Just an FYI for those who have participated in this discussion.
Although the Wisconsin case has garnered much attention, there was a
recent manslaughter trial here in Oregon of 2 parents who used prayer
rather than medical treatment for the 15 month-old who died of an
enlarged visible cyst which essentially blocked her throat. Both
parents were found not guilty of manslaughter, but the father was
convicted of criminal mistreatment. Another trial is slated for the
death of (ironically) the mother's 15 year old younger brother who also
died of a medically treatable condition. The family are members of the
Followers of Christ, a small, fundamentalist group that practices
faith-healing. The cases have raised calls to repeal the remaining
religious defenses for misdemeanor offenses.
And, with respect to non-deadly abuse, the Oregon DHS removed children
from a family who are members of a Ukrainian fundamentalist church who
practice rather severe forms of physical discipline. The parents are
arguing cultural/religious justifications for their punishment.
Steve
--
Steven K. Green, J.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Law and Director
Center for Religion, Law and Democracy
Willamette University
245 Winter Street, SE
Salem, Oregon 97301
(503) 370-6732
Brownstein, Alan wrote:
I find much of what Marci argues here persuasive, but get stuck on the
question of what constitutes abuse. If you are my age (let's just say
over 55 to generalize the point) and grew up in a working class or
lower middle class neighborhood, the norm was that kids got smacked
around a lot when their parents thought they misbehaved. I don't
defend the practice and didn't follow my parents and their parental
cohorts example in raising my own children. But I wouldn't
characterize all these parents as child abusers either.
I don't doubt that we know more about the consequences of child
raising practices now than we did then and normative standards
certainly change over time. But some of the older members on the list
may experience some dissonance in having the environment we and our
peers grew up in characterized as abusive.
Alan Brownstein
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:35 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Vance-- Literally hundreds of studies by psychiatrists and others
have shown that there is a clearly marked tendency for abused children
to have severe problems in adulthood, including substance abuse,
likelihood of suicide, and difficulties with close relationships,
among other problems. These are statistical studies that are the type
routinely relied upon by, e.g., the insurance industry to set
risk. Do you dispute this set of relationships?
Of course, any one individual may not follow the trend, and, thus, the
Ted Bundy example hardly disproves the tendency. Now, all of this is
coming out of science, not voodoo magic, and if you have any regular
contact with individuals who have suffered abuse, you can confirm this
for yourself anecdotally.
Essentially we are having the nature vs nurture debate, and of course
both are important and relevant. But if there are ways to create
better conditions so that we have fewer adults with problems, it is
irrational for society to ignore those possibilities.
With respect to where we started, this argument is hardly needed,
right? Surely there is no question that the death of a child from a
treatable ailment is a serious loss to society and should be
prevented. And the way to prevent such deaths is to deter parents
from permitting a child to die or be disabled regardless of the
parents' beliefs.
Marci
-----Original Message-----
From: Judith Baer <jb...@politics.tamu.edu>
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 10:09 am
Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Vance Koven wrote:
Many more people than those who are on death row (of whom there are
virtually none any more) suffered treatment that we might reprehend or
say was or was tantamount to child abuse, yet did not become killers,
rapists, etc. There is obviously something *else* involved in the
equation that either has not been adequately studied or that Marci is
omitting from her argument.
Conceded, Vance. (I considered responding "yeah, yeah, yeah" but
thought better of it.) But what if we change the topic from the causes
of violent crime to the ways to stop it?
Judy Baer
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
