Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I find myself feeling sorry for them, because there should be some
    sort of law covering this without needing to use a particular case
    as a legal precedent (in that sense they were scapegoats), but then
    I remember, the little boy is *dead*.  I think parents should be
    able to teach their religious beliefs to their children, but they
    have a much stronger obligation to bring children to adulthood where
    they can make their own decisions about such things.  I think that
    manslaughter is a reasonable charge in this case.  They aren't even
    serving a prison sentence.
    	Linda

>	In my view, 'violating' the
>    Twitchells' right to freedom of religion, is a lesser *SIN* that
>    violating the boy's right to life.

    I on the other hand am very hard pressed to come up with a greater
    *SIN* for a government then violating someones right to freedom of
    religion. It seems to depend on how important religion is to a person
    how they feel about parts of this situation. I disagree with Christian
    Science in many areas. At the same time it's hard not to see an attack
    on the practice of one religion as being in some ways an attack on
    all religions. Just as bigotry against one minority is in some ways
    an attack on all.

    			Alfred

    Kate, Linda,
    
    I appreciate both of your feelings.  There is so much confusion
    around this trial including the motivation behind convicting this
    couple.
    
    I have grown up studying Christian Science.  I have used it to heal
    all forms of problems all my life.  My family are all Christian
    Scientists but we are not unaware of how others choose to deal with
    their health problems.
    
    Linda,  there is a law covering the use of Christian Science treatment.
    Part of the reason for the appeal is that the judge did not include
    the law when advising the jury.
    
    You can imagine that it is an emotional issue for me.  It
    is difficult not to feel sorry for the Twitchells.  They love
    their children very much and have suffered enough just in dealing
    with the death of their son.  They are very strong people however
    and have handled the trial VERY well.
    
    I certainly don't want to get religious here because Christian Science
    is something that must be worked at and studied seriously.  We are
    not ones to push our religion.  I will suffice to say there have
    been countless times throughout my life that I have experienced
    healings through Christian Science either for myself or others.
    Some of these were for "serious" problems and some were for problems
    that appeared to be fatal and a consulted doctor could not help.  Most 
    who have experienced this type of healing have so much faith in
    it that it no longer occurs to them to use any other method.  It
    is hard for me to understand why more people do not seek out this healing
    method just as it is hard for others to understand why the Twitchells
    did not seek out a doctor.
    
    I hope this helps.
    
    Jill
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    The decision was clearly wrong in this case.  It made a fundamental
    assumption which I think is invalid: that parents *must* use medical
    science as the course of action when a minor under their care becomes
    sick.  It doesn't matter if the parent's think the child isn't "that
    sick."  It doesn't matter if the parents think that an alternative
    treatment might be better.
    
    There are a number of problems with this approach.  First, it sets a
    precendent that society can punish parents if a child under their care
    dies and they, for whatever reason, didn't bring that child to a
    doctor.
    
    It also assumes that the AMA always knows best, which has been clearly
    shown to *not* be true.  Suppose you find an alternative treatment
    which isn't approved by doctors but other people swear by it. 
    Shouldn't you have the *choice* to try that alternative when the
    doctor's can guarantee they will always do the right thing?  Its come a
    long way since then, but remember back a few hundred years when
    midwives had better luck than the local doctors.
    
    The Twitchell case is also an aggravated situation: its very easy to
    see how they would not have realized that the child was in fact deathly
    sick; all parents have to make judgement calls like this on occasion.

I'm sure I don't understand the Christian Science religion completely, but there
seem to be some inconsistencies in this case. Mrs. Twitchell wears glasses, did
she not receive medical attention to get these glasses? Mr. Twitchell at one 
point stated that he had root canal surgery. Once again, didn't this require
medical attention?

As a father, I cannot EVER understand allowing a child to be sick, let alone
die. If you believe prayer will heal the child, fine, pray! But take ALL steps
possible to help your child.

I wonder what a guy like Charles(?) Fiske would say about this case. That man
refused to give up until his daughter was well.

John G.

Actually, more generally, it sketches out broader lines of parental legal
responsibility. Add this to cases of child abuse when the child is still in the
womb, and any other cases I don't know about, and it turns out there is now a
second legal agreement where the participants don't get to read the fine print
(the first being marriage).
	Mez

    
    re .5:  Very well said, Jim.
    
    When I heard about the verdict my first thoughts were empathy
    for the Twitchells.  No matter how wrong (if it was) what they
    did or did not do was, I must assume that they loved their son
    very much and that they are grief-stricken over his death.
    And *then*!  To drag them through our horrible court system on
    manslaughter charges and *convict* them in the death of their son!
    It seems like it's just too much for a person to take.
    
    So now they've been "sentenced" to bring their children for
    regular medical checkups.  Geese, couldn't this have been satisfied
    through a court restraining order?  Instead of putting them on
    trial as criminals?  Or am I missing something (legally) here?
    
    

    Tim told me something about this case that I would rather have not
    known:
    
    That baby screamed for days, loudly enough to disturb the neighbors,
    before he died.
    
    							Ann B.

 Suppose my son comes home very sick.  I, not having the faith of a Christian
Scientist, take him to the local hospital where he is diagnosed as having some
disease.  In spite of the medication, my son dies of the disease.

 Am I guilty of manslaughter? I decided to treat him according to my "faith" in 
medical science. 

						Nigel

    re:.3
    
    Alfred, how far does your feeling about "freedom of religion" go?
    Should, say, a religion that called for human sacrifice be allowed
    to practice?  Should the government be allowed to step in and say,
    "Nope, you can't do that. Your freedom to worship as you please
    is not more important than a human life"?  Does it make a difference
    if the person to be sacrificed is willing?  Does it make a difference
    if the the person to be sacrificed is incapable of making the choice?
    
    It's not clear to me where the line is between "active" human
    sacrifice and the Twitchells' situation, which can be argued to
    be "passive" human sacrifice.
    
    re:.5
    
    In essence I agree. One prior example is the laetrile situation,
    in which the drug wasn't approved for use in the US, but many
    medical authorities elsewhere swore by it.
    
    --- jerry

    Academic question, not baiting; see if I have my facts straight:
    
    The Nation of Islam/Muslim religion advocates the holy war, Jihad, and
    the protection of the State at any cost,even killing.  So, as in the 
    case of Salmon Rushde (sp?), a Muslim could kill (him) here and plead 
    freedom of religion.  Yes?
    
    One thing that bothers me about the Twitchell case is that one of the
    parents (father?) allowed him/herself to be treated medically for a
    root canal.  This procedure normally requires the taking of antibiotics
    afterward.  So what happened with the child?  Did they outright refuse
    him medical treatment, or did they not realize the extent of his
    illness?
    
    I'm not so sure freedom of religion is such a good thing when it
    endangers someone's life.
    
    Nancy
    

    Re: .12
    
    I don't think the question is that the healing process didn't work
    (whether it is medical or spiritual), but rather, that a toddler
    doesn't have much say in the matter.  If he were old enough to
    willingly make the decision to use only spiritual healing, that
    is one thing, but maybe the problem arises when he nnever had any
    choice in the matter.
    
    - daniel
    
    spoiler about the condition:
    He was suffering from a blocked bowel which is curable by a simple
    enema
    

re .8

Mez, they're not necessarily the same (responsibilities of parents to
children vs. foetuses).

in general - 

Freedom of religion has generally been considered to be constrained to what people
do to themselves.  So neither the government nor any other person can interfere
with someone's practice of religion.  This extends to children as well.  No one can
interfere with a childs right to practice his or her own religion.

However, this becomes murky when you're dealing with a child who is
incapable of fulfilling his own needs. In this case, Robin Twitchell, at the
ripe old age of 2 �, probably neither knew where to get medical care or even
if he needed it, so that duty falls on his parents. His parents extended
their beliefs to the child (IMNSHO to his detriment). If it had been one of
his parents who had the bowel obstruction, then it would be up to them to
refuse medical care because their actions would not affect anyone else (as
noted earlier, and I suspect this was probably one of the things that swayed
the jury, that Twitchell had obtained medical care for himself in the past).

Another way to look at this (which probably shows my bias) is that if I belong to
a religion that occasionally requires me to kill a sick but curable toddler, 
do I have the right to carry out my religion unobstructed?  No?  So aside
from parenthood, what's the difference?

If the kid had been 12� instead of 2�, I don't think much of a case would have
existed.  The kid would have known where to turn to get medical care, and 
presumably the provider would have known how to get the care to the kid even
if the parents refused.  But I don't know where the dividing line is.

M

    What if that little boy had cut off a hand or an arm while playing with
    a table saw or lawn mower?  If prayer can correct a bowel obstruction, 
    why not regenerate a limb?  

Herb asked me whether I was deliberately being inflammatory in .12.  Since that 
wasn't my intent, I figured I'd share this MAIL to Herb with the file to explain
my own personal feelings on the subject.  

(I don't think I need anyone's permission to post my own mail in the file)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	CADSE::CONLIFFE "Nigel -- CTC2-2/D10 -- 287 3462  11-Jul-1990 1256" 
To:	VMSSG::NICHOLS
CC:	CONLIFFE
Subj:	RE: 239.12

 Frankly, Herb, I'm appalled at the behaviour of the Twitchells.  Speaking 
purely personally, I would have charged 'em with murder.  Having said that (from 
the deep emotional part of me), I have tried to think more logically about the 
situation, and possibly to extrapolate it to the general case.  

 I'm looking at this as an outsider because, while I am a parent, I don't have 
that much faith in anything, and I personally would have tried any and all means 
to heal my own kid.  But even under medical care, children die.  To you and me, 
it is morally reprehensible to withhold that medical care so that the child 
dies.  But to the Twitchells, it would have been just as morally reprehensible 
to accept that medical care in violation of their own religious faith (according 
to my understanding of Christian Science ethics).  

 Thie situation is complicated by the fact that the child was not of an age to 
make an informed consensual decision to be a Christian Scientist. Is it 
acceptable to say "Well, regardless of your religious beliefs, if you don't 
conform to social moral standards, then we'll take your child away from you"?

 I don't know, Herb, I really don't. I know that I'd hate to have some 
fundamentalist preacher show up on my doorstep with a court order removing my 
son from my care because I wasn't bringing him up according to fundamentalist 
principles and was thus endangering his immortal soul.

		If this sounds confused, it is because I am.
				Nigel

    What rights and whose rights are most important?
    
    o right to freedom of religion
    o right to adequate medical care and to life (in this particular case,
      it was a condition that could have been treated successfully with
      medical intervention)
    o rights of the parents vs. rights of the child vs. rights of the 
      government
    
    The problem is that all of the rights are important.  The further
    problem is that the "right to religion" is complicated by the fact that
    the person whose life in danger was not the person whose religious
    beliefs made the decision about what to do.  The child did not decide
    to be treated with Christian Science; its parents decided. 
    
    The question is, in the absence of "informed consent" (by the life in
    danger), who has the right to decide?  The parents and their religion
    or the government and general society's medicine?  It bothers me to
    think of the government interfering in how a family works, but it also
    bothers me to think of a parent using herbal medicine to treat a broken
    neck or a rumbling appendix.  Does it make a difference that the
    religion is Christian Scientist (well-known, has popular support)
    rather than <weirdo_unknown_religion>?  What about the contrast with
    the public attitudes toward this white, middle-class case and the
    public attitudes toward the case in Philadelphia with the families who
    all had the last name Africa and left their garbage in the front lawn
    and had their kids running around naked and were bombed by the City of
    Philadelphia to get them to move?  Those families were ALSO acting in
    accordance with their beliefs and religion ... 
    
    My gut reaction is that the Twitchells did what they thought was right. 
    Getting a medical examination would not have been necessary or right to
    them.  My second gut reaction is that they didn't ask their child what
    it wanted.  My third reaction is that they *couldn't* ask their child;
    and, that if they knew then what they know now about the child's
    condition, they *might* have acted differently.  My fourth reaction is
    that I wish they had been open to trusting medical diagnosis, even if
    they didn't plan to seek medical treatment.  
    
    I feel for the jurors in this trial, because it touches on so many
    issues there is no way to resolve it so anyone is truly at peace with
    the verdict.  I feel for the Twitchells, because someone they love is
    dead and they have no privacy or time to grieve.
    
    Pam

    I'm not a doctor but from what I've heard, a bowel obstruction is
    very serious, very painful, and if gone untreated, the victim
    dies a very slow and painful death.  From what I understand
    this is not a sudden emergency; they had time to watch him deteriorate
    and die.
    Maia
    

>To you and me, 
>it is morally reprehensible to withhold that medical care so that the child 
>dies.  But to the Twitchells, it would have been just as morally reprehensible 
>to accept that medical care in violation of their own religious faith (according 
>to my understanding of Christian Science ethics).  

Nigel, there is a huge difference.  Even if you think of medical science as
one form of "faith", that might fail the way faith in Christian Science
fails, there difference is that medical science doesn't *preclude* praying/
spiritual healing.  Yes, we would think it would be morally reprehinsible
to *withold* medical treatment.  But the analogous is that a Christian 
Scientist would think it equally morally reprehensible to *withhold* spiritual
treatment, not "violat[e] their own religious faith".  You see the flaw
with that statement, logically?

Even stepping outside my bias as much as possible, trying to accept
both spiritual and medical healing as equally valid forms of treatment,
I still say that withholding some form of treatment that might work 
is *more* reprehensible than "violation of...religious faith".

The key point here is not that Christian Science upholds spiritual
healing, but that it *prevents* medical healing.  No one is suggesting
that the Twitchells *not* pray...they are suggesting that in *addition*
to praying that they also try more conventional healing methods.

Maybe a Christian Scientist can explain this to me - I have no understood
why CS *prohibits* medical treatment.  I can understand that they believe
that praying is more effective, etc, but what can't they pray *and* use
medical treatments?

D!

    RE: .13 My feelings are pretty strong in this area. For example,
    though in general I'm a strong supporter of the State of Israel I'm
    upset that an important practice of Christianity is illegal there.

    You've asked a number of interesting questions and I'm not sure
    how I'd answer then all. Also I'm pretty sure that some participants
    here would distort my answers. So if you want to talk about it off
    line let me know.

    The government already enforces some laws that seem to me to be at
    conflict with freedom of religion (bigamy laws to name one class).

    One think in the Twitchell case that seems to be considered irrelevant
    is intent. Did the Twitchell's intend harm to come to their child?
    Or did they in fact take actions which they felt would make their 
    child better? Relevant? Apparently not to some people.

    		Alfred

>    One think in the Twitchell case that seems to be considered irrelevant
>    is intent. Did the Twitchell's intend harm to come to their child?
>    Or did they in fact take actions which they felt would make their 
>    child better? Relevant? Apparently not to some people.

If the courts believed that they had *intended* harm to the boy, the
charge would have been murder.  But in fact, it was manslaughter.  The
difference was not dismissed by the people who really matter, ie: the
people making the decisions in the Twitchell's charge and trial.

D!

as I understand from a practitioner of Christian Science that I dearly respect:

[re.18] an injury is not an illness [she broke a leg skiing and a doctor 
attended to it]

a pregnancy is not an illness [she had the assistance of a midwife at the birth
of both of her children]

consent is extremely important. [her daughter has upon occasion visited a
doctor at her own request; although it is not her parents choice, it is her
decision]

prayer and meditation are for health -- _not_ miraculous healing.  the stress
is placed upon 'healing' not 'cures' ... if I'm making sense.

As it has been explained to me, the teaching was that medical intervention
should not be necessary, but _not_ that medical intervention is forbidden. 
Recourse to medical practioners should not be taken as lacking in commitment.

All this being said, this woman feels that the death of this child was needless
foolish and negligent. The child [most probably] wasn't praying or meditating
upon healing and the parents' efforts were obviously not having the
desired effect.

  Annie

    re: .23
    D! - 
    
    Christian Science does not *prohibit* medical treatment.  It is
    an individual decision.  Christian Scientists just have so much
    faith in their religion that it is the first and only thing to 
    turn to.  If a Christian Scientist decides to turn to other means
    of healing they DO usually pray because its that natural for them.
    
    Another thing that made this case difficult to call was that
    Robin had been feeling much better before he died.  He
    had appeared to be improving not worsening.  The Twitchells did
    not consiously "withhold" medical treatment but rather turned to
    the treatment that they believed in.  They never said they would
    not take him to a doctor.  My belief is that David Twitchell would
    have provided for his son with a doctor if he knew that is the way
    he could have been saved.
    
    PS.  I believe it was the same week that a young actress
    died of the same problem as Robin's under medical treatment.  I
    don't remember her name but she was the little blond girl in 
    "Poltergeist".    

    As a parent of a toddler, I have felt a lot of turmoil while reading
    and thinking about the Twitchell case.
    
    On one hand, I think of a PBS documentary which I watched last month
    regarding the Amish, and how they have selectively chosen and adapted
    certain 20th century technology to coexist with their religious and
    cultural beliefs.  It makes me wonder wheth Christian Science could
    find a way to do the same in terms of medical treatment, at least for
    children.
    
    I certainly respect that religious beliefs dictate very strongly in
    many people's lives.  However, when those beliefs are so strong, I
    expect some consistency, particularly when it comes to responsibility
    for another person, especially a child. If indeed Mr. Twitchell availed
    himself of the medical/dental profession for a root canal, I would
    think he would make a moral decision to do no less for his child, in
    his role as a parent.  I may not agree with someone's beliefs, but I
    support their right to hold them -- and expect fair and consistent
    practice of those beliefs  by the holder.
    
    And finally, regardless of whether they should have been tried
    criminally, I do agree with a court mandate that the children be seen
    medically when needed. As parents, we are guardians responsible for the
    welfare of the child(ren) we've been given -- it is not in our power to
    assess what a child needs medically UNLESS we are trained to do so. 
    
    

    In thinking about this I would like to believe that a form of 
    compromise could be sought. Having the child exampined by somone
    in the medical profession in this particular case would have given 
    the parents options and something specific to pray for.
    
    If the CS could agree to have a professional Medical person look
    at thier child to let them know what could be causing the medical
    problem at the very least give them something specific to pray
    for and I believe that explaining that certain things could
    be done to make the child more comfortable while "God" allows the
    healing to take place. To think that An enima, Something that could 
    have been done at home would have relieved his misery. Its beyond 
    my understanding how they will survive the guilt of knowing. 
    
    I dont believe Drs know everything. I do ask for an opinion when I 
    take my child to see them. I then decide to follow thier 
    instructions, follow SOME of thier instructions, or get a 
    second/third opinion. 
    
    I would love to see some sort of compromise. 
    janet
    

    There is something here that disturbs me, and I guess its just the way
    I look at it, being on the outside of CS. I got the impression long ago
    that doing right in God's eyes was more important than life, and if God
    meant for you to die, its not a process to stop.
    
    Now, LOTS of people have problems with this. It may not even be exactly
    what CS believes. But I do not. I look at it kinda like I look at
    Christ on the cross. I'll bet a lot of people would have loved to have
    saved him. But they didn't and he died. Some people believe that
    history is better served by his death. And that it was part of God's
    plan. I personally thought it was POINTLESS. But, there will always be
    people who are more accepting of death than I.
    
    It wasn't too long ago when children died on a regular basis. You
    mourned... and went ahead and had more. If you couldn't bear children,
    you accepted this, and often adopted someone else's. Today, medicine
    has us spoiled, and frequently playing at "God", refusing to deal with
    the natural course of life, frequently trying to thwart death at every
    turn. Well, I can understand the desire to live. But I can also respect
    a faith which says that life on this earth is not ALL there is. And so,
    clinging to life when death is eminent is not "the right spirit of
    things". Its just a matter of perspective.
    
    I personally thought the Twitchell's should have been left alone in
    their grief. I think they misjudged the situation, and have paid enough
    of a price. This whole thing annoys me. Yeah, maybe it seems barbaric,
    as human sacrifice would seem barbaric. But, when I look at it in
    perspective, we've got 3 billion people here, and lots are dying daily
    for all the wrong reasons. LOTS of these deaths could be prevented. I
    think the crusade about this ONE was a waste of tax dollars.
    
    Worse still, I think that lumping the Twitchells in with your average
    Joe/Jane Child-abuser is extreme oversimplification taken on by a
    bureaucracy in need of a scapegoat.
    
    On the other hand, I seem to recall that the sentence is minor, and I
    also think that the need to appeal is a sad one. The Twitchells don't
    need to clear their name, in fact, they'll never be able to. So the
    appeal won't help them much. It seems more the whim of civil advocates
    who don't want this to be seen as a landmark case to be used in other
    courts. The Twitchells' hell is only beginning if they are forced by
    well-wishing lawyers to seek redress for umpteen years.

    I am a currently non-practicing Christian Scientist, although when
    asked my religion, will answer that this is my faith.  This entry,
    quite frankly, will probably be the impetus I need to resume active
    practice of the religion.  I was raised in it and brought up my son 
    using its practices to the best of my ability.
    
    If anyone is interested, I am in a position to make enquiries and get
    material from Nathan Talbot, who is the official spokesman for the
    church.
    
    The Twitchell case in particular, and similar cases which have been
    brought in other states in the last few years, are causing deep
    soul-searching among adherents of the religion.  The message seems to
    be that our treatment of choice may not ever fail.  In many ways, it
    feels like the 'blame the victim' mind-set which many in this file
    disdain in other situations.  
    
    One of the commands to parents in the Bible, is that they should teach
    their children sound doctrine, that 'as the twig is bent, so shall it
    grow'.  (I wish I had my concordance here at work, so I could give you
    the particular verses from Proverbs and the gospels which I have in
    mind.)  Religious freedom, it therefore seems to me, must particularly
    include the ability to apply the tenets of your faith to your children. 
    (How many of you would say that a Jehovah's Witness should be forced to
    allow a blood transfusion for their infant/toddler?  What would your
    response be if that child then contracted AIDS?)
    
    The question was asked why medical treatment and spiritual treatment
    cannot be applied simultaneously.  The thought process required when
    using spiritual treatment involves active, specific denial that
    anything not spiritual has any power to cause either good or evil.  If
    you are using medical treatment, then you are giving power to something
    physical to cause good (or evil, if you consider drug side-effects). 
    The two mind-sets are simply so opposed that they cannot both be
    effective simultaneously.
    
    I will do my best to answer other questions, or get better answers than I
    can provide, if requested.  If appropriate, and there is sufficient
    interest, possibly a separate note for explanations of the faith's
    teachings may be the way to proceed.
    
    Alison

    What if that child was choking on a piece of food?  Does one sit and
    pray that the food lodged in the child's throat clears by itself or do 
    you apply the Heimlich maneuver?  

>    Christian Science does not *prohibit* medical treatment.  It is
>    an individual decision.  


Oh really?  I misunderstood. Now I am *really* confused.  This bit of
information changes things a lot.

A lot of this conversation has been centered on the idea that saying
the Twitchells should have taken their son to a doctor is saying that they
should have gone against their religion, and therefore saying so is a
violation of religious freedom.

But if the religion does not forbid going to Doctors, then in fact the
Twitchell's decision not to take their son to a doctor was a *personal*
decision, not one dictated by their religion, and so religious freedom
has nothing to do with it!  While their decision may have been 
*affected* by their religious beliefs, it was not a church deision;
forcing them to take their child to a doctor would *not* have been forcing
them to violate their religious freedom.

Theirs was a personal decision, and they are held accountable, as any
parent is held accountable for the personal decisions they make about
their children.

D!

    re: .32
    
    >                         I was raised in it and brought up my son
    >using its practices to the best of my ability.
    
    Isn't there some difference if the child in question is not old
    enough to make up its own mind about whether or not to practice
    the religion?  The child wasn't given freedom of religion because
    he had no choice, no voice in the matter.
    
    If the Twitchell's son had been 17 and had agreed to forgo medical
    treatment, I seriously doubt there would have been any charges brought
    up at all.
    
    Several people have mentioned the Twitchells' right to practice
    their religion and raise their son in that religion...what about
    the son's right to *choose*?
    
    daniel

    
    I know of VERY FEW children who are given a choice of their religion.
    This has been a norm of most societies from day 1. Religion switching
    is a new thing. In the past, the average person simply became the
    religion of his/her parents. And maybe switched if the spouse's wasn't
    compatible... and some didn't switch.
    
    I think Catholicism is abhorrent. But I wouldn't condemn anyone for
    practicing it, and I wouldn't prevent parents from teaching it to their
    children, or requiring that they follow the doctrines, even though I
    think it can do terrible damage to a child. In the same way, I think
    the images of hell and damnation are far too crippling on a child's
    psyche. But I wouldn't keep parents who are fundamentalist from raising
    their children that way.
    
    Christian Science is not a "mainstream" religion. And that's part of
    why its getting so much flack. If it had a following of, maybe 10-20%
    of the nation, people would accept it. And if some parents decided that
    modern medicine was NOT what they wanted to subject their kids to, we'd
    be accepting it. And sometimes the kids would die. The nation would go
    on.
    
    I swear, this seems STUPID. The Twitchells made a mistake in judgement.
    They did not purposefully beat the child, put burn marks on him, send
    him to a labor camp, or anything else that shows a lack of love. They
    loved their child and they put their trust in God and the child died.
    
    If no one in the nation is allowed to put their trust in God, and their
    child's life in His hands, then why do we have "in God we trust"
    stamped all over our money???
    
    At least maybe THEY believe that the kid is in heaven. I hope no one
    tries to take that idea away from them.

    re .35
    
    I think .36 has provided an excellent response to this, and my thanks.
    
    In addition, what is implied when saying that the child was not
    presented with a choice is that parents should not provide *any*
    religious teaching to their children until the children are old enough
    to decide if they want it.  However, choosing not to practice any
    religion is also a religious choice.  This leads to the conclusion that
    the only religion which a parent may teach a child, until that child
    reaches some arbitrary age, is the state religion of non-religiosity. 
    I'm sorry, but for me, that simply doesn't compute; it becomes the
    state-mandated religion which the First Amendment specifically enjoins.
    
    Further, my son has since made the decision *not* to be a Christian
    Scientist.  I respect his choice and provide medical care when
    appropriate.  As a small infant and toddler, when he had a problem I
    chose to treat it spiritually.  I'm very, very grateful that I am not
    having to make the decisions about his care in today's atmosphere.
    
    
    re .34, and others who are having trouble with the 'medical care is an
    ok choice' aspect.......
    
    No member of the Christian Science Church will be excommunicated for
    deciding at a particular point to seek medical treatment rather than
    spiritual treatment.  However, you probably won't be admitted as a
    member if medical treatment is your first choice most (or all) of the
    time.  The expectation is that as your understanding of God and your
    relationship with Him grows, there will be fewer and fewer instances
    when you feel the need to seek medical counsel.
    
    The case for me is a First Amendment case, because the ability to
    actively practice the tenets of my faith in caring for my loved ones is
    at risk.
    
    Alison

    While I agree that most children have little choice in picking
    religion, there are often passage rites that usher full responsibility.
    Catholics have Confirmation.  A Jew isn't expected to be fully
    responsible in practicing the religion until after Bar/Bat Mitzvah.
    
    If the Twitchells' son had been raised as a Christian Scientist
    until a point where he counsciously agreed to not seek medical
    attention, that would have been another story all together.  He
    never got the chance to decide whether or not he would freely practice
    the religion.  Does a parent's right to freedom of religion mean
    that a child must be denied the freedom of choice?  That sounds
    awfully close to labelling children as property.

    re: .37
    
    p.s. I'm not trying to imply that children should not presented
    with religious options by their parents, but if any religion has
    an extreme end of interpretation, then that choice should not be
    made for the child unless the child implies a desire to practice
    the religion that way.
    
    Example from the Talmud:
    
    Rabbai Shamai believe in an absolute, strict interpretation of the
    Yom Kippur fast...to the point that although his young children
    were not required (ie -- they could if they wanted to) to fast,
     he would not allow anyone in his house, including the non-Jewish
    servants, to prepare them food.
    
    Rabbai Hillel thought that was ridiculous and made his children some lunch
    even though he was fasting.
                                                                   
    Hillel followed his religion strictly, but he didn't force his children
    to follow the extreme interpretation when they were too young to
    decide whether or not they wanted to.
    
    That's the aspect that I am questioning.
    
    Daniel

    
    
    no informed decision = no consent 
    
    that's why statutory rape is rape instead of sex.
    
    - daniel

    re .40
    Thanks for expounding on what I tried to say earlier. If the Twitchells
    did indeed avail themselves of medical "things" (for lack of a better
    word) in the case of root canals, eye glasses and pain killers, they
    clearly should do so for their children.
    

    re .40
    Well said.  That summed it up for me, too.
    
    Nancy

    Just a few thoughts. I have a good friend who was raised "in Science",
    and I did extensive reading in the religion for quite a while. I don't
    agree with all of the theses of C.S., but:
    
    1. Children raised in Christian Science are no less healthy overall
    than other children.
    
    2. Making Western Medicine a god, or a standard by which all other
    healing is measured, is a Big Mistake. 
    
    3. Parents whose children die under medical treatment are not accused
    of manslaughter. Neither are medical doctors, when children die under
    their care.
    
    4. While Scientists are free to choose medical care, I believe they
    must then end Scientific care (prayer). They can do one or the other,
    but not both. (This is belief, not religious law, I think) If you are
    a Christian Scientist born-and-bred, you would probably opt for
    prayer, as that has been proved to be the most efficacious.
    
    5. Christian Science works. It works at least as well as medical
    treatment, and if you aren't going to arrest parents whose kids die
    under medical treatment, you shouldn't arrest those who rely on
    treatment that's been proven, time and time again, to work.
    
    6. The problem is that Christian Science isn't a mainstream religion,
    and I wonder how much some mainstream churches feel about a church
    whose doctrine relys so totally on The Diety and the student of the
    religion to "work it". 
    
    7. There are parents who *really abuse their kids. They beat 'em up.
    They throw 'em down the stairs. They burn 'em with cigarettes. They
    kill 'em with blows. And the state of Massachusetts goes after 2
    sincere people who [*gasp*] PRAYed for their kid and followed their
    religion. Fer crissakes. Go after some *real* criminals, ok? THEN when
    you have all THEM cleaned up, talk to me about the Twitchells.
    
     

    What are people allowed to force upon non-consenting parties in
    the name of religion?  (again, my equation is no informed decision
    means no consent)
    
    daniel

    Are you serious?  Parent's can basically do *anything* they want to
    kids in the name of religion or otherwise.  Lets start with
    circumcision...

>    Are you serious?  Parent's can basically do *anything* they want to
>    kids in the name of religion or otherwise.  

Yup.  Which was the root of my "Little People" note a while back.

Legally, children cannot "consent" to *anything*!!!

If you take this to it's logical conclusion, either nothing can be done to 
children and they can't do anything (absurd) or the law must allow non-
consensual activities to happen with children.

D!

.45>    What are people allowed to force upon non-consenting parties in
.45>    the name of religion?  (again, my equation is no informed decision
.45>    means no consent)

    Statements you've made earlier in this discussion lead me to believe
    that that question is filtered through your own religion and the value 
    system it teaches.

    If one believes in God, then I don't think that any consent is
    required to be under God's control.  From this perspective, you've
    go the question all wrong - for most religious parents, it is not a matter
    of *forcing* religion on their children but of *teaching* it - much
    as they also teach their children to eat with flatware.  The "informed
    decision" part comes much later - once the child is old enough to
    make an "informed decision", s/he can decide to discard those teachings.

    In asking this question rhetorically, and using terms like "non-consenting
    parties", aren't you forcing your value system on others?

	Sharon

re .44:  Where did you get those statistics?  From CS literature?

Last December my 10 year old son was diagnosed with a bowel obstruction and was
hospitalized for a week.  It was a **very** serious condition.

Michael's symptoms resembled the flu, and our past parenting experience led us
to believe that his treatment should be for the flu.  When there was no
improvement 3 days later and a fever had developed, I took him to the Ped.  His
own doctor thought it was a virus...then suspected appendicitis...and finally,
after hospitalizing him and performing extensive tests and X-Rays (which took
over 24 hours to complete), a diagnosis for a severe bowel obstruction was
rendered.  I point this out because many of the notes entered here imply that a
bowel obstruction is a minor ailment.  I assure you, from personal experience,
it is not always easy to diagnose and even from the onset, is not always minor.

I just wanted to state that it is possible for a caring parent not to be aware
for a few days that their child is or can become seriously ill.  Perhaps if I
had taken my son to the doctor earlier, an enema would have resolved his
condition too.  It was a very painful and uncomfortable experience for him - my
son - during his week long hospital stay.

Previous notes suggested that the father had been quoted as saying had he been
aware of the seriousness of his child's illness, he would have sought medical
attention.  I guess, I have to wonder if these parents simply made an error in
judgement.  Perhaps they truly did not realize the seriousness of their child's
condition, and therefore sought a healing through their traditional spiritual
beliefs.  If this is the case, any judgements society places on this couple
will be minor compared to the pain and personal tragedy they will experience
the rest of their lives.  Although, I suppose my 2 cents worth doesn't really
address the larger legal and moral issues presented here ... there does appear
to be a legal precendence established based on this particular case.  How
tragic for parents everywhere if indeed this sorrowful incident was a result of
error in judgement by concerned and caring parents.  I think it always boils
down to a judgement call as to when we finally make that "decision" to take our
child to the doctor.  I'm very concerned that this particular incident will
somehow take on the same classification as "child abuse."
 
Oh, btw, even older children aren't necessarily able to make  decisions in
their best interest concerning medical treatment.  My son didn't want to go to
the doctor.  Good thing I didn't listen to him!  

    
    Medicine has a basis in science, the systematic experimental objective
    search for truth by means of study of cause and effect.
    
    Religion, by definition, is most assuredly not science. Therefore,
    "Christian Science" is not a scientific discipline capable of finding
    facts of any sort, but rather a faith excercise. 

    in re .51
    
    but there have been many many cases documented by doctors
    of people whose diseases 'mysteriously got better'.
    
    A good friend of mine, not a religious person at all, told
    me that in her research into her own cancer she found medical
    articles that freely admited that people who prayed had a better
    survival rate than people who didn't.
    
    Scientists do not know everything, there are, as Hamlet said
    'there are truths that you and I do not know, Horatio' sorry
    that was paraphrased....I couldn't find my shakespeare quickly
    
    BJ

>    Are you serious? Parent's can basically do *anything* they want to
>    kids in the name of religion or otherwise.
    
     Understood.  That's why I'm not particularly thrilled about the
    parents having children observe the *extreme* end of a religion's
    interpretation at such a young age.  Many western religions do not
    require full participation from children until a certain age --
    despite my general grudge against organized religion, it seems that
    it can be a way to allow children to participate by their own choice
    after some odd years of exposure, but not necessarilly full
    participation
    
    re: .48  I was drawing on examples of other authority-based religions
    to make a point that toddlers aren't in a position to actively make
    decisions to fully participate, and therefore need some guarantee
    that their parents' freedom of religion won't impeed *their* freedom
    of religion as well.  Yes, I used examples with which I am familiar,
    but I'm not trying to say one religion's system is better than another:
    I'm trying to say that the child needs the same freedom of religious
    choice and depth of participation granted to the parents.  
    
    People keep talking about the Twitchells' freedom of religion --
    what about their son's?
    
    -- daniel

    
    Perhaps "freedom of religion" as a concept needs some expansion here?
    I'd say it's fine and dandy as long as it doesn't include the freedom
    to impose the religion on anyone else, and that includes children.
    
    Dorian

    re .48
    
    Concerning requiring consent to be under God's control.
    
    Western Judeo-Christian tradition is at least in part based upon
    the concept of free will.  The tradition states that God created
    humans because the angels were too perfect, had no choice but to
    praise God.  The Western deity wanted people to *choose* to worship,
    to come to the faith by their free will.
    
    So, yes, the Western tradition (of which Christian Science is a
    part) has a concept of people choosing to worship God.  (of course,
    they also say that if you *don't*...oh well, that's a coercive power
    structure for you...)
    
    daniel

    re. 51 
    
    I couldn't agree more.  
    
    re. 52
    
    The mind-body link is quite real.  Look at what the mind-set of stress 
    does to the physical body.  But there is no magic here.  Ones thoughts
    and feelings are bio-chemically based.  They can be changed by drugs.  
    Medical science or science of any field has taken us from the dark ages
    into the 20th century where you search for the truth.  You find out how
    something works, you test it, repeat it and repeat it again.  Then you
    test it some more.  If it happens over and over again you may have found
    a physical law.  I don't know how these laws work or why or even who made
    them, but I do know that if I do the same thing again I can predict what 
    the result will be.  This is science.  

    
    rule of science to keep in mind:  a correaltion does not inecessarily
    imply causality.

    
    re.52
    
    I do believe that there is a link betwwen mind and body,
    but I think it has to be the mind and body of the same being.
    I think it is difficult to tell a toddler to cure his own ailment
    with faith and mental images. I don't believe praying for someone
    else's sickness helps if that someone else is not convinced that
    he or she will get better.
    I personally don't believe in miracles, but I do believe that our
    mind has a lot more power than we know of now.
    
    Eva.

    Re .50: Thanks for your note; I'd been wondering the same thing. If
    the parents hadn't been Christian Scientists, would the outcome have
    been the same? Would the parents have been charged at all?
    
    I'm not saying they shouldn't have been charged - or convicted - since
    I don't know the details; it sounds like one of the judgement calls
    that the jury system is supposed to provide for, so the jury can figure
    out if there was "reasonable" evidence that the kid needed a doctor.
    But I do feel that, under the circumstances, the parents' religious
    beliefs had very little to do with this particular case, other than to
    provide the Media Circus of the Month.
    
    Had the parents believed the child was in danger of his life, knew that
    doctors claimed they could save him, and chose not to take that course
    - then the issue would clearly be their beliefs vs. the risk to the
    child. [Which returns us to the current discussion.]
    
    -b

    
>    Medicine has a basis in science, the systematic experimental objective
>    search for truth by means of study of cause and effect.
>    
>    Religion, by definition, is most assuredly not science. Therefore,
>    "Christian Science" is not a scientific discipline capable of finding
>    facts of any sort, but rather a faith excercise. 

	Be careful of what you say about what medicine is based upon.

	In another note it has been pointed out that most medical
	studies were done on "white male" samples so for people other
	than "white males" there may not be any truth in medicine.

	And by the way I have know a number of "scientist" who religion
	is science, by definition - does that mean that religion can
	not be science by science can be religion???  This sounds to
	me like a value judgement based upon personal background.

	Life is an excercise in faith.

	_peggy

From Ellen Goodman's column "Healing: Faith vs. Reason" in yesterday's 
Boston Globe...


"...at bottom, this case...stirs up the old debate between science and 
religion...

"And however open-minded our post-modern attitudes are toward healing, 
however skeptical we are toward doctors, when we act as a society in the 
courts or legislatures, we have to distinguish between prayer and 
penicillin.

"Faith and reason may both have their place in healing, but not the same 
place. The state must remain neutral between religions, defending 
everyone's right to believe. But that doesn't mean it must remain neutral 
between 'treatments,' as if spiritual healing and science were equal 
options for curing a bowel obstruction.

"Believing in laetrile doesn't make it cure cancer. Rejecting the germ 
theory doesn't make it less a fact. We cannot equate a church practitioner 
with a surgeon any more than we can equate the story of creation with the 
theory of evolution.

"So we come down to the hard facts. To sympathize with the Twitchells is a 
natural human emotion. But to side with them in the 'treatment' of their 
son is to abandon both Robyn and reason."
    

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
	Hamlet, I, v, 166

    
    As my wife pointed out, parents are the guardians of their children;
    parents do NOT "own" their children.  Thus, parents do not have the
    right to impose a life-threatening religious belief on another human
    being.  Since these parents did, leading to the death of the child,
    they are then liable for the consequences of failing in their
    guardianship of that child.
    

    re: .64   just to add some balance. :-)
    
    It is tale told by an idiot, full
    Of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    
    	      -- MacBeth
                 

    I didn't get all the facts....but I was extremely upset over the fact\
    that the child was screaming and throwing up what he threw up...and to
    be honest that child should have been taken to a hospital
    quickly...believe me I wouldn't wait....
    
    and then on the other hand I thought about this....what happened if
    they did bring there child to a hospital and because they had no
    insurance a doctor wouldn't see them....and then the child died...would
    the hospital been taken to court for manslaughter charges????  with
    emergency rooms closing down and not accepting people without health
    insurance it just made me wonder....
    
    anyway just a thought....
    
    --bs
    

    Going back to what Bonnie brought up: There are spontaneous remissions
    of medical conditions such as cancer. They have been documented. I
    don't believe it happens more to those who pray over those who don't.
    It does seem to be connected to a positive mental attitude. I can't
    remember the guy's name but there is someone who advocates humor as a
    curing agent. Folks with positive attitudes seem to recover faster.

    I remember meeting my first Christian Scientist at the cancer
    treatment center where I worked in Denver. He had a tumor on the side
    of his neck so large he carried his head bent completely to the side.
    His church had been praying for him to no avail and finally his wife
    forced him to come in. It was way too late of course. We worked with
    him several months to reduce the tumor and relieve pain but he died. Of
    course, many of our patients eventually died of their disease. Even
    science has not defeated many types of cancer. We could have saved him
    though, he had one of the "curable" ones. I can never discuss christian
    science without seeing his face. liesl
    

    When little Robyn vomited severely, it may have been the end. At that
    point it may have been too late. Who knows? I mean did the lad vomit
    intestine and feces days before he died?
    
    Also, there have been times when I have opted not to take my young'ns
    to the doctor. It is not unusual for a baby to spike a temp of 104 F.
    If one of my children had convulsed, would I have been arrested for
    neglect? 
    
    Where's the intent? The malace? The neglect? They did not think he was
    going to die. They treated him the way they thought was best for him.
    They should have been found innocent.
    
    It seems as though some people think that when something horrible hap-
    pens someone must be punished. That is not my understanding of the law.
    
    Kate 
    

    
    
    Prince vs. Massachusetts
    
    1948  Supreme Court -- quoted from the majority opinion:
    
    "The right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty
    to expose the community or a child to communicable disease, or the
    latter to ill health, or death...Parents may be free to become martyrs
    themselves.  But it does not follow that they are free..to make
    martyrs of their children."
    
    RE: .74  As was stated before, there are many crimes in which intent
    is not a major factor.  If it had been thought that the Twitchells
    acted with intent to kill their child, they would have been charged
    with first degree murder.  They were charged and found guilty of
    involuntary manslaughter which is considered even less intentional
    than regular manslaughter.  Without any intent or desire to cause
    harm, they were judged directly responsible for the death of their
    child.  The fact that there was no intent to harm means that they
    were not guilty of murder per se, but of a lesser crime.
    
    daniel

    
    
   
   >  The fact that there was no intent to harm means that they
   >  were not guilty of murder per se, but of a lesser crime.
   > 
   > daniel
    Daniel
    
    I disagree with your interpretation, Daniel. If there is no intent
    there must be negligence in order for a crime to have been committed.
    I believe there was none. Reasonable care was taken, in THEIR eyes.
    
    Kate
    
    P.S. I'm afraid were going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
         Thanks for your input. It has been thought provoking.

>I'm afraid were going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
     ^^^^^^
    
    I always wonder why the language uses that word for friendly
    disagreement? :-)  I've enjoyed exchanging viewpoints too -- thatnks
    for starting the string!
    
    Daniel