Torres-Garcia |1

Elvia Torres-Garcia
Mark Vincent
Criminal Justice 1010-FL14
December 2nd, 2014
Faith Healing Homicide Where Medicine and Religion Collide
Since the beginning of human existence, people have always looked at their religion or
spiritual beliefs to aid them in their time of pain and sickness. In our current time, there has been
a considerable shift from faith healing practices to modern medical technology. After all, people
now live longer due to the many lifesaving procedures available with modern technological
advances in medicine. There is no doubt that many of the religions practiced today unite both
spiritual and medical advances in order to live a less painful and more enjoyable way of life.
There is a select few that do not share these views or care to integrate the life-saving medical
procedures that could pro-long or even save their lives. They leave the healing to a higher power
and their only medicine is prayer. The results can be catastrophic and many children die from
easily preventable diseases or ailments if they only had proper medical care. This is absolutely
incomprehensible to me. How can parents who deny medical care for their children based on
faith healing or prayers let their child die? Why are they not being prosecuted for homicide or
manslaughter? The answer lies in the law and it differs from state to state and each case is unique
and depending on the circumstances, most never come to trial or are ever reported.
Under the protection of the First Amendment currently 30 states have exceptions to childneglect laws that provide shelter for misdemeanor violations to parents who treat their children

Torres-Garcia |2
through prayer in accord with the beliefs of recognized religion (Abbot, 778). According to
Kevin Abbot sixteen of those states have what they call a judicial bypass where a judge can
allow or request a medical treatment if the childs life is at risk. Unfortunately many children die
because by the time a judge can order a medical treatment it will be too late. Most of these
children are never seen by a medical physician, many who die are never reported to law
enforcement or ruled as a natural death by a medical examiner. Most of these parents are never
prosecuted because they are protected by the law under religious freedom.
Kenneth Hickey and Laurie Lychholms article in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
describe the clash between medicine and religion through the many religions that currently
practice faith healing over traditional medical care such as General Assembly and Church of the
First Born, End Time Ministries, Faith Assembly, Faith Tabernacle and the largest and most
recognized is the Christian Science Church founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879 (265). In order
to understand why Christian Scientist are so inclined to shun medical care over faith healing, we
need to understand the history of the church. The basis of their belief comes from the
spontaneous recovery of a chronic illness Mary Baker experienced while reading the New
Testament, based on this fact the church believes that all conditions can be healed by the power
of prayer (Hickey, Lychholm, 266). The Christian Science Practitioners never sees the patients
but a parent can request a faith healing prayer over the phone or through the mail. The very
solicitation of medical care demonstrate their weakness in their faith. Whats interesting about
the Christian Scientist followers is that in other countries such as Canada and United Kingdom
they routinely seek medical care for their children because it is required by law.
In the Canadian Medical Association Journal Wendy Glauser talks about a landmark
case in Oregon, parents who refused to seek treatment for their infant daughters tumor. The

Torres-Garcia |3
Wylands were members of the Followers of Christ Church and relied on prayer, oil ointments
and the laying of hands. They were sentenced to three months in jail for criminal mistreatment
for allowing their daughter to grow a golf ball-sized tumor that covered one eye. The reason they
were prosecuted is because earlier in that year of 2011 Oregons senate passed a law repealing
exemptions in its criminal-code that allowed faith-healing to be used as a defense in crimes such
as homicide and neglect (Glaucer, 183). To put into perspective of how many children die under
these circumstances can be found in an article published in Pediatrics back in 1998. So far this is
the only known investigation led by Dr. Seth Asser, a Rhode Island pediatrician and Rita Swan,
PhD. Their study concluded that between 1975 and 1995, 172 children died following faith
healing, 140 from easily curable or treatable conditions. In one case, a two year-old girl choked
on a banana and showed signs of life for an hour before dying, while her parents and other adults
simply prayed (Glaucer, 183).
In Kevin Abbots article Law and Medicine: Pediatric Faith Healing. In a California
case People v. Rippberger, 8-month-old NM died after 2 weeks of illness without any medical
intervention because her parents followed the Christian Science belief of no medical care. She
died of acute purulent meningitis. The state charged NMs parents with felony child
endangerment under section 273 of the state penal code (Abbot 778). In Colorado People ex rel
D.L.E, the state asked the court to declare DLE a neglected child under Colorado Law. At age
12, DLE suffered grand mal epileptic seizures linked to brain damage during birth (Abbot 779).
The lack of medical care and medication, he suffered a stroke that led to his brain only operating
at 60% capacity and severe damage to his motor skills. The state ruled that D.L.E was neglected
and ordered medical treatment so that he would not endure further brain damage. The last case is
in the state of Washington, State vs. Norman, the Normans failed to seek medical treatment for

Torres-Garcia |4
their 10 year old son based on the beliefs of their church, No-Name Fellowship suspected that
the child had diabetes but believed the sins of Mrs. Norman (failure to submit to her husband)
and her sons masturbation led to the illness. The elders felt that in order to get right with god
the Normans had to be spanked. Mr. Norman spanked his son throughout the night and his son
died the next morning from juvenile diabetes and weighed only 46 pounds. Mr. Norman was
charged with manslaughter (Abbot, 778). Out of the three cases this is probably the one that is
most disturbing to me. How is it possible that this family refused to take their son to an
emergency room and believe that Mrs. Norman or their son was to blame for his illness? When
you argue about the deaths within these faith healing communities their only answer is that it was
the divine will of God.
In more recent years however the deaths of faith healing children has decreased not only
because of the article published in Pediatrics by Dr. Seth Asser and Rita Swan, PhD, but because
of an organization called Childrens Healthcare is a Legal Duty (CHILD), this organization
lobbies states to repeal protections in criminal codes that condone faith healing. Rita Swan and
her husband used to be members of the Christian Science Church and lost their 16 month old son
Matthew to spinal meningitis in 1977. So many people in faith-healing sects, Rita later said,
dig deeper after a tragedy, because they cant bear to accept the horror of betraying the trust of a
helpless child (Stauth, 63). Ritas detailed personal story goes deep into the relationship she has
to the church and the family and friends that still stand by the church long after her child has
died. In particular is the story of her mother and father who still embraced the Church of
Christian Science despite Ritas tragedy. Rita stopped speaking to her parents for over ten years
and she felt alone for being the only Christian Science mother to go public about the needless
loss of her child.

Torres-Garcia |5
David Steinbergs article in the Notre Dame Law Review states that more than 40 states
have enacted statutes that protect a parents right to rely on spiritual healing. They provide
parents with a defense to some types of criminal prosecution. These statutes provide that the
State cannot use a parents reliance on spiritual healing against the parent in a child custody
hearing. However State courts have held that Free Exercise Clause does not prevent States from
intervening when parents reject conventional medical care for their children (Steinberg, 179).
In Newmark v. Williams, three-year old Colin Newmark was stricken with pediatric
cancer. Colins parents were Christian Scientist, who chose spiritual healing through prayer. The
Delaware Child Protective Services obtain temporary custody of Colin for the purpose of treating
the child with chemotherapy. The Delaware Supreme Court denied the States case and ruled in
favor of the parents. The States medical expert admitted that the chemotherapy has a number of
terrible side effects and could kill Collin and at best have a forty percent chance of surviving the
cancer (Steinberg 179). Even though the State of Delaware took temporary custody of Colin the
court still ruled in favor of the parents because in the end, it didnt matter what religion they
practiced they just wanted what was best for their child. Clearly the medical treatment of
chemotherapy was not the best outcome for the last remaining days of their child. Which brings
up another point, how much of the state do we want involved in the personal choices we make
for our children?
In conclusion as a parent of two small children I can relate to the last case of Newmark v.
Williams. If either of my two daughters was stricken with pediatric cancer, I would have to
evaluate the pros and cons of chemotherapy and make the ultimate decision based on what is best
for my child not for me. In order to this I would have to have very clear and informative
communication with our doctor and get a second and third opinion. What I cannot relate to is the

Torres-Garcia |6
case in Washington, State vs. Norman how can these parents truly believe that everything
happening to their son who suffers from diabetes is the hand of God punishing them for the
mothers or their very own sons behavior. I believe that the state had every right to prosecute the
father because to me its clear that this is abuse coming from ignorance based on some elders
advice to shun medical care for faith. I also believe that the mother should have been prosecuted
too. After all as a mother it is my responsibility to feed, clothes and shelter my child and most of
all to offer protection which also includes medical care. Every child has a right to live and
survive and no religion or belief should get in the way of that! According to Wendy Glaucer,
medical care for children is mandated by law in Canada and United Kingdom regardless of
religious beliefs. I believe in the United States such should be the same, and even though we
would give up some rights offered to us under the first Amendment it would be worth it, we can
save children from the ignorance of their parents.

Torres-Garcia |7

Works Cited
Abbott, Kevin. "Law and Medicine: Pediatric Faith Healing." Virtual Mentor 11.10 (2009) Print
Glauser, Wendy. "United States still too lenient on faith healing parents, say childrens rights
advocates." Canadian Medical Association Journal 183.11 (2011): E709-E710. Print.
Hickey, Kenneth, and Laurie Lyckholm. "Child welfare versus parental autonomy: medical
ethics, the law, and faith-based healing." Theoretical medicine and bioethics 25.4 (2004):
265-276. Print.
Stauth, Cameron. In The Name Of God: The True Story of the Fight to Save Children from FaithHealing Homicide. New York: St.Martins Press, 2013. 59-64, Print.
Steinberg, David E. "Children and Spiritual Healing: Having Faith in Free Exercise." Notre
Dame L. Rev. 76 (2000): 179.