Faith healing

Legal aspects

Sponsored link.

Topics in this essay:

Freedom to Choose Faith Healing:

Citizens in North America are guaranteed freedom of religion.:

Courts have generally interpreted the concept of freedom of religion very broadly to include both religious belief and religious practice. e.g. the personal freedom to choose prayer and/or religious ritual in place of medical treatment for a disease or disorder. When faced with a medical problem, an adult can seek medical attention, use faith healing, try alternative medical treatment, or pursue no treatment at all, and let nature takes its course. On the other hand, some parents or guardians may wish to exercise the same options for their children. The result is sometimes a conflict with civil authorities.

Withholding Medical Treatment from Children:

Problems sometimes occur in cases involving a minor or other person who is incapable of giving informed consent for their own treatment. Parents and guardians are generally given almost complete freedom in providing or denying health care to their children. But, in the case of life-threatening medical conditions, the courts and Child Protective Services have occasionally intruded, and ordered treatment of a child against the wishes of its parent(s).

J. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religions in Santa Barbara, CA has stated that at the start of the 20th century, there were many faith groups that advocated prayer instead of medicine. Their teaching was largely motivated by a backlash directed against the inroads of modern medicine. The number of groups that still advocate prayer has been dropping ever since. ₁

Dr. Seth Asser, co-author of an article on medically preventable child fatalities commented: "You can't beat, sexually abuse or starve your kids, but the law allows a parent to refuse medical care in favor of magic. This is not just a social phenomenon, but a public-health issue." ₂

Religious exemptions in child abuse laws:

In 1974, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare first required states to have clauses in their child abuse and neglect legislation that permits exemptions on religious grounds. If a state refused, they would not receive federal child abuse protection grants. By 1999, 40 (one source says 41) states had complied. Parents who choose prayer in place of medical care for a sick or injured child cannot be prosecuted in those jurisdictions. This federal regulation no longer exists, but most the state laws remain on the books. In only 4 states  have these laws been overturned by the courts on constitutional grounds: HI, MA, MD & SD as the other two.

Committees in the Oregon legislature heard testimony in 1999-MAR for and against House bills 2494 and 2596. These would require all parents to obtain medical help for their seriously sick or injured children. The bills have strong backing from both parties, law enforcement, physicians, social workers and child advocates. "...there was limited testimony from Christian Scientists who warned that eliminating the so-called spiritual defense from Oregon's homicide statutes and other areas of the law would unfairly impose upon their religious rights." ₃  The House later endorsed a compromise faith healing bill that allows defendants to claim faith healing as a defense.

In 6 states (AR, DE, IA, OH, OR, and WV) additional laws are on the books that prevent charges of criminal homicide or manslaughter being laid against parents and guardians.

In 1994, Minnesota passed a law which requires parents or guardians to alert child protection services if they have withheld medical treatment and that their children were endangered by their decision. No parent or guardian has ever reported under this law.

The Academy of American Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the National District Attorneys Association have gone on record in opposition to these laws. ₆

Colorado has a law which states that parents or guardians who withhold medical
treatment on religious grounds can't be held liable for harm to a child as long as the faith-healing treatments used are recognized by the Internal Revenue Service and by major insurers. Christian Science treatments are so recognized. A state legislative committee is considering whether to initiate a bill to eliminate the exemption. Between 1990 and 2000, similar exemptions have been repealed in five states (OR, SD, HI, MD & MA).

By 2002, 38 states have laws that permit parents to reject medical treatment for their children in favor of faith healing. However, in most of those states, the law specifies that if a child's condition is life-threatening, then a physician must be consulted. ₅

A British law requires parents to seek medical help for their children, if the child's condition does not improve after 72 hours of non-medical treatment.

Legal attacks on faith healing:

Lawsuits are a very crude club with which to change belief systems. However, they have been successful in correcting abuses by psychologists and other therapists who harm clients with Recovered Memory Therapy and implanted false memories of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Lawsuits have succeeded when professional mental health organizations have failed to control dangerous, experimental therapies among their members. The same dynamic may happen in the future with respect to faith healing.

In 1993, Douglass Lundman sued his ex-wife and various Christian Science groups due over the death of his 11 year old son in 1989. He had juvenile diabetes - a potentially fatal disorder which is routinely treated with insulin, diet and exercise. While under the care of his Christian Science mother, he had fallen into a diabetic coma and died. The jury found that the mother, Kathleen McKown, her new husband, the Christian Science practitioner, the Christian Science nursing home that provided his nurse, the local representative of the Committee on Publication and the Church itself shared responsibility for the death. Lundman was awarded compensatory damages of over 5 million dollars; the Church was assessed an additional 9 million in punitive damages. The former were reduced to 1.5 million on appeal, but the church's punitive damages were not lowered. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. By refusing to review the case, the court let the judgment stand. Stephen Carter criticized this decision of the Supreme Court in the New York Times. He feels that religious freedom is jeopardized when faith groups are punished for non-mainstream beliefs. "...the Justices have left the door open to all sorts of mischief."

This case presents a major dilemma for the church. It cannot abandon faith healing because it represents a major and fundamental component of their belief system. Yet it cannot adsorb many large court-assessed damages without going bankrupt. A middle ground may be possible: the church could urge their members to seek medical attention for certain medical problems that are both life threatening, and curable by medical science. This list might include compound fractures, lumps in the breast, massive bee stings, bites by poisonous animals, diabetes, appendicitis and malignant tumors. They might justify this departure from their traditional healing methods, on financial grounds. If they did not encourage their membership to seek medical help in some cases, then the church might be considered negligent by the courts and driven into bankruptcy by court-assessed punitive damages.  ₄

References:

1. "State, church clash over faith healing beliefs," Beloit Daily News, Beloit WI, 1997-APR-21 at: http://www.beloitdailynews.com/497/heal21.htm
2. S.M. Asser & R. Swan, "Child fatalities from religion-motivated medical neglect,"  Pediatrics, 1998; 101(4), Pages 625-629
3. Home in Zion Ministries has a home page at: http://users.southeast.net/~homeinzn/WhoAreWe.htm
4. Stephen Carter, Op-ed piece, New York Times, 1996-JAN-31.
5. "No Cure for Cancer: Tenn. Mom, Preacher Accused of Letting Girl Die by Turning to God," ABCNews.com, 2002-OCT-3, at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/
6. "Freedom of Religion or State-Sanctioned Child Abuse? Rising death toll fuels debate over parents who choose prayer over medical treatment on behalf of their children," Time. com, 2001-FEB-21, at: http://www.time.com/

Copyright © 1996 to 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 1996-JAN-14
Latest update: 2005-FEB-18
Author: B.A. Robinson