature“. I’d love to hear you reconcile that with the amount of people dying to assorted diseases without implying that it’s somehow their fault.
      
      (Compare to my view of e.g. cancers: Sometimes bad things happen for no real reason outside biological ones. Being angry or unhappy with that won’t really harm your chances, and if the treatment doesn’t work … see point #1.)
      - Jean-Luc Turbo
        
        My intention was not to come across as black to your white at all. But that’s all you seem to hear from me. If that’s the song you want to sing–as you keep playing that same chord over and over–you get to have the spotlight all to yourself…
      - djn
        
        Sorry, I had a bit of trouble reading the tone of your previous post – and landed on straightforward “I mean the opposite of what I type”-style sarcasm. Apologies if that wasn’t what you were aiming for.
        
        As for the subject, I’ll freely admit that this is something I have some problems dealing with in an entirely calm way. I work with biologists and geneticists in cancer research; my day to day business is helping them analyze how cancer cells appear and work, and/or how different treatments work (I’m an informatics guy in a bioinformatics position, myself).
        
        While the emotional state of the person being treated isn’t irrelevant (both because we’d obviously like them to feel as well as they plausibly could, and because it might have a small effect on the activity of their immune systems), it triggers me rather strongly when people talk about it as if the treatments and biology were mostly irrelevant.
      - Jean-Luc Turbo
        
        Divine Intelligence takes a gazillion of forms. It’s just as much in my mind and yours as it is in the doctor’s, dentist’s and anesthesiologist’s. It’s also in that pill or syringe.
        
        I’m repeating what I said in my original post in answer to your concern about people talking as if treatment and biology were “mostly irrelevant”.
Anonymous

Mandatory sentencing takes the power of discretion away from judges and juries.

I’m a father in Oregon, and I have friends who are Christian Scientists and others who would deny their children treatment. I know for them it is a very difficult ethical decision, but it is deeply rooted in their belief system. I don’t want to condemn or condone them. I just want to point out their struggle …

… At the same time we have hundreds of children dying each year because of inadequate access to medical care because they are poor. Do we have mandatory sentences for insurance company executives who charge ridiculous, fraudulent rates? Or pharmaceutical company executives who put share price over saving lives?
- Padraig
  
  The two issues are completely separate.
  
  1. The right of a child to medical treatment.
  
  2. Children are not the property of their parents – parents have responsibilities to their children, not a right over them.
  
  3. Ones individual personal religious beliefs being used to cause harm to a third person.
  
  4. The failure of a country to establish an appropriate universal health care in line with European OECD members.
  
  Australia has universal health care. It is rare to have a child die or suffer serious health problems because of a failure to be able to access adequate care. The unfortunate facts are that when this has happened (though rarely) it tends to be amongst the indigenous Australian Aboriginal population.
  
  All Australian States and Territories have child protection laws which give the State the right to put the issue to qualified medical personnel.
  
  The Children’s Court then determines if medical treatment is required.
  
  I have professionally been involved in a case in which the parents believed God and prayer would fix their child’s problem.
  
  My desire was to assist them to make a decision in the best interest of their child.
  
  After very long negotiations, the parents finally agreed to surgery.
  
  However, had they not it wouldn’t have mattered – we would have had no problems getting an order. Religious beliefs are not a defence *against* providing adequate medical care to a child.
  
  In fact in a recent case in Australia, a Sydney Homeopath and his wife were gaoled for six year and four years (respectively) for negligently causing the death of their child by adhering to their homeopathic beliefs.
Anonymous

I grew up in Christian Science. Never went to doctors. Never had shots. Seldom sick. Had measles and chicken pox. For the most part had really good health. Was I lucky? Probably. My parents have had really good health all these years too. They did everything in moderation. But I go to the doctor now. My kids go to the doctor for every little thing. Lots of Antibiotics. They get colds ALL the time. I don’t think medicine solves everything either — oops, removed the wrong kidney! I think prayer and going to the doctor can go hand in hand.

A thought though: If prayer did it all, nobody would have to eat, wear glasses, brush their teeth, bathe (Hey Boing-boingers…No Soap!, and what would you do with all the out of work doctors (they would be insufferable — golf courses overrun). And if you could cure death, this planet would be way too crowded. Prayer curing everything is just not practical.

If the so-called healers lose a child it’s bad, of course. What happens when doctors lose a child?
Anonymous

I would be very curious to see a research study comparing Christian Science longevity to average health care using longevity. (I am a health care using atheist, for the record.) My suspicion is that on average the Christian Scientists live longer/are healthier.

In my own case, I have read a lot of research about a genetic condition that all three of my children have and have chosen to decline the advised treatment. The treatment is advised but not well researched, so no heat so far, but I would hate to have to fight out my understanding of the research in court. Should crazy parents be allowed to do any wack-a-doodle thing to their kids? No. Should I be forced to use a treatment I believe to be harmful because it is the current standard of care? It’s a pretty slippery slope, and I don’t have the right answer. (A different Anon than the one above.)
- ginandjesus
  
  I will say, Anon #32, that you do have a good point. Medical treatment is far from perfect and it’s possible that certain conditions and diseases are possibly being treated today with untested methods and pharmaceuticals that could be exacerbating the problem or causing other, potentially worse, problems.
  
  However, overall, the medical community (excluding Big Pharma, because despite some decent medicines, I refuse to give them any kudos) has helped us overcome issues and eradicate certain diseases, so it’s not all bad. It is flawed, but it is certainly far better than sole reliance on faith healing, or “waiting” for faith healing to work in hopes that if it doesn’t, there’s still time left on the clock to get actual treatment.