Faith

State Wins Custody of Christian Couple‘s Girl Amid Concerns Over ’Faith Healing’

The Oregon Department of Human Services won custody Tuesday of a 10-month-old Oregon City child facing blindness in one eye.

The girl’s parents, Timothy and Rebecca Wyland, believe in faith healing and are facing a trial in January on charges of failing to provide adequate care.

According to The Oregonian, the state has had temporary custody of Alayna Wyland since July. She was initially placed in foster care, but last month the state allowed her to return to the Wyland home under a court order that requires close medical supervision.

Tuesday’s ruling by Clackamas County Circuit Judge Douglas V. Van Dyk means the Wylands must continue to comply with a mandated treatment plan, and gives the state the power to act on the child’s behalf should the parents neglect treatment.

The girl, whose parents belong to the Followers of Christ in Oregon City, suffers from hemangioma — an abnormal buildup of blood vessels — that pushed her left eyeball outward and down. Her eye was covered for months and the lack of light and stimulation left her nearly blind.

The Oregonian reports that medicine is shrinking the mass and on-going therapy may improve vision, however recovery is not guaranteed and the girl’s outcome is uncertain.

The Wylands are charged with first-degree criminal mistreatment and face a trial in January. In that trial, the couple’s attorneys are expected to make the case about religious freedom.

John Neidig, an attorney representing Rebecca Wyland, accused DHS of persecuting the Wylands and “trampling” on their religious rights. “If these people had been Jewish, Catholic … even Muslim, DHS would have treated them in a different fashion,” he told The Oregonian.

But Van Dyk said there was no evidence of discrimination.

“It is unhelpful to this case to point fingers,” Van Dyk said. “It is not a church that is before this court. It is the Wylands.”

View the full story from The Oregonian.

UPDATE:

The Wylands are not the only members of their church, known for shunning medical treatment, to face charges. According to FOX-12 in Portland, another couple, Dale and Shannon Hickman, were charged in August with second-degree manslaughter. Police say the couple failed to medically treat their premature son.

Before the Wyland case, the Hickmans were the third couple identified as members of the Followers of Christ Church to face criminal charges in the death of a child during the past two years.

Fox reports that the state medical examiner’s office estimates that in the past 30 years, more than 20 children of church members have died of preventable or curable conditions.

After being charged for their son’s murders, the judge agreed to reduce the couple’s bail if they agreed to take their 6-year-old daughter to the doctor when she gets sick:

Comments (163)

1 2 3
  • Only1King
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:04am

    I want the parents to have to foot the bill when he gets older and wants to have the healthcare system foot the bill for expensive fixit sururys and if he then wants Dissability because he cant see and so on and so forth.
    While I don’t agree that the state has the right to tell you how to raise your family I do believe there should be no safety net for when the consequences come.
    If your child dies of starvation because you think God will magically feed him You go to prison same as if the child dies because of any other treatable “add what you want here”

    Report Post » Only1King  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:33am

      Would you if asked give a willing donation to help? If not, why not? Do you think Jesusd would turn his back on them?

      Report Post »  
  • 2GodBeTheGlory
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:59am

    For those that have said “God helps those that help themselves” – you are wrong. God does not say that, it’s not in the Bible, and goes against the Christian belief that you are to follow God’s will, not your own – no matter what the circumstance. If his will is for you to get thrown into a furnace…. Rely on God, not yourself, for by man’s sin nature we ourselves cannot steer our course true.

    Now, for those that say “faith heals”, absolutely, however, what was Luke? Jesus never put down doctors, or told people to not see doctors, he said to follow God. Does one exclude the other?

    Report Post » 2GodBeTheGlory  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 11:14am

      These people are led to believe that one DOES exclude the other….which is fine for ADULTS to determine their own beliefs. This child DOES NOT know yet what to believe but yet the parents would subject her to the conditions of their belief system and injure their own child in the process.
      RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS NO EXCUSE FOR CHILD ABUSE!!!

      Report Post »  
  • EqualJustice
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:58am

    Modern medicine should be considered a GIFT from God! With his love and guidance, medicine has stopped much suffering. The parents should have gone for medical help. Then they could have made the best decision for their child’s well being. IMHO The state should NOT take children in these situations, but they should work with the parents to educate them on other options to ensure the child gets the best care possible. There is a fine line between parental rights and what is best for the child. Who should decide? In MOST cases, the parents. But, children should not be neglected or abused, so it is the responsibility of all other adults in the community to protect them, NOT control them.

    Report Post » EqualJustice  
  • Deutscher
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:48am

    As an agnostic it all looks super simple to me. There is no evidence that prayer has any effect on outcomes. As for medical miracles, they occur in a very small population of patients all over the world regardless of thier faith. Not taking someone ( ESP a child) to get medical treatment is cruelty.

    Join whatever church you want. If you want to believe in the great pumpkin, then happy Halloween. But it should not give you the right to make anyone else ( even your child ) adhere to your made-up rules.

    Report Post »  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:38am

      Sorry but there are studies that show a significant difference in healing when faith is used. Can this PROVE that faith made the difference? NO unless we can measure the elctircal currents and other effects of prayer. Studies do show that the attitude a patient brings to the situation often helps in the healing. Faith brings HOPE which IMO does help in healing.

      Sure you can deny these scientific studies and stay in your comfort zone as an agnostic. Personally, I have more respect for an athiest than an agnostiic (FENCESITTER)

      Report Post »  
    • BrittBB
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:58pm

      Your comment saddens me. Up until a year and a half ago I never lent much credence to prayer and the power it could have over lives. I’ve witnessed with my own eyes how prayer can heal medically: A man I know had been a heroin addict for 34 years and in the midst of his addiction contracted Hep C. After he got clean he got married and when his wife started talking about having kids he knew he had to tell her. He stumbled into a church confided in the preacher about his fears and the preacher began to prayer for him to be healed of the Hepatitis. He went to the doctor and was tested and there was no Hep C nor antibodies to show prior presence of it in his body. His primary physician told him there was no explanation. Now he has a daughter and no Hep C.
      A man I know attempted suicide last year by taking a bottle of tylenol ( i think). His family was told he may not wake up and if he did he may never walk and the damage to his liver would be unavoidable. Our entire church prayed for him and that weekend he woke up with no medical explanation to why he had no effects from the tylenol.

      Report Post »  
  • RobertCA
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:32am

    This is a disturbing report :
    ” Fox reports that the state medical examiner’s office estimates that in the past 30 years, more than 20 children of church members have died of preventable or curable conditions. ”

    Robert .

    Report Post » Robert-CA  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:40am

      A Christian believes that the BEST judge of human actions is Jesus Christ. There will be a ressurection. There will be a final judgement. Keep the state out of it. IF you don’t then you must vagree that the State is better than GO in righeteous judgement.

      Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 11:10am

      CONTRARIANTHINKER: Again you operate from a false analogy….You insist that it must be “either/or” without any room to think. Using your logic, then medical must be forbidden since it’s all just the “will of God”. Are you attempting to Speak for God????

      Report Post »  
  • john seven eighteen
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:28am

    @Nostra – Sorry, but that is an absurd argument. As a parent you are REQUIRED to “control” (make proper decisions for) your children when they are unable to make them for themselves. This child obviously cannot make it’s own decision to seek treatment so it is the responsibility of the parents to make the decision for the child. There comes a point where it is obvious that prayer alone is not working, like when her eyball is falling out of her face, and the parents have a duty to seek treatment for the child. IT DOES NOT MEAN that they can no longer pray for the heath and recovery of their child, it just means they need medical help to facilitate the healing. Apparently, they can‘t or won’t come to that conclusion on their own. If it was someone in my family I would bust their butt and make them get the help, but since this is not happening in this case SOMEONE needs to look out for the child. I’m just sorry it had to be the state. But we all have to make sacrifices, don’t we?,

    Report Post » john seven eighteen  
  • Conservative Grinch
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:27am

    I have to admit this one tough case to call. But, I think the little girl deserves Medicare. However it is counter productive for the State of Oregon to charge the Wylands with first-degree criminal mistreatment. Under the condition that the Wylands continual medical treatment for their daughter and complies with the Judge’s orders requiring treatment I think the State of Oregon should drop the charges against the Wylands.

    But, if the State of Oregon continues to proceeds with those trumped up charges of first-degree criminal mistreatment. Who knows what that is. It sounds awfully vague. Then, the Wylands are fully justified in fleeing the State of Oregon and / or the United States of America with their children to flee tyranny.

    I’d say flee to Utah but the inhabitants are little too brainwashed into accepting the bitter fruits of tyranny over the prospect of a little anarchy. God forbid somebody should stand up to a bully or tyrant. It would breech the peace and violence might occur. If you consider cowering in fear in the face of tyranny peace.

    Report Post »  
  • luka_qnice
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:24am

    This is just sad. I mean most comments. It is clear that in this case parents are wrong. You can’t just respect any believe people have. I have no respect for most of Taliban’s believes. You don’t ask parents if you can save a child if they throw it in a river. Child is not their parents, who knows what he or she believes or will believe. I mean you argue against abortion this way, don’t you. What if, for her religious believes, some mother decides to abort a child. Is that OK. Whoever can help this child, should. Even state! Sometimes parents don‘t know what is best for their child’s health, doctors do! At least most of the time (almost always). I’m sorry to say but some of you seem to be religious nuts.

    Report Post »  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:44am

      Luka, unless you‘ve seen the miracles of healing that I’ve seen and had done under my hands as a Priesthood holder, I can understand your post. See my other remarks so as NOT to miscontrue my pisition. As Glenn says, seek to develop faith, trust and hope.

      Report Post »  
    • WhiteFang
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 6:50pm

      Religious rights are one thing, but this is a matter of PARENTAL RIGHTS. Do parents have the right to choose medical treatment for their children or not? If they do not have the right to choose, then parents have no rights at all, the government does. Is that what parents want to accept?

      Report Post » WhiteFang  
  • bobby535
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:14am

    I have mixed feelings about this. But here is the one thing that gets to me. Abortion is okay, making medical decisions not okay.

    Report Post »  
  • Brandywine
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:01am

    “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

    Report Post »  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:54am

      I 100% agree but you‘ve opened a can of worms for many that say that works aren’t important as an adjunct to grace. Many try to ignore the teachings of that scripture.

      Report Post »  
  • JamesWest
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:58am

    As I see it, there are 2 issues here: 1) is the state overstepping its authority?, and 2) are these parents being responsible?

    It is one thing to say you are refusing treatment because the side effects outweigh the potential benefits. This I believe is the argument used by those who don’t want to undergo chemotherapy. If the Wylands were using this argument I could have some sympathy for them. But to argue “religious freedom”? COME ON NOW!

    What if someone asked a parent, “how did your child lose his hand”, and the parent replied, “he kept stealing things and after nothing else worked, we had no choice but to remove the part of his body that was causing him to sin. It’s in the Bible, you know”.

    Would you defend them on the basis of religious freedom? If not… what’s the difference between these 2 cases? In one the parents removed a hand and in the other they are willing to let a girl lose her eye; other than that the principles are the same.

    To quote Bill O’Reilly, “am I wrong”? :-)

    Report Post »  
  • jfreak13713
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:45am

    Freedom of Religion is very important part of life in America and I’m a born again Christian myself with very conservative beliefs. However, this is a child who is not able to speak for him or herself regarding medical matters. Christianity is faith by choice not force. God does not force himself on us nor should we as parents force our form of religion on our children especially when it involves medical issues. The parents should have taken the child to the doctor. If you want to believe in faith healing with no medical assistance that’s fine I’ll support you, but not a child. You gave that child no choice!

    Report Post »  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:57am

      Exactly. The very same argument holds for NOT giving the emerging child NO choice when abortions are performed.

      Report Post »  
  • toongoon
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:43am

    danyelle55
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:35am

    Exactly

    Report Post »  
  • toongoon
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:38am

    The state is ultimately going to take over all of our healthcare decisions. When Obama and Sebelious and rest of czars decide what they are or aren’t going ration to you, the people will be trusting in Lord just as this family is doing. The state won’t give a crap about you then. Remember representative Greyson saying “the replublicans want you to die quickly”? It is only the democrats who want ration healthcare blaming republicans when they are the ones doing the corruption , Greyson was doing what democrats do; . The price of Obamacare is deadly, the stimulus was peanuts.

    Report Post »  
  • danyelle55
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:35am

    I find it peculiar that lack of medical treatment for religious reasons is neglect, but lack of medical treatment for reasons of government rationing is completely legal.

    Report Post »  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:58am

      Wow, did you hit the nail on the head!!!! Thank you.

      Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:59am

      It would help the discussion if you remained on topic and didn’t try to bring irrelevant subjects into it.
      Rationing is a POLITICAL problem and has nothing to do with what we’re discussing here.

      Report Post »  
  • kamin
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:34am

    God does do miracles and sometimes uses doctors and medicine in doing so.

    Report Post »  
  • Amerigo Vespucci
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:30am

    This is a tough one for me. If the parents intentionally neglect medical treatment that would clearly help the child, then the state has a responsibility to step in and provide assistance for their citizen. I say “clearly help” because in this case, medical intervention will clearly help. If for example, the child had a wound that was infected and cleaning it out would resolve the problem, but the parents instead chose to pray for God to clean it out and stop the infection, I think we would all agree that would be misguided. God does not mandate that we suffer if we can help ourselves.

    Report Post » Amerigo Vespucci  
  • Psychosis
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:20am

    this never makes sense to me………….didnt God also help man to understand science, nad put those people on earth to help you? why is it they have a hard time doing both……..trusting God AND science? I think the state should step in, allow the child to get care, teach the parents better, and then give the kid back. ( wish there was a middle ground, and common sense on both sides of this arguement

    Report Post » Psychosis  
    • danyelle55
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:41am

      I agree, but this is our religion. Does someone else not have the right to believe differently?

      There is an argument here for religious freedom, but also an argument for the limits of legal practice of religious freedom and where that line is. Is it now law that we cannot make our own medical decisions and that of our children?

      I know it is illegal to practice a religious suicide bombing, but is it illegal to make your family’s medical decisions based on religious beliefs? I don’t know.

      Report Post »  
    • knitgirl113
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:58am

      To Danyelle55 – this is not religion, this is a cult.

      There is a place for both faith and medicine. God works through prayers, physicians and natural treatment. I don’t think this is about religion; it’s about negligent parents who are using their religion for attention. Seems the church as a whole uses this “belief” for attention. Since this church has several dead childrens‘ blood on it’s hands, I think it‘s safe to say that Jesus wouldn’t approve of their practices; since children hold a particularly special place in the Kingdom of God and he gives them to us to love, protect, and raise as followers of Him. These people aren’t Christians, they‘re misguided and what they’ve done to their daughter is criminal. They should stand trial and allow a jury of their peers to decide. I have faith in the common people of Oregon to come to the right decision. I agree with another comment that stated that when a child dies because of the negligence of parents, we cry foul and ask why the State didn’t do anything to stop it. But, if the State does try to step in, we get our panties all in a bunch. This is not a case of religious freedom.

      Report Post »  
    • moriarty70
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:20am

      @danyelle55

      I think someones rights stop right when they cause willful harm to another person. This kid is too young to have decided their faith, or tell mom and dad “This is stupid, you pray all you want, I’m grabing the bus to the hospital.” Considering that, someone needs to speak on behalf of the child and any reasonable person would say get the treatment.

      Like I said, someones rights are valid as long as they cause noone else harm. You can’t kill someone and hide behind freedom of religion, and if these parents were allowed to behave this way, how long before the kid died of something?

      Report Post » moriarty70  
  • caitlynsdad
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:19am

    Once again, it’s no longer Father Knows Best. It’s State Knows Best. This is not a case of the parents being unattentive to the well-being of their child; it’s a case of a disagreement between the parents and the nanny state about how best to be attentive. The State did not conceive the child; the State did not carry the child in some bureaucratic womb for nine months; the State cannot possibly give the child a parent’s love–the State has no emotion toward the child; it only has a will to power over every possible decision an individual can make, including in matters of their deepest convictions, and is using an innocent child as a pawn in that battle. And it when it comes to the decisions that a parent makes in behalf of the child it loves, that is intolerable. Since I too believe in the power of prayer, I will be praying for the parents and the child to be reunited, somehow, someway. As far as the State is concerned, however, it can go to Hell.

    Report Post » caitlynsdad  
    • Brandywine
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:48am

      So, if a “church” believes that knocking children upside the head on a monthly basis drives devils out of them, should we allow that too?

      I am all for limited government, but one of government’s legitimate roles is to protect its citizenry from enemies both foreign and domestic. Sometimes, like it or not, a child’s worst enemy can indeed be its parent. I don’t care what religion you belong to, if you don‘t believe in accessing some sort of medical care for your children you’re derelict in your parental duties and in extreme cases such as this yes your children should be removed from you. It’s basic neglect. The fact that anyone thinks it’s alright to allow a child to go blind, no matter what the reason, is shocking to me. I love the Lord and would be storming Heaven‘s Gate with prayers if this were my child but I’d also be storming the doors of every eye specialist as well.

      Religious freedom is not carte blanche to medically neglect your children. Period.

      Report Post »  
    • john seven eighteen
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:59am

      Very well said, indeed, Brandywine!

      Report Post » john seven eighteen  
    • caitlynsdad
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:22am

      Brandywine, no one’s knocking a child upside the head here, and no religion that I’m aware of teaches that, so the attempt to use that example as if it were somehow germane to this dispute is nonsensical. Look, if this were my child, I’d be giving it all the medical attention possible, and I generally think that this couple’s religious views on this matter are stupid, but that view should not be forced on parents if their religion teaches them something different–when it comes to removing a child from the custody and authority of its parents, that should be done only in the absolute gravest of circumstances. Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses generally receive legal exemptions when it comes to refusing medical care. This is not a case where there is criminal intent to harm the child. Hemangioma, from what I have been able to find out, is not life-threatening, and 1994 Oregon law (also from what I have been able to find out) only covers cases where there’s a risk of criminally negligent homicide, which even then parents have the ability to claim lack of medical knowledge, and they can also use belief in faith healing as a defense.

      Report Post » caitlynsdad  
    • Brandywine
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:16am

      Caitlynsdad, my example was clearly offered as a hypothetical to drive home my point. If you find it nonsensical that’s your opinion, but people have often wrongly used the Bible and other books of faith to justify child abuse. There have been cults out West where girls have been forced into polygymous marriages–that is NOT a hypothetical. Is that okay, because we have to respect religious freedom? Does that fall into your “gravest of circumstances?”

      Religions within the United States of America must still operate within the confines of the law. Yes, some exemptions for some groups have been made. But generally speaking the law does not allow you to neglect your children. I have heard the “slippery-slope” argument being tossed about and honestly, I do see a concern there. But one can argue that there should be proper concern on both sides–it‘s important that the state not trample on people’s religious freedom (as long as their practices are within the law) and that religious freedom not be used to justify whatever behavior they see fit. If we start saying you can excuse everything through religious freedom than you can toss our system of jurisprudence out the window. Exactly where that line should be drawn is a tricky question, but I‘m fine with drawing it where we don’t allow a child to go blind.

      Report Post »  
    • gobluebuckeye
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:25am

      I tend to have a real problem with the government taking children for any reason, outside of physical abuse. So you can abort a living being according to the state with no problem, but if you dare expect God to heal your child the state can take them away, over my dead body.

      People wake up, dont you think the state has a little too much power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Report Post » gobluebuckeye  
    • caitlynsdad
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:34am

      @Brandywine
      I understand your examples, and I know they happen and are not just hypotheticals, I just think they‘re not applicable to what’s going on in this particular case. Of course forcing a child into polygamy is a case where the state should step in, but this story has nothing to do with polygamy. I don‘t think it’s child abuse here, where the dispute is over a medical decision that a parent is making on behalf of a minor child, and I don’t think that that is any business of the state. (Oh, I’m sure examples could be given of where it would be, but I don’t think this is the one.) I would counsel the parents emphatically to get medical care for their child, but removing the child from the parents’ custody or mandating that they make some particular medical decision that the State thinks best, is going too far.

      Report Post » caitlynsdad  
    • Brandywine
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:37am

      Baby starved to death because it was “God’s will.” This was a huge story in Southern New England a few years ago.

      http://www.neirr.org/AttleboroHistoryNew.htm

      Report Post »  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:52am

      Brandywine and Carlyn; Your dialogues is a perfect EXAMPLE of what we all should be doing here on the Blaze. It is both thoughtful and respectful. THANK YOU.

      Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:52am

      You should have read the article. The child IS with her parents again but the State is also monitoring the medical treatment which the parents refused to give. Once again, the parents refused to consider the RIGHTS OF THE CHILD to live with good health. Their own beliefs trumped the health of their own child and the State stepped in to protect those GOD GIVEN RIGHTS of the child. When a child is being obviously abused, it is the duty of the State to protect the child from that abuse, and in this case the proper solution was done.

      Report Post »  
    • caitlynsdad
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 11:07am

      @Schwehr
      Just for clarification, I did read the article and was confused, because the headline said “state wins custody” but the story itself said the state was merely mandating the medical treatment. That’s why I phrased my sentence this way: “removing the child from the parents’ custody OR mandating that they make some particular medical decision,” since it accomodates both possibilities. And I’ll reiterate that I stand by my statement that this is not abuse but a medical decision; a minor has no rights to make medical decisions for him or herself–that belongs to the parents. Even if we give the authority to the state, that’s still a tacit admission of the same thing.

      Report Post » caitlynsdad  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 7:55pm

      A parent’s right to make decisions affecting their child can’t be so absolute that it amounts to the child having absolutely no rights of her own. Letting a kids go blind for the rest of her life is abuse in my book.

      Report Post »  
    • caitlynsdad
      Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:36am

      @Chet
      I do agree that the child should receive medical care. It’s interesting, though, that the story doesn’t say the State asked what the child wanted. It‘s merely asserting its right to overrule the decision of the parents merely because it thinks it’s decision is superior. That’s a bad precedent.

      Report Post » caitlynsdad  
  • GeeWhiz
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:18am

    If you believe in God and that he made everything, he’s the one that gave us the power to learn and discern. He’s the one that would have given us science in the first place. To not use his gifts of those big old brains of ours is wrong.

    Have medical treatment AND pray, but you don’t just stand there praying for relief on behalf of another person that you are responsible for, while doing absolutely nothing. The child is at the mercy of her parents and thus are legally and morally culpable. Hemanigomas are treatable and they should have gotten her medical treatment.

    State is correct in this case.

    Report Post »  
    • twreck
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:56am

      Geewhiz,

      I agree that in this case the state is right based on the available info, however, where does the state have the authority to force the parents to get treatment for their child? I am not familiar with Oregon’s state Constitution so I mean that as a question. I do know that the federal gov’t has zero authority in a situation like this so at least the Feds are getting involved in this one.

      Aside from the legality in that particular state, what concerns me with a state forcing these parents to get their kid treatment is where does it stop? It appears that in this case they are neglecting proven treatment for the condition and depending on faith healing, however, I don’t believe that medical treatment and healing from God are mutually exclusive necessarily. The problem is that if the state maintains the authority to force the parents to get their child treatment against their will because the treatment is proven what will stop the state from forcing parents to treat their kid for the next propogandized epidemic like the Swine Flu and the vaccine that was rushed to market?

      The Swine Flu vaccine was one that I passed on because it appeared to have been rushed to market and I would rather others be the guinea pigs instead of me. Had people been dropping like flies from the Swine Flu I might have made a different decision but the decision would be based on my logic and reasoning. I waffled back and forth on whether to give the shot to my 9 month old daughter. My feeling that the virus was being overblown as well as my reservations on the vaccine led me to decline to get the shot and if I came down with the virus then I would have to suffer the consequences of my decision; however, I had to make a decision on whether to give my daughter the shot as she was unable to make her own decision.

      It was a very difficult decision particularly because her age group was one of the most vulnerable groups to the virus. In the end, I did not give her the vaccine for the swine flu and fortunately it has turned out okay but the big point here is if the state can make these parents get treatment for their child what is to keep the state from forcing me to get treatment or vaccines that I’m not comfortable with such as the swine flu? I understand that most schools require you to get certain vaccines etc to go to school but you also have the choice to home school your kids (for now anyways). Also, the vaccines that are required are for viruses and other things that have been around for years and the effects of the vaccines have been monitored with years of observation where the swine flu vaccine was not regardless of how similar they say it is to the regular flu vaccine. Where does the states authority stop in these situations?

      Report Post »  
    • FieryRed
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:09am

      Exactly GeeWhiz~ I like the story of the guy that went sailing one day and a storm arose and caused his ship to sink. The guy managed to find a piece of the ship to hold on to and floated in the ocean for a day or so when he began to pray and ask God to save him. The guy was thinking that an angel or a fish (something supernatural) would carry him safely to shore. The next day a cargo ship came near him, saw him, and attempted to rescue him, but he refused. Hours later, another ship (cruise) spotted him in the water and tried to rescue him, but he turned them down as well. The next day, sharks began circling around him and he was near death as another ship came by, but he still refused help because he was still believing God to save him. After he died, he went to heaven and stood before the throne of God and asked him, “Why didn’t you answer my prayer for help and save me when I was floating in the ocean”? God replied,”I tried to. I sent three ships to rescue you and you turned each one down”.
      The moral of the story……. God uses the natural world that we live in for answers to prayer just as he does the supernatural.

      Report Post » FieryRed  
    • Chett
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:24am

      Well if the state can make this choice and force it, next they will tell you what you can eat or not …its a slippery slope and we have to draw a line. I believe in doctors – sorta – but this should be your own choice.

      Report Post »  
    • GeeWhiz
      Posted on October 18, 2010 at 11:10am

      Her eyeball was sitting on her cheek, I think that the correct response is pretty clear when permanent blindness WILL be the result of lack of treatment. Not a maybe but a certainty.

      With H1N1 vax, there is no current disease but only the risk of disease. With this case, there is a clear and obvious serious problem that doesn’t have time to waste before the inevitable tragedy happens.

      As to the other poster with regards to their belief system, that’s fine and dandy if YOU are refusing treatment as a competant adult. This is about a completely vulnerable INFANT that is not competant to make decisions about her own care, but is having a parental opinion forced upon her by her parents. Two entirely different things.

      You are free to accept or refuse medical care as an adult. But when you’re talking about a baby, you have been given a serious responsiblity to care for your child and to do those things on behalf of that child, until such time the child is old enough to take on those repsonbilities for themselves.

      Here’s a test with regards to that: If you are faced with a problem with your child that will result in permanent disability if you do not act, then it’s immoral and unethical not to treat that child with known science.

      This one isn’t iffy, this isn’t situational. The child would indeed be permanently blinded from a delay in treatment. A total no brainer to me.

      I don’t see how those parents have any conscience at all. This is where I part ways with ‘believers’. If you think that God thinks that you‘re just supposed to sit there in the middle of the freeway saying ’God will protect me, heal me, or save me’ then that is just ridiculous. God gave us the power to discern or to say it in an old fashioned way ‘use the brains that the good Lord gave you’ and act accordingly.

      He also gave us free, hoping that we do the right thing. We’re supposed to act on that and do the right thing.

      The wrong thing is to sit there again on that highway and wait to get squished like a bug going ‘I believe I believe’, when the right thing is to get off of your butt and run for safety. Most especially if you’re sitting there with your baby in your arms…

      If you do not have a sense of protection over that child like the sense of protection that God has over you as his child, then you’re missing the entire point. We’re not supposed to act like unthinking children in life.

      ” When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. “

      Report Post »  
  • Silo13
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:17am

    God can do miracles – especially using DOCTORS as His instrument!

    What a travesty it would be to this little girl, and to God, if she lost her sight.
    Parents, please, take her to the doctor, and PRAY at the SAME TIME she heals fully.

    This is like someone standing in front of a train praying God will stop the train.
    God from above is shouting ‘Sure, keep praying, but RUN while you’re at it!’

    peace and prayers for this little girls safe and full recovery

    Report Post » Silo13  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:32am

      FYI, one the members of the 12 Apostles of the Mormon Church was a world renowned heart surgeon until he gave up the pracitice to serve God full-time. He has given many talks that show how medical science and faith healing work together; they are not an either/or situtaion. He has testified many times that as he did very delicate surgury, he could feel God guiding his hands and thoughts. Since he has the Priesthood of God, he likely used that to bless the patient who asked for it. God and man working side by side will work miracles.

      Report Post »  
  • truth4at
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:15am

    How sad!! A friend of my family‘s had cancer once and the state took her family to court because they didn’t want to do chemo. Her family did natural diet treatments, and we all prayed for her. Her family did win the court case, and now my friend is a singer, wife, and mother in her 30s. (she was 12 when she had cancer)

    Report Post » Karen DeSimone  
    • DagneyT
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:20am

      Praise God!

      Report Post » DagneyT  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:33am

      Your friend is very LUCKY that the cancer went into spontanious remission….it just wasn’t here time yet…

      Report Post »  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 11:07am

      C. it may have been mostly because of the blessing that the cancer went into remission. I’ve seen this happen many times as well as happening under my hands as a Priesthood holder. That said, these people were under scientific medical treatment or diagnosed with cancer and about to start treatment.

      Bottom line… The will of God rules supreme. When I annoit with consecrated oil and lay my hands upon a person’ head (exactly as done in the NT), I seek to speak ONLY the will of God as it is relayed to me through the the Holy Ghost. I always close my bllessing with . (1) according to the person’s faith, (2) according to the person‘s success and honest intent at keeping God’s commandments, and that it is the will of God. Finally I do all this in the name of Jesus Christ. Believe me, it’s a awesome responsibilty.

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:26pm

      That’s not even a remotely similar case. A twelve year old is much more capable of making an informed decision about her own treatment than a ten month old, and there is a big difference between an alternate treatment which is endorsed by some doctors and no treatment. I think this judge made the right decision in a difficult case balancing the rights of parents against the rights of a child who is not old enough to decide on her own treatment or her own religion.

      Report Post »  
  • americansfightingforcommonsense
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:08am

    This is a sad situation for this family. I believe in the healing power of God, but I also believe that you should use the knowledge and skills of the proper physicians surrounding you. There is no reason that you can’t do both.

    Report Post » americansfightingforcommonsense  
    • truth4at
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:18am

      same here. Like I said, I’ve seen God work with out medicine, but He can also work THROUGH medicine

      Karen DeSimone  
  • DagneyT
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:04am

    God can do more for this child than the state! Prayers going out for her and her parents!

    Report Post » DagneyT  
    • snowleopard3200
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:08am

      Amen, when the little guy or gal is stepped on by the state, the loss is to everyone. Yet what is not possible for man is with God.

      May he shepard the family in peace and safety, and heal their girl with the might of His works, with the spirit of mercy unbound and abundance of His love displayed for all to behold.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:24am

      Interesting, but it seems that most here are forgeting one little thing….THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD!
      Yes, the parents have the right and ability to let themselves die from any disease they might personally incur, but the child in question (or ANY child for that matter) has no say on the subject as they are not, and cannot be capable of making an informed choice on the matter of their own health.
      The location of the problem is irrelevant (except to those who will use it as an excuse to justify their belief that neglecting this or any child is a “Godly” thing to do). And yes miracles do happen. But the concept that God will spontaniously heal that which is obviously NOT going to go way is ABUSE due to that religious belief. God works in mysterious ways…But God also works through his PEOPLE to heal the sick, and lame too!
      In this case, the State was correct in stepping in to stop this obvious abuse of a child. And if you noted in the article, they did not take the child away permanently but restored her to her parents with stipulations she will receive PROPER medical care to attempt to repair that which her parents REFUSED to do.
      People here are upset about those on the extreme left who are currently ruining the government, and extremists who are killing our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan….So why is religious EXTREMISM of this sort acceptable while all others forms are not. Extremism of ANY form is not acceptable!

      Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:36am

      Snowleopard: he did heal the child….using the hands of a doctor!

      Report Post »  
    • dusanmal
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 11:44am

      @c.schwehr You are correct as far as existing laws are in question. Larger question brought up by this and similar cases is: are those laws appropriate? Do they take more of our liberties away? Could they be abused? On these points we probably disagree.
      In my opinion laws should protect children from active abuse by parents – beatings, molestation,… However, all upbringing choices must be left to the parents without meddling at their own peril. Without such limitation parents simply lose right to ANY parenting choices (because some particular type of choice may be treated unfavorably by some future or this administration). Feeding, schooling, medical choices, … must all be unaffected by the current administration (or majority of people) opinion.
      In this particular case you (and state of Oregon) may think that child suffers more without treatment. Parents may think child would suffer (in spiritual way) more if treated. Violating which one is the violation of the “children rights”? “Consensus” in old China was that it is good for girl feet to be bound. Parents who haven’t been doing that were considered as doing harm to the child. Not to mention female genital mutilation in Africa… In those communities you are assumed bad parent making poor health decision if you do not do so. Community should never, ever have any rights to judge children upbringing choices. Parents, to their own peril and their progeny peril are the ones to decide.

      Report Post » dusanmal  
    • angrymob
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 1:24pm

      God can do more for the child than the state…TRUE – but I think GOD would like her parents to let her receive medical help. Isn‘t denying a person medical treatment a violation of the child’s right to life? I think the parents are being irresponsible.

      Report Post » angrymob  
  • snowleopard3200
    Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:03am

    Well, here we go again, with the government of oregon assuming they know what is in the best interests of the children in place of the parents. The attorny, Mr Neidig seems to be right in that if they had been Jewish, Catholic, or Muslim they would be left alone but the state indeed is treating these folks as if they were true criminals.

    Miracles of faith do happen, yet I have to remember that this is the state that Dr Death practiced in for a time, and if I remember correctly they almost passed the assisted suicide legislation a few years ago (may be wrong on this part.)

    http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm (mixed art)

    Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • john seven eighteen
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:32am

      I have to admit, I am shocked at the responses i’ve seen on this topic. Why is it when the state fails to step in and rescue an endangered child before the child dies a cruel death at the hands of it’s parents we blame the state and yell, sue, sue, sue, but in this case (even though if left untreated the child may suffer permanent loss of sight and who knows how much pain) you want to blame the state for stepping end to ensure the child gets proper treatment? You can’t have it both ways, this is clearly a case of child abuse to ignore the problem and hope it goes away on it’s own. Yet if one of the parents was suffering the same fate you can bet your @## they would seek treatment immediately!

      Report Post » john seven eighteen  
    • john seven eighteen
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:41am

      correction – “…stepping in…”

      Report Post » john seven eighteen  
    • danyelle55
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:43am

      I guess the real question here is, is it now illegal to make our own medical decisions for ourselves and our family? Are we willing to put it in print? If not, they have broken no law.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:50am

      The parents should definitely go with the “God help those who help themselves” Biblical concept.

      jzs  
    • john seven eighteen
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:05am

      @Danyelle55, I’m assuming there is a point where you, yourself, would go against your own argument. What if the child had a third leg sticking out of it’s abdomen or something similar, and if it was your child, would you seek treatment to remove the leg or pray that it disappears on its own?

      Report Post » john seven eighteen  
    • Nostraquedeo
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:09am

      It’s thier child not mine. I don’t want people telling me how to raise my children. Someday people will tell you that “everyone else agrees” you must (insert disagreabale idea here) for your child. Then we will see how you like the nany state. You can disagree with people but you can’t control people.

      Report Post »  
    • VanGrungy
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:11am

      There’s making decisions… then there is doing nothing…
      The Parents are doing nothing…
      God helps those who help themselves… Since a baby can’t help itself, the parents need to help the baby.. “Even a miracle needs a hand”

      Report Post » VanGrungy  
    • Polwatcher
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:11am

      I would give this story better credance if it were any other state except Oregon, where death is taken lightly for certain categories of people.

      Report Post »  
    • rlmeals
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:27am

      @JOHN: I do get mad when the state doesn’t step in to protect children, but those circumstances are usually cases of neglect and abuse. I can’t identify exactly what I think about this issue, but here are my arguments.

      On the one hand, easily treatable medical conditions that are untreated seems stupid to me. I don’t agree with faith healing in the sense that medical treatment is not allowed and we should just pray. I feel God has provided many things for us to take care of ourselves, including the practice of medicine.

      On the other hand, what right does the state have to tell someone who has a religious objection to medicine how to raise their child? If we the people give them an inch, how far will they take it? The H1N1 vaccine was very controversial, and even though I do vaccinate my children, I refused to give them this one. That’s MY choice as a parent. Can you imagine the state marching into my house (or into the school when I’m not there) and taking my child and forcing them to be vaccinated, while prosecuting me for child abuse or neglect?

      This is a slippery slope (sorry for the cliche). So I’m leaning towards the idea that these people have a right to decide what medical treatments to give/not give to their child. I may not agree with it, but hey, that’s America. I’m sad for the child, but they are not beating her, burning her with cigarettes, or locking her in a closet. That is a totally different circumstance. Maybe the state should just stay out of this one.

      Report Post » rlmeals  
    • john seven eighteen
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:48am

      @RLMEALS – You make a very lucid, no-nonsense argument. However, I think the point of dispute (in this case) is the point of neglect of the parents. In my opinion, the child probably is suffering great discomfort, if not severe pain, with the condition of her eye. The pressure, alone, must be very stressful. So do we, as a society, continue to look the other direction because it is none of our business and let the child suffer unnecessarily or should we, as a society, take action to ensure the child’s safety and health? I absolutely abhor government intrusion in our lives, but a certain amount of government intrusuion is actually inherent to the success of a democratic society.

      I think one simply needs to read this sentence to understand that this church and its members are misguided in their beliefs and, worse, endangering their own children unnecessarily. “Fox reports that the state medical examiner’s office estimates that in the past 30 years, more than 20 children of church members have died of preventable or curable conditions.

      Report Post » john seven eighteen  
    • Jezreel
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 9:54am

      That man’s saying, “God helps those who help themselves” is not in the bible. God helps the weak and the helpless and those who don’t deserve to be helped, he helps.
      There was a child with parents belonging to this church a good while back that died because of their lack of wisdom concerning their child, the child died so the state must be keeping an eye on the members of that group.

      Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:30am

      Actually, no. The State is stepping in where the parents are very OBVIOUSLY not providing easily obtainable medical care for their daughter. The religion card is being thrown in this case, but in reality is irrelevant. If this was a jewish or islamist couple I would still call for the abuse of this child to be stopped. And if the child is forced to suffer with other serious treatable conditions then the State should have the right to permanently remove the child from it’s abusive parents.
      This is NOT a case of religious persecution….this is a case wherein the RIGHTS OF THE CHILD are being ignored by the parents. PERIOD!

      Report Post »  
    • Huckabee Gingrich 12
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:34am

      @RLMEALS
      Your vaccination comparison is apples to oranges, therefore intellectually dishonest.

      Stories like these remind me of the comparison of the man trapped in a flood. A boat and a helicopter arrive to rescue him, but he rejects their help, stating that God will eventually rescue him. When he finally drowns and meets the Lord, he asks why He didn’t rescue him. The Lord answers “I sent a boat and a helicopter.”

      Report Post » Huckabee Gingrich 12  
    • rlmeals
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:40am

      @JOHN: I do agree with you. I just struggle with where to draw the line with state intervention. As I said before, I’m still undecided myself as to whether this was right or wrong. But let’s look at one thing you said: “this church and its members are misguided in their beliefs and, worse, endangering their own children unnecessarily.” Although I may agree with you on this statement, what happens when the state uses this same argument against Christians, Jews, or someone else?

      I get it…I truly do. I get that this child is in pain. But with any illness, there may be side affects of medication, or a percentage of people suffer certain reactions to a medical treatment, or there is risk from anesthesia for this procedure. I know this is a little different, but I don’t trust those marxists in government to use common sense when deciding when and when not to intervene.

      Does this make sense? How much power do we give them? If they can step in here, how far will they go? This is their faith, their religion. Who are we or the government to say which religion is and isn’t allowed to freely practice their beliefs? Do we outlaw those snake handing people? Oh, it’s too dangerous, they are putting the children in danger by having snakes on the premises. Fill in the blank with any religious practice you want. If it’s different or unconventional, it seems to be okay to condemn; but then the conventional starts to become under fire, too.

      I appreciate your intellectual and polite debate, and I guess I’m not disagreeing with you as much as trying to get us thinking about other possibilities. Playing “devil’s advocate”, if you will.

      Report Post » rlmeals  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:41am

      Danyelle55: It is legal for an ADULT to make decisions concerning their own health. It is NEVER legal to neglect a child by withholding treatments that will save a child from obvious harm. That is considered to be CHILD ABUSE by every state in the union.
      This extremist sect has allowed the deaths of TWENTY CHILDREN over the years because of their beliefs when available medical care would have prevented it. These people are extremists and extremism is NEVER a good thing!

      Report Post »  
    • Contrarianthinker
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:46am

      Why isn’t the state stepping in with rights of child on ABORTION? I guess because that emerging child has NO rights? That is a sad position to take.

      Report Post »  
    • DanB
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 10:53am

      @john seven eighteen
      Are you part of a religion? Christian? Muslim? Jew? I have no clue.

      Here is my thought. Most of us will agree that it is terrible what they were letting happen because of their faith. But what happens to your freedom of religion when you take away theirs? Will you be taking custody of children from the Amish next? And if you can take the care of children away from their parents, does that not also mean you can take the care of the elderly away from the children? And if you can mandate care to the children, and deny care to the elderly, can you next enforce abortions for the malformed fetus? If you can mandate care, deny care, force abortions, can you then enforce euthanasia for those with incurable and costly health conditions? Where do you start and where do stop on this slippery slope? And if you can deny or enforce all these decisions, could you then force any and all religions to preach that there is no God and that evolution is how life began on the earth? It is often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions….

      Report Post »  
    • john seven eighteen
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 11:32am

      @RLMEALS – Thank you, I love respecful debate without all the intolerance of others’ opinions. I don’t know all the answers either. I think this is like the freedom of speech argument: you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater of joke about a bomb in an airport. There are limits. Here too, perhaps.

      @DanB – I am a Christian, but I am am, steadfastly, not a blind follower of any one religion, faith, idea, trend, point of view or political persuasion. I am very much my own person. As I stated already, I do not want government interference in our lives any more than absolutely necessary, but I honestly don’t understand your argument. Why is it a religious argument? We are asuming that the Oregon state government knew the parents were Christian, or even that they cared at all, but what difference does that make? There had to be something that brought this case to their attention and they acted on it. Maybe it was because of the church’s prior history, or perhaps a neighbor or family member, out of compassion and concern, reported the case to the authorities. I am quite certain the government (even in Oregon) doesn‘t check a person or family’s religious affiliations before deciding whether or not to act on belhalf of an ailing child.

      Report Post » john seven eighteen  
    • cdavehere
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 11:43am

      What would George Washington think about this? Would he think it is a valid reason for our Government to step in. I am having trouble seperating emotion from reason on this. This is a moral question that transcends time. Whose morals count more.

      Report Post »  
    • DanB
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:28pm

      Here’s a little truth. I did a quick online search of the condition, including the Mayo Clinic website. Yes, her eyesight in that eye would have been damaged. But I learned that this condition is usually NOT considered a threat and NOT treated except in cases like the eye above and typically DISAPPEARS by no later than age 10. Sheds a whole new light for me on this case. The only thing the government was saving was her partial vision….

      From Mayo Clinic site:
      “The majority of hemangiomas never need any form of treatment….Doctors, however, may be hesitant to treat a hemangioma that isn’t causing physical problems because hemangiomas usually fade gradually without treatment, and because treatments have potential side effects. If the growth interferes with your child’s vision or causes other problems, treatment options may include….”

      Report Post »  
    • Republic Under God
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:37pm

      @ john seven eighteen

      I agree with your stance on this particular case. BUT, I have a strong desire to know and have articulated by the state exactly where this line will be drawn. Now with regard to this specific case, I will admit my ignorance in the child’s condition and the alternative treatments. It sounds serious and doing nothing is a crime. But I suppose if i believed my child’s eternal soul were at stake with regard to this decision, I‘d sacrifice the kid’s eye. I just wouldn’t be duped into something so absurd. This case reminds me of the joke where the man is in a flood, and as it rises three different people come to him offering him escape from the deadly flood and he refuses them all saying htat THE LORD will save him. When he drowns and goes to Heaven, confronts God about not saving him and God is like i sent those three people.. you told them no. (I am not actually telling the joke just recapping it I CAN BE FUNNY)

      THAT HAVING BEEN SAID:

      My concern is for people like me who refuse to deal with a lot of “modern” medicine. I mean how many different drugs a year do we see class action lawsuits for? ACUTANE anyone? The FDA is in bed with Pharma interests and Food interets.

      How many drugs do we see made to prevent something basic like congestion and have possible side-effects that include suicidal tendencies?

      There was a case within the last 2 years where parents of a child with cancer refused to try Kemo (Chemo?) therapy. An alarming number of cancer patients who undergo Kemo therapy and die do not die fromt he cancer, but mal nutrition. Kemo is a drug cocktail that is like chucking a grenade into your body, destroying the good (your cells) and the bad (cancer cells). It destroys quality of life. The parents were seeking alternate treatments. The state took custody of the kid and forced them to have the child undergo Kemo.

      But if I believe/know that the treatment is harmful to my kid and don’t want to subject my kid to the poison just because it is the mainstream and most commonly accepted way to treat someone. This is a huge overstep and this is PRE-OBAMACARE Gov’t Healthcare power.

      I also would not allow my (with RARE exception) to take anti-biotics. They destroy the natural balance of bacteria in the intenstines (which make up about 80% of our immune system). There are plenty of natural anticeptics ranging from Oreganol (Research oil of Oregano) to Garlic and Honey.

      High Fructose Corn Syrup is permitted in food, so is MSG… I mean MSG is a known neurotoxin. Aspartame is still allowed to be in sweetners despite the links to MS. Sucralose (Splenda) is known to cause liver damae due to certain reactions in your digestive system. It has a strong reaction with the acid in our digestive system. This is why you tend to have diarreah when you eat too much Sucralose-laiden foods. But it‘s FDA approved it can’t be bad for us. Mainstream Science has become VERY controled and unhealthy Americans are VERY profitable (healthcare industry didn’t miss a beat this whole recession).

      I always worry about the potential. I worry about that Overton Window nudging over more and more to the point where it crosses lines we forgot to draw.

      Sorry this is all garbled and disorganized, I am doing this post in bits and pieces when I am not busy. :)

      Report Post » Republic Under God  
    • Ammonihah
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 4:20pm

      God rarely does for man what man can do for himself. We do what we can, and he makes up the difference. If this were not true, God would do everything for us and we would be brain dead, dysfunctional idiots that can do nothing on our own. Sort of like socialists. No, these parents should have done every thing in their power to help the child and then depend on God to make up the difference.

      Report Post »  
    • WhiteFang
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 5:38pm

      Republic Under God, Thank you for your post,
      This is a very important subject we all are talking about. It involves our freedom of choice as parents. If we cannot choose what treatment we want for our children then we have no parental rights. Nazi Germany took children away from their parents to indoctrinate them to State. One step leads to another. If you allow the government to take your child, you have no parental rights. Do we accept that future?

      Report Post » WhiteFang  
    • StuckInTheDesert
      Posted on October 14, 2010 at 7:22pm

      I‘m going to give you a what I hope is a good ’libertarian’ christian point of view. The freedom and right to religious freedom stops at the right of the child not to be neglected and abused. Obviously, the parents in this particular ‘Christian’ sect faith is lacking because their faith healings aren’t happening. I happen to believe that our Savior happens to work within the confines of modern medicine and uses it to our benefit. That is the real miracle and we should be grateful that we have it and that the Lord gave it to us. I was extremely grateful when I had cancer and the Lord and modern medicine seen fit to cure me. SO… I think these parent are out and out idiots personally and the CHILDREN have a right to decent medical care.

      Report Post »  
    • galeann
      Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:50am

      Add your comments

      Report Post »  
    • eaglescout1998
      Posted on October 15, 2010 at 5:30am

      There is an old saying (I’m paraphrasing) about God helping those that help themselves.

      Report Post » eaglescout1998  
    • briar t
      Posted on October 15, 2010 at 7:53am

      I see nothing wrong with praying to God to guide the doctors hand and give he or she the knowlege to heal this child

      Report Post » briar t  
    • danyelle55
      Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:43am

      I think an important distinction needs to be made about intention and causation.

      The first thing, it is not the lack of treatment that is causing the illness, it is disease itself. If the parents were found guilty of causing the illness through germ warfare or poisoning, this would be completely different, but it is not.

      The second is the intention of the parents. The parents think they are doing what is best for their child. They are not doing nothing. They are praying. One man‘s religion is always considered another man’s cult. Do you not think that Christianity itself is considered a cult by many? The intention of these parents is not malicious. Just as in defining ‘torture’ committed by our government, they must have the intention of causing pain to be found guilty of torture, no matter the result of the action. The intention of these parents is not to harm, although it may result in further harm be not preventing more pain and illness through disease.

      We need to realize that these are their children, not ours. They are doing what they feel is best for their child. We do not agree, obviously, but do we have the right to intervene?

      There have been cases where families are convinced of the merits of alternative treatment vs. the poisons of conventional medicine and have done much research to come to their conclusions, and due to the judgment of governments are stripped of their freedom to make that choice. Are you supporting the government’s right to take your child away when you are convinced that what you are doing is best for your child and you are a sane human being, completely capable of rational thought, but just disagree with the majority position?

      Not to mention, when the government withholds treatment with the full malicious intention of allowing you to die under the guise of rationing, it is completely legal!!!

      I find it peculiar that lack of medical treatment for religious reasons is neglect, but lack of medical treatment for reasons of government rationing is completely legal.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love