These guys kill kids, and now want to get paid to!

[Eos of the Eons]

Health Statistics, a federal agency, estimated in 2004 that more than 2% of the population uses prayer rituals.

Church lobbyists are now asking that the state allow insurance plans to reimburse prayer practitioners, who can charge $20 to $50 for a day's worth of prayer, says Wanda Jane Warmack, the church's legislative manager.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322824482066211.html?mod=2_1566_leftbox

The article oulines the deaths of children every year from getting just this useless "therapy", but now these murderers (anyone who can just watch kids die as they just pray is a murderer in my eyes when there is effective treatment for meningitis and diabetes) want to get paid to let people die? Come on!

A note from someone on the list that posted this item:

The reporter made an error in the below article: 172 was not the total number of child deaths, but just the number Rita Swan and Seth Asser included in their study because there was sufficient information about them.

[CapelDodger]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322824482066211.html?mod=2_1566_leftbox

The article oulines the deaths of children every year from getting just this useless "therapy", but now these murderers (anyone who can just watch kids die as they just pray is a murderer in my eyes when there is effective treatment for meningitis and diabetes) want to get paid to let people die? Come on!

I can't agree with "murderer" (they mean well, after all, however deluded they are), but this is definitely in "religion is child-abuse" territory.

At the root of the matter is the boundary between parental and societal ownership of children. Where does society step in and remove a child from harm? IMO, doctors and social-workers should impose proper treatment (regardless of parental superstition) and be backed up by the forces of society. But that's just my opinion.

[fuelair]

I can't agree with "murderer" (they mean well, after all, however deluded they are), but this is definitely in "religion is child-abuse" territory.

At the root of the matter is the boundary between parental and societal ownership of children. Where does society step in and remove a child from harm? IMO, doctors and social-workers should impose proper treatment (regardless of parental superstition) and be backed up by the forces of society. But that's just my opinion.
Hitler thought he was doing what was right also. Would you give him a pass also? Hate to Godwin this fast - but anytime someone does something wrong because they"believe in it" they need to be stomped on until everyone does the right thing - regardless of whether out of knowledge or out of fear of heavy punishment.

[Showmeproof]

"The case also has frustrated the Church of Christ, Scientist, the main promoter of prayer as therapy, which says a few tragic cases have unfairly tarred a practice that can restore health."

I do not doubt that the practice of prayer has therapeutic value in the sense of offering improvement from minor ailments and symptoms. Of course, prayer being more a thought of suggestion to treat ailments, as opposed to a diety actually making the condition improved. As for major illnesses, prayer won't do much. Things like cancer, MS, heart disease, are only going to respond to prayer to a certain extent. That is, prayer might reduce some symptoms, but it cannot restore health completely. If you have inoperable cancer, no amount of prayer will help.

She is saying a few tragic cases, as if prayer has been a definitive factor in restoring health on many occasions. I am going to assume that if a person is REALLY sick and got better, they were probably taking medicine, with prayer being included. It sounds as though she is saying prayer did all the work, but conveniently forgot that these people were probably taking medicine, which is the real reason they got better. It is hard to determine that "prayer" did the work if the person is also on medication. How can this person not realize that?

I think to this day there is only 5-7 cases which even medical science cannot explain how people got better from incurable diseases (I heard this on the DSC channel. So, don't kill the messenger). If this is the case, I think we can conclude that no amount of prayer will help if the disease is a major one and incurable.

[Showmeproof]

"The church's Christian Science Journal prints monthly testimonies that prayer has wiped away prostate cancer, a breast lump, leukemia and other illnesses."

I am going to assume that these results ARE extremely biased, with tons of other variables not being accounted for.

"Brian Talcott, a practitioner in Berkeley, Calif., says he has seen cases of glaucoma and cataracts disappear."

Hm, that is interesting. It is also interesting that Mr. Talcott is a christian science teacher. Could Mr. Talcott be a product of confirmation bias?

[CapelDodger]

Hitler thought he was doing what was right also. Would you give him a pass also? Hate to Godwin this fast - but anytime someone does something wrong because they"believe in it" they need to be stomped on until everyone does the right thing - regardless of whether out of knowledge or out of fear of heavy punishment.

I'm not giving anyone a pass. The Nazi position was at the extreme, total societal ownership of a child; the opposite extreme is absolute parental ownership. Normal societies operate somewhere in-between. (The Nazi regime survived for just twelve years in a very turbulent century, which is a good measure of its abnormality.)

We should (as a society) intervene when harm is being done, and in the sort of case Eos has brought up the harm is unequivocal. Society should step in more effectively than it does in such cases. Difficulties arise when the definiton of "harm" becomes contentious - harm can come from both ends of the spectrum, after all.

[CapelDodger]

"I am going to assume that these results ARE extremely biased, with tons of other variables not being accounted for.

Always a good approach, IMO.

"Brian Talcott, a practitioner in Berkeley, Calif., says he has seen cases of glaucoma and cataracts disappear."

Hm, that is interesting. It is also interesting that Mr. Talcott is a christian science teacher. Could Mr. Talcott be a product of confirmation bias?

The null hypothesis is that he's the product of Christian parents :).

[geni]

I can't agree with "murderer" (they mean well, after all, however deluded they are), but this is definitely in "religion is child-abuse" territory.

Murder by neglect is a concept that appears in a number of legal systems although not I belive canadian (actualy Quebec might have a related duty to rescue I'm not sure how much french law is left).

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Murder by neglect is a concept that appears in a number of legal systems although not I belive canadian (actualy Quebec might have a related duty to rescue I'm not sure how much french law is left).

I'm not sure what the sentences are for "criminal negligence causing death" and "failure to provide the necessaries of life". But these are laws in Canada. I think(tm) that these at least approach "murder by neglect".

The Napoleonic code would not be relevant as these are part of the Criminal Code of Canada and apply country wide.

[Eos of the Eons]

"The church's Christian Science Journal prints monthly testimonies that prayer has wiped away prostate cancer, a breast lump, leukemia and other illnesses."


Testimonies are anecdotes, and not facts. Anyone can say what they want to with no evidence. So, these guys kill people, say they cure them instead, and want to get paid to get away with it all. This kind of blatant unethical behaviour is murder in my eyes.

[CapelDodger]

Murder by neglect is a concept that appears in a number of legal systems although not I belive canadian (actualy Quebec might have a related duty to rescue I'm not sure how much french law is left).

No doubt, but Eos of the Eons explained the sense it was used in, and it wasn't a legalistic one. I can appreciate the anger it expresses, but to me murder implies both intent and knowing transgression of social norms. Neither applies in the case of deluded believers.

[Eos of the Eons]

Yeah, murder applies to deluded people when they publish unproven (quite possibly made up) stories and play down deaths. They are misleading people and killing people to play up "faith". There's an agenda here, and children are dying for adult ideals that are failing miserably.

Deception. It's unethical. It's murder. It's also intentional. They don't care about the sacrifices that are being made here. Sacrificial murder.

Spreading this delusion to hapless parents is what is killing the children. The article has a parent crying out for this to STOP."Some of the religious defenses to felonies are a chilling betrayal of children," says Ms. Swan, a former Christian Scientist who lost a child to spinal meningitis in 1977...

[trvlr2]

Capeldodger--OK, manslaughter, then?

[Fitter]

According to the BC Supreme court A child's right to life trumps a parent's charter right to guide their medical treatment
Source (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/06/13/bc-sextuplets-court-ruling.html)

[portlandatheist]

I think this crime is less serious than murder in the first and more serious than manslaughter(murder in the third degree). I think its on par with murder in the second degree (non premeditated /crime of passion). Although it doesn't technically fit the description of murder in the second, I think its equivalent in severity.

[skeptigirl]

I can't agree with "murderer" (they mean well, after all, however deluded they are), but this is definitely in "religion is child-abuse" territory.

At the root of the matter is the boundary between parental and societal ownership of children. Where does society step in and remove a child from harm? IMO, doctors and social-workers should impose proper treatment (regardless of parental superstition) and be backed up by the forces of society. But that's just my opinion.There are other degrees of murder besides 1st degree.

[Dr. Imago]

Things like cancer, MS, heart disease, are only going to respond to prayer to a certain extent. That is, prayer might reduce some symptoms, but it cannot restore health completely.

"Some symptoms" is a pretty broad brush stroke. Beyond psychological ones, or ones directly influenced by a particularly psychological state, prayer does not help, in that it does not meaningfully improve the chances of survival or add quantifiably to length of life.

Personally, I think it's disgusting that people want to get paid for "prayer therapy". At our hospital, we employ clergy to visit with sick patients and their family to provide counseling. We have an interdisciplinary chaplain service, and residency (if you can believe it), for hospital-based clerical services. The people who are full-time are paid a salary by the hospital. The discussions they have with patients/families are private and equally protected by law.

I believe the provide a benefit to the patient, those of faith, despite the fact that I don't personally and fundamentally agree with the angle they approach the family. But, I respect what they do. They are professional. They seek our opinion for guidance about the nature of the disease. They don't paint false hope. I also respect that many families are faithful, and this is a comfort to them.

Now, I'm trying to imagine if they started charging a fee for that service. Further, I'm trying to imagine them instilling false hope, that has been demonstrated to be superfluous with regards to longterm outcome in many trials (even detrimental in one trial), and then billing the patient for it. This appears to me to be nothing more than profiteering.

The proof is in the pudding. Medicine is an evidence-based pursuit, and this is doubly-true for a "new" therapy being introduced as part of routine care - especially if they are going to bill for it. This is "prayer medicine" and it needs to be proven effective without equivocation before insurance companies should have to pay for it. If they are going to charge a fee for this service, they need to provide solid evidence that it works. Furthermore, there should be no churchly tax exemption if they win their ways. They should have to pay professional liability insurance, just like I do. They should be fully accountable in the courts if they fail in their fiduciary responsibility to the patient, just like I am.

You can't eat your cake and then still have it. This is, unfortunately, what this mamby-pamby, touchy-feely almost ineluctable next step by this particular faction of the "alternative medicine" crowd wants. Make no mistakes. This is profiteering. They want to tag on a charge to a patient. Talk about taking advantage of the vulnerable. This particular concept undoubtedly dreamed-up by one childish, pie-in-the-sky simpleton who doesn't fully understand the complexity of the human disease state disgusts me. We need to find out who the person who germinated this idea and hold his/her feet to the fire. Demonstrate it works first before you get paid, you [Rule 9].

-Dr. Imago

[Dancing David]

"The case also has frustrated the Church of Christ, Scientist, the main promoter of prayer as therapy, which says a few tragic cases have unfairly tarred a practice that can restore health."



Well I can't say it did much for my pneumonia and the 15% hearing loss I suffered from ear infections.

Ah, the good old Home Cult of my family.

"You are sick because you are not right with god" that is a great guilt trip.

[ponderingturtle]

Murder by neglect is a concept that appears in a number of legal systems although not I belive canadian (actualy Quebec might have a related duty to rescue I'm not sure how much french law is left).

I think neglect generally means that the person doing the neglecting has some legal duty to act. This means that the practitioners of prayer would be unlikely to be chargeable, only the parents who brought them in, if they do not see the child they would be highly unlikely to be chargeable.(someone who sits with a child dieing from say appendicitis and doing nothing probably should be chargeable with something)

[Flo]

At the root of the matter is the boundary between parental and societal ownership of children. Where does society step in and remove a child from harm? IMO, doctors and social-workers should impose proper treatment (regardless of parental superstition) and be backed up by the forces of society. But that's just my opinion.


The only ownership is the child's himself. Parents and society are mere custodians while the child isn't able to take care of himself.

[CapelDodger]

Capeldodger--OK, manslaughter, then?

Yes, I'm OK with that :).

[CapelDodger]

The only ownership is the child's himself. Parents and society are mere custodians while the child isn't able to take care of himself.

Agreed, but that still leaves the practical problems of when and how society intervenes in family life. Some cases - physical or sexual abuse, for instance - obviously call for intervention. IMO preventing medical treatment on the grounds of superstition also calls for intervention, but that's not a universal view.

I don't like parents being allowed to indoctrinate their children (as we all know, most believers follow the religion they were brought up in), but how society prevents that without lapsing into totalitarianism is a very tricky question.