the child isnt old enough to pick a religion and i do believe back in the day some Christian Scientists were procecuted for the same reason.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3DA133CF933A15757C0A96F948260

http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/victims.htm

this happens way more than I even thought.


http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_1.html

the religious exemption laws need to be repealed.

I seriously believe,had the parents actually KNOWN of the SERIOUSNESS of the child's condition, they would have rushed their child to the hospital.

The parents even said the child had no fever,and seemed to be feeling better......but then suddenly died.

Point is, they really did not know the seriousness of the child's condition here...so I do not beleive this was intended neglect on the parents behalf.

My heart goes out to the parents during this time of tragic loss and great sorrow....and even though they did not act in wisdom.....and therefore made a terrible mistake.....
still....
I can only imagine the horrible grief they are going thru right now.....
and so therefore, ,my heart and prayers go out to them.....and I cannot nor will not condemn them

Horrible that the child died because the parents chose prayer over medicine.

My prayers for all those who are effected.

Unfortunately depending on the religion the parents are probably protected by the constitution. Seems very unjust.

check this link..she is not the only one sadly.

http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/

http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_1.html

this one is worse because the people got off due to religion exemption laws.

I know when my kid is lethargic and such something is wrong.They turned a blind eye.Sorry but they chose their religious path,the child had no choices and died due to the parents total ignorance.This stuff has got to stop.

No I do make sense.
1. You are condemning them for the death of their child as the result of practicing their religious beliefs.
People die in the defense of beliefs, on a national/worldwide scale its called war. Children die all the time in war, and it is minimized by the perpetrators because they aren't "our' children, i.e, they are black/white, Christian/Muslim,in the genocide in Rwanda in was Tsutsi's vs.s Hutu's the short against the tall.
2. When someone dies in the defense of our country, we call them hero's, they died in defense of our national beliefs, how is someone who died for personal beliefs any less of a hero? They are not, the principle is the same.
3. All diabetics died from the disease 200 years ago because there was no insulin to treat them, men women and children.
4. Yes, Rastafarians get high, they smoke marijuana as part of their religious beliefs, it is illegal in this country to do so. This is a response to the poster who said they can't.

The issue is should the parent's beliefs be "forced" upon the children that can't make their own decisions, and at what point does the state step in to protect these children. We force a culture on our children that is heavily reliant upon the automobile that in the last four years 2002-2006 has caused the death of over 214,000 deaths, in the U.S. alone. According to the World Health Organization, 40 children are killed every hour in automobile accidents around the world.
(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9241595116_eng.pdf)

Yes ,the state has regulations and laws designed to protect and minimize death and injuries to the driver and their passengers, but the fact remains that 40 children are dead every hour of every day. So if you drive you belong to a group that is responsible for the deaths of those children.
How many children died this year in the U.S as the result of parent's religious practices?
How many died in traffic accidents?
If we saved the life of just one child would it be worth it to stop those religious crazies?
If you answered yes, then we should all stop driving immediately.

another no double standard believer (insert thumbs up emoticon here)

you are connecting too many different things trying to make a rational point.

people die for their country because they choose to sign up and do that. a child that dies because their parents picked talking inside their heads our out loud instead of going to a doctor isn't the same thing.

rasta folk do not legally smoke pot, and just fyi a good portion of them done smoke at all. and i can't figure out how you think saying they do it illegaly justifies any point you've made.

adults should be free to go without seat belts, blow their brains out, whatever. a child is not able to completely take care of themselves and it is negligent for the parent to not take steps to secure the childs life and safety.

any time you put your child at risk you are as guilty as those parents

you put them in a car and they get killed you knew that was a possibility when you moved the car

you should be charged with the same crime as those parents

per your logic

there's a risk of dieing every minute of the day. if you secure your child and are a defensive driver, that's about all you can do. those folk did not do everything they could do

who is to say that they may have been given the wrong meds

you nor i know there history

it is not up to use to judge

if it goes to court that is the judges job and the juries is to advise the judge of how they feel he should rule


i just enjoy argueing both sides of an issue so much

i do understand the wrongness of what happened to the child
but altho i feel it is wrong
i do not want the govt coming along and saying you have to
raise your child according to xyz standards

yes the child died and that is a bad thing

do you think the parents are happy about it

maybe it was her time to go no matter what treatment she would have received maybe she would have been killed in a collision on the way to get so called better care (how many lawyer commercials have you seen because of bad meds)

should are money say in doctors we trust

i think not

bad things happen even to good people

it is a shame

but a loss of an inalienable right will not fix it

you give away liberty at what cost

the many emotional arguments that are being presented are very compassionate

but if we use all these arguments then soon when a child is born it will be swept of to some govt housing ward to be raised
******properly*******is that what we want

be careful of your condemnations they just may come back to haunt you

you keep worrying about rights, parents..forgetting the girl who died for their religious delusions.

Luckily there is some justice for her and her siblings:

Parents Indicted in Child's Death After Alleged Faith-Healing

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343789,00.html


OREGON CITY, Ore. — The parents of an Oregon City toddler have been indicted on charges of manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, after their daughter died of what officials are calling medical neglect.

Carl and Raylene Worthington were indicted on Friday. They are members of the Followers of Christ Church, whose members have a history of treating gravely ill children solely via prayer, instead of with medical attention.

After several children whose parents were members of the church died in the 1990s, lawmakers passed new rules striking down legal shields for faith-healing parents.

Since then, there have been no troublesome reports of children's deaths associated with the church, until the case of Ava Worthington, who died March 2 of bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection.

The state medical examiner's office has said that she could have been treated with antibiotics.

Since the new laws took effect in 1999, said child abuse Detective Jeff Green of the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office, "We haven't seen any cases of significant medical neglect ... until now."

Before the law changed, church members who got in traffic accidents would take injured children home, rather than to the hospital, leaving police frustrated but powerless to intervene, Green said.

RelatedStories
Oregon Couple Charged in Daughter's Faith-Healing Death In the two years after the law passed, detectives responded to two cases of sick or injured Followers of Christ children, Green said.

One child had Crohn's disease and the other had a broken arm, which church members had tried to set themselves. In both cases, parents complied without protest when police insisted that they take their children to licensed physicians.

Ava Worthington's parents also lost a baby boy in August 2001, but the death investigation was closed after family members told police the child was stillborn.

Several other Followers of Christ children have also been stillborn or died during home births in recent years, but none of the investigated deaths resulted in criminal charges.

The couple faces sentences of more than six years on the manslaughter charges and up to a year on the mistreatment charges, said Greg Horner, chief deputy district attorney for the county. After surrendering at the jail Friday, they were released on $250,000 bail, he said.

They were to appear at a hearing Monday afternoon.

Horner said he didn't know whether the couple had lawyers. A number listed for the couple was disconnected. "We've been told, 'No comment,' " said a man who answered the phone at the church Monday. He would not identify himself.

The Oregon City church, which is not associated with a mainstream denomination, traces its origins to the faith-healing Pentecostal movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s

Why are there so many posts in this thread?

Look at the facts:

1) It's tragic.
2) The parents screwed up badly

Not much more too it. I guess we can quibble over if their actions were criminal or not, but that should be left up to the courts, don't you think?

And your point is....? having an opinion is useless?

and it happens again:

Faith-healing parents charged in baby's death
15-month-old girl died from untreated infection, authorities say

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/

Usually this happens with people who are either completely psychotic (they don't have so much a religion as hallucinations that happen to take the form of angels or something), or the type of religion often called a cult (where the rules don't come from the Bible, they come from the Exhalted Leader). In cases where they DO claim to have been acting on their interpretation of the Bible, then, IMO, it's *game on*, the Bible becomes evidence in the trial and they have to show where it says not to give sick kids medicine. Might be fun for the prosecutor to ask them what they think of the Gospel of LUKE while he's at it.

because this case has everything in it ...if has faith on trail and wheather faith is delusional, it places the concept of seperation of church and state on trial also child abuse and parents rights etc...

people are always in this forum crying about how everyone should be able to believe what they want to believe or have any belief they choose.. this case shows that kind of thinking in itself is delusional..

if this case goes to trial it will push the debate of religion pass the belief stage {about freaking time}..people will now have to jusify their religious beliefs and the government will have to explain their side about religious beliefs also it may be amusing to watch if the government will have it's witnesses "swear to God" "to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help their God" before they take the stand and give testimony ...and the government will have to show their stance on religion wheather it's all delusional or is there a greater more sinister reason or even an evolutionary reason ...



Earth Wind and Fire said it best .."That's the way of the World" or the religious might say that "it's all part of God's Divine plan"



"Spidercmb" I'm amaze that you are not on the side of the parents ..if the parent's intent was not to hurt the child but actually had faith that God would heal their child then aren't they just practicing and expressing their religious freedom to not take their child to a doctor



taking someone to court because of their religious beliefs in a God that the government approves of just shows another reason why the seperation of church and state is all an illusion

Religion that remains 'unchecked' at the line which separates church and state will undoubtedly have side effects great and small.

Religion that is allowed to permeate the law of the land will be considered part of the civil and social ethics that guide a country. As such, determining when and if, it interferes with other constitutional rights of individuals will not be possible from a pure ethical point of view.

What this means is simple. The government does not have the right to intercede on behalf of a child OR the government does - WHICH IS IT?

To leave a young child locked in a bedroom with no fresh air, and no clean clothes, with only minimal food and water - or none at all is abuse, according to the system. According to the parent it may be the only babysitting option they have. Who are we to interfere?

To the religious (case in hand)the physical agony that was suffered for so long is likewise abuse, in fact its torture, but who are we to interfere?

As a society we have given rights to individuals and in so doing we have taken away the rights of family. The government works from an antiquated set of social characteristics that stems from a time when MEN were responsible for women and children and women and children were nothing but possessions that added to a man's wealth, for over them he had power.

Do we seek to have this same power, by making children the possessions? What of family? WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY. What rights does a family posesses that can defended in a court of law or be upheld in the eyes of society?

No judgements of this case or any other can properly be made until this country detemines just what a family is, their rights as a family and the acceptance of society of very diverse family units. Consider a group home housing various levels of mentally deficient & physically challenged individuals. How many years must they forge their bonds before they are considerd a family? We allow the state to rip and tare apart relationships, in this country, as if they were pieces of paper, with no regard to the matters of the heart or to the rights of those involved.

Either the government CONTROLS how parents or guardians maintain their households or they do not - which is it - WE CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.