Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 12
In many jurisdictions the classification of stillborn for an infant who has not taken a breath
preempted investigation of individuals involved in unattended deliveries, including
unlicensed midwives.
The legal requirements for care of infants who have begun breathing are also inadequate in
some states. One Indiana jury acquitted parents who let their 9-hour-old, preterm infant die
without medical help. The judge instructed the jury that state law did not require the
parents to obtain hospitalization until the infant had stopped breathing. Because survival
after out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest of infants is generally poor, such a law
effectively obviates a duty to provide care.
In 1983, the federal government removed religious exemptions from federal mandate,
allowing states to repeal them. The well-organized lobbying of exemption supporters,
however, has defeating most repeal efforts. Today only five states, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Hawaii, have no exemptions either to civil abuse
and neglect charges or criminal charges. The law and politics of this issue are discussed
extensively elsewhere.9,10,19-21
Twenty-six percent of the deaths in this study have occurred since 1988, when the
American Academy of Pediatrics first called for elimination of religious exemption laws11 and
several years after the federal government began allowing repeal. Excluding the Faith
Assembly in which high reported maternal and child death rates declined after some
prosecutions and the death of its charismatic leaders, 35% of the fatalities in this sample
occurred from 1988 to 1995, 38% of the study period. Thus, it seems that this form of
preventable child mortality continues unchecked.
From our observation, religious exemption laws promote the assumption that parents have
the right to withhold necessary medical care from their children on religious grounds.
Mandated reporters have been discouraged from contacting authorities or are unaware of
their obligations and of means for state intervention. State agencies have sometimes
hesitated to act on reports they do receive. Whereas Christian Science church leaders
advise members in Britain and Canada to obey laws requiring medical care of sick children
23,24 ,they have advised US members that the laws allow them to withhold medical care.
Several Pentecostal clergy and parents have also claimed that exemption laws confer the
right to deny medical care to children.27
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, National District
Attorneys Association, and National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse, among
others, have adopted policy statements calling for the complete repeal of religious
exemptions in child abuse and neglect and criminal statutes.28-31 The children of members
of faith-healing sects deserve the same protections under the law as other children have.
We believe that the repeal of exemption laws is a necessary step toward assuring such
protection and should be accomplished before hundreds more children suffer needlessly and
die prematurely.
References
1. Barrett S, Jarvis WT. The health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America. NY:
Prometheus Books. 1993
2. Levin JS. Religion and health: is there an association, is it valid, and is it causal? Soc Sci
Med. 1994 38:1475-1482
3. Marwick D. Should physicians prescribe prayer for health? Spiritual aspects of well-being
considered. JAMA. 1995 173: 1561-1562
4. Skolnick A. Christian Scientists claim healing efficacy equal if not superior to that of
medicine. JAMA. 1990 264:1379-1381
In many jurisdictions the classification of stillborn for an infant who has not taken a breath
preempted investigation of individuals involved in unattended deliveries, including
unlicensed midwives.
The legal requirements for care of infants who have begun breathing are also inadequate in
some states. One Indiana jury acquitted parents who let their 9-hour-old, preterm infant die
without medical help. The judge instructed the jury that state law did not require the
parents to obtain hospitalization until the infant had stopped breathing. Because survival
after out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest of infants is generally poor, such a law
effectively obviates a duty to provide care.
In 1983, the federal government removed religious exemptions from federal mandate,
allowing states to repeal them. The well-organized lobbying of exemption supporters,
however, has defeating most repeal efforts. Today only five states, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Hawaii, have no exemptions either to civil abuse
and neglect charges or criminal charges. The law and politics of this issue are discussed
extensively elsewhere.9,10,19-21
Twenty-six percent of the deaths in this study have occurred since 1988, when the
American Academy of Pediatrics first called for elimination of religious exemption laws11 and
several years after the federal government began allowing repeal. Excluding the Faith
Assembly in which high reported maternal and child death rates declined after some
prosecutions and the death of its charismatic leaders, 35% of the fatalities in this sample
occurred from 1988 to 1995, 38% of the study period. Thus, it seems that this form of
preventable child mortality continues unchecked.
From our observation, religious exemption laws promote the assumption that parents have
the right to withhold necessary medical care from their children on religious grounds.
Mandated reporters have been discouraged from contacting authorities or are unaware of
their obligations and of means for state intervention. State agencies have sometimes
hesitated to act on reports they do receive. Whereas Christian Science church leaders
advise members in Britain and Canada to obey laws requiring medical care of sick children
23,24 ,they have advised US members that the laws allow them to withhold medical care.
Several Pentecostal clergy and parents have also claimed that exemption laws confer the
right to deny medical care to children.27
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, National District
Attorneys Association, and National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse, among
others, have adopted policy statements calling for the complete repeal of religious
exemptions in child abuse and neglect and criminal statutes.28-31 The children of members
of faith-healing sects deserve the same protections under the law as other children have.
We believe that the repeal of exemption laws is a necessary step toward assuring such
protection and should be accomplished before hundreds more children suffer needlessly and
die prematurely.
References
1. Barrett S, Jarvis WT. The health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America. NY:
Prometheus Books. 1993
2. Levin JS. Religion and health: is there an association, is it valid, and is it causal? Soc Sci
Med. 1994 38:1475-1482
3. Marwick D. Should physicians prescribe prayer for health? Spiritual aspects of well-being
considered. JAMA. 1995 173: 1561-1562
4. Skolnick A. Christian Scientists claim healing efficacy equal if not superior to that of
medicine. JAMA. 1990 264:1379-1381
