As the story goes, in Genesis 22, God instructed Abraham to take his beloved son Isaac to Moriah to be sacrificed. The two gathered rations and set out. I'm sure that was an awkward trip, because - and here's the kicker - Abraham never told Isaac he was planning to kill him. I must assume if Abraham, a pillar of Judeo-Christian theology, had disclosed his plans for Isaac's imminent death, it might have been harder to convince Isaac to come along. The two arrived, and the presumably confused Isaac was then bound and placed on the altar. Just when it looked like curtains for Isaac, an angel intervened before Abraham's knife found its mark. Thank God...
This story always struck me as somewhat strange. First of all, I was always led to believe that Abraham was a hero, that he was a champion of faith who put his son's life solely in the hands of God.
He was a man who, despite the ability to avoid direct bodily harm to his progeny, did so that the glory and mercy of God could be witnessed. OK, but what about poor Isaac? And while Abraham may have been among the most faithful who ever lived, what kind of father was he?
Five thousand years later, we still don't get it.
I was saddened to hear the details
surrounding the case of 11-year-old Madeline Kara Neumann, who died last month from a readily treatable type of diabetes. Her parents refused to seek medical attention for eight years prior to her death.
During her last months, the disease manifested itself, the girl lapsed into poor health and an eventual coma, which immediately preceded her death. The parents relied only on prayer based on religious beliefs, which allegedly prohibited medical intervention. This approach produced tragic, yet, when considering empirical evidence, predictable results.
Perhaps the saddest aspect is these parents undoubtedly loved their child very much. Their actions were not meant to be negligent, but, even so, they are culpable (although not legally) for the death of their daughter. Ironically, they also blame themselves - not because of their failure to seek medical intervention, but because of their apparent lack of faith.""
It is just one of the constant reminders to those of faith that God does not always intervene to save a person in need. However, in the secular domain of law, does the inaction of the hand of God exonerate the inaction of the hand of man? The competing dynamics of civil liberties, religious freedom and child welfare have left many clueless about what should be done to protect children, religion and rights.
Parents generally have the right to raise their child as they see fit. The underlying logic stems from the idea that parents will generally act in their child's best interest. As we know, this is not always the case, which is why the freedoms afforded through the First Amendment are limited under child protection laws that ensure a minimal amount of mental and physical protection for children.
In 2003, the federal government passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Requiring that states receiving federal grant dollars must include ""failure to provide medical treatment"" in their definition of child neglect.
Sounds good, right? Unfortunately, the Christian Science lobby was able to place a small addendum onto the bill: ""Nothing in this Act shall be construed as establishing a Federal requirement that a parent or legal guardian provide a child any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian.""
Furthermore, Wisconsin state law says that parents are to be held accountable if they fail to act to protect children from bodily harm. However, there is currently an exemption for ""treatment through prayer."" Essentially, in Wisconsin, parents who trust only prayer to heal their child's ailments are not culpable for bodily harm visited upon that child - even if modern medicine can easily remedy the illness.
I will not deny the right, or even the effectiveness, of prayer in consenting adults, but here are some facts: Between 1975 and 1995, 172 children died in the United States as a result of prayer-only healing initiatives. The vast majority of those children (140 of the 172) died from conditions which medical science had a 90 percent chance of curing. Mind you, those are only children - persons below the age of consent. These were children unable to make decisions
regarding their own health, and their parents, responsible for their welfare, willfully denied them modern medicinal treatment that would have saved them.
This prayer stipulation is a sticking point for many in the religious right, but I don't understand how that jives with some of the religious right's other stated platforms. In many cases, these are the same groups sparing no expense in their fight to protect the rights of an undeveloped bunch of cells in a woman's womb, but will do nothing to protect that child from immense physical pain associated with untreated terminal illness once the fetus is born.
Pro-life and quality of life,
apparently, are two separate issues. In many cases, these same groups will
attempt to block the removal of a
feeding tube from a terminally ill brain-dead woman, but will simultaneously stand behind legislation which blocks the medical treatment of otherwise healthy children doomed by nothing more than being born to parents holding fundamentalist beliefs?
This is indeed a complex and delicate issue but one that demands action. First of all, we need to amend the law in a manner which typifies prayer-only therapy in children with serious medical problems as a matter of criminal neglect. Simultaneously, we must be careful not to undermine the rights of the vast majority of parents who are choosing what's best for their own children. The decision to deny a child medical attention for religious reasons should be handled just as child abuse is in this country, and though that may be a dangerous door to open, I think it's necessary. A nanny state? I don't know, but at the very least we should start protecting the rights of the powerless who are suffering needlessly by no choice of their own. On the other hand, what consenting adults choose to do to or for themselves is a whole different matter.
Matt Jividen is a senior majoring in history. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
