Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

Many times in our lives we hand ourselves over to the care of another. We consent to the government building an army so that it can do the hard work of protecting us and our interests. We had ourselves to doctors, giving trust in them that they will treat us to the best of their ability - even so far as removing our heart from our chests in some circumstances...that's a lot of trust. The doctor is given a role of responsibility, not just personal responsibility but a stewardship over the individual in their care. If they neglect their responsibility by withholding vital medication, or by not following standard procedure to determine easily determinable allergies - then they know that society will hold them accountable for their inaction or negligence.If our government sends the entire army thousands of miles away, when a neighbour is amassing an army on our borders - the government will be called to pay for their negligence even if our neighbours do nothing.By becoming a parent we become stewards of those children (and this seems to be a common theme in Christian rhetoric incidentally). We have a responsibility to feed, clothe and educate them. Religious freedom even allows you to teach the child your moral values and religious beliefs.However, like the doctor is allowed to pray before going into surgery, they are not allowed to pray in lieu of surgery.
The politician can pray before war, but they should not pray in lieu of ordering the deployment of units.
The parent is allowed to pray for the well being of the child, but they cannot pray in lieu of providing welfare.So where should we draw the line of religious freedom? As with any freedoms they have to be balanced. Whichever freedom is more important should on balance win out. A child's right to life should massively overbalance a parent's religious right to neglect a sick or injured child.Need I point out that

quote:

---

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

It appears that children don't deserve equal protection, if it means the parent's religious rights to neglect will be infringed. However, here is a secular case. In this case a mother was not given correct medical advice (due to problems with the healthcare system), and her child died of malnutrition after the mother fed her with breast milk after an operation that could reduce breast milk nutritional value.The mother was acting in good faith - she was told breast milk was the best way to feed her child, but a jury found her guilty of criminally negligent homicide.And yet, the parents in the OP article might even escape facing a jury!? If sincere secular beliefs of a mother aren't mitigating factors in absolving her of her responsibility to her child, why do sincere religious beliefs have the potential to receive a 'get out of facing a jury free' card?And yes, the state this happened in, New York, does have a religious exemption.If this imbalance seems right, or just, or moral to you - I submit it is very likely your moral compass needs sending back for repairs.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Correct - prayer is a complete joker in the pack, the wild card. Its efficacy is beyond the edge of detectable. As such, and as I said, one is perfectly free to pray for the healing of the child that is in your care, but you should not be free to neglect other for more demonstrably effective methods of healing. The failings of capitalist healthcare is irrelevant to this topic. The defence that we are talking about isn't the "Buzsaw defence" whereby the defendant argues that the healthcare system does more harm than good. The defence in question is where the defendant argues that they didn't get medical treatment because they provided the child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing permitted under s. 48.981 (3) (c) 4. or 448.03 (6).

Under those circumstances where the patient volunteers. Since children don't volunteer to have the parents they do, we must be talking about those times when a patient has not volunteered - such as in an emergency. If a family member of yours was killed through the neglect of the emergency services - you'd expect the paramedics/surgeons to be penalized for it. Society does get to make that call, and you are part of it. You know that if I raped by daughter every day, and then killed her by putting her in a microwave - and I did so claiming that it was the only way to save her soul - I would be hung drawn and quartered. The 'I'm doing it for the good of her soul' should not be a defence for criminal neglect nor should 'I'm doing for the good of her gredilfarb'. The government (and thus the people) do get to interfere when a family neglects its child to death, for whatever reason. Unless they claim prayer? If the child believes something completely different to its parents (ie, that prayer poisons the soul for example), its the parents beliefs that have priority according to the law. The defence is for the parents (or other family members), and is based on their stated beliefs and actions - it is nothing to do with the child's beliefs or actions.So no, it is exactly as I said. The child's right to life is undermined by the parent's right to neglect them. Maybe. And yet the law doesn't state this, and that is the problem. The law says that you have a responsibility towards your child to get medical assistance if they are sick, to get food if they are hungry, to educate them when they are ignorant...but if you neglect to get medical care when they are sick - you get a free pass if you are acting in 'religious or spiritual faith'. Secular good faith, at least in some states, is not an adequate defence.You see the problem?And no, the government is not a better owner. NOBODY OWNS A CHILD, child slavery is abhorrent. However, children do deserve protection, more than adults given their vulnerable position, and yet this law protects adults against their responsibility over the child.

I don't see the point. I don't get to withhold medical care from my children on the grounds that the healthcare system is, according to a paper you produced, dangerous. I do get to withhold medical care from my children if I close my eyes and thing and hope really hard about them getting better or dangle pink crystals over their heads, or shake salt over them or telepathically communicate with a deity to intercede or whatever No, you brought up the motivations of drug companies. I was talking about practising doctors in hospitals. Remember that the defence being used is not the healthcare system is dangerous. It's the I didn't need to get another human being to a practitioner of medical healing because I providing prayer healing defence.I have a wonderful idea - let's look at a country with a crappier healthcare system than the US, but a more religious one. Angola for instance where infant mortality is 30 times higher than the US and just about everybody is religious. Should we invest in an increase in prayer and spiritual healing or should we invest in the healthcare system? You're the president of Angola for this hypothetical, it's your call. (you may replace it with Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Liberia, or somewhere Christian like Ethiopia if you like).The point remains and it needs underlining, secular reasons for neglect don't seem to be good enough - I have provide a link for you Buz where it was the case that the medical system did fail a mother and she was still held responsible for her child's welfare - the failings of the healthcare system are not a viable defence, they have been tried and failed in front of a jury! However, you can escape even going in front of a jury if the police feel that you had a religious belief which meant you didn't get assistance for the human being that God has given to you for your care.

---

ABE
As for the health care risks in these kinds of cases?

quote:

---

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate deaths of children from families in which faith healing was practiced in lieu of medical care and to determine if such deaths were preventable. DESIGN: Cases of child fatality in faith-healing sects were reviewed. Probability of survival for each was then estimated based on expected survival rates for children with similar disorders who receive medical care. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-two children who died between 1975 and 1995 and were identified by referral or record search. Criteria for inclusion were evidence that parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals and documentation sufficient to determine the cause of death. RESULTS: One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. Eighteen more had expected survival rates of >50%. All but 3 of the remainder would likely have had some benefit from clinical help. CONCLUSIONS: When faith healing is used to the exclusion of medical treatment, the number of preventable child fatalities and the associated suffering are substantial and warrant public concern. Existing laws may be inadequate to protect children from this form of medical neglect.

---

140 children who (with medical care) had a over 90% chance of surviving - at least 125 of those kids would likely have survived with medical attention. The healthcare system is more dangerous than abstaining from medical care falls flat here, no?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

A more interesting question is this: let's say a doctor advised you to feed Formula X to your child and neglected to say that if you feed the child Formula X and you live in a hardwater area, your child has a 99% chance of dying. Your child dies because you live in a hardwater area.The law as it stands now, could prosecute you for criminally negligent homicide.However, if a doctor advises you that without some life-saving surgery there is a greater than 99% chance your child will die, that your child has a 98% chance of surviving the surgery and making a full recovery...but the parent demurs and treats their child with prayer and then their child dies they can escape being charged for criminally negligent homicide by virtue of having sought spiritual treatment.I can only assume that given what you have said in this thread, you would be appalled at the state's intervention in the first case and glad of the state's non-intervention in the second.This is the way of things in most US states today. If you earnestly believe you are giving the child what it needs but it turns out you are not, you can be charged if your earnest belief is secular but not charged if your belief is religious or spiritual.I'm all for the beliefs of the potential defendant to have mitigative powers. If you really earnestly believe someone is about to kill you, that should mitigate your killing them - even if they weren't going to kill you.But if the state holds that a parent has a responsibility towards ensuring their beliefs about how to care for their child are accurate unless those beliefs are regarding treating biological faults with voodoo or whatever...something is wrong. Why are family members obligated to confirm the accuracy of their beliefs (presumably by consulting with a wide variety of experts) when it comes to breast milk or baby formula - but they aren't when it comes to dancing a-widdershins around them to drive out the acidosis spirits?

And a parent is not free to do as they please because society has placed upon them a standard of care in place that adults (who were once children) have agreed to. Unfortunately there is an exemption clause for not providing this standard of care that is not present in the standards we demand of doctors or any one else. When society does anything, it isn't unilateral, by definition. Yes, we do it all the time. It's happening now. The contract is ever changing. The protection of the right to life for all people is in place, but it can be removed under certain circumstance (running at a police officer with a firearm, mudering a thousand people in a state with the death penalty etc etc).It's all up front, and it's called law. I suggest that the law the US has regarding exemptions from charging parents with neglect because they treated their neglected child spiritually should be changed, up front. Either all sincerely held beliefs should give parents a get out of neglect charges free card, or no sincerely held beliefs should.If I starve my child 'for its own spiritual good' (say I am a Gnostic who believes in purity through potentially lethal levels of starvation), that should be protected? If I starve my child because I believed what I was feeding them was nutritious but it wasn't...should that be protected?Needless to say, the point of the matter is that the state can and does interfere in the welfare of a child and will charge parents even if they hold sincere beliefs that are negligent of the child's welfare. Unless the parent is negligent in the sphere of medical aid by treating the child with prayer. Then it's OK. See the disconnect? You're right - in the US, it should be an obligation for The People to act to defend the welfare and right to life of all people. Unless children aren't people that includes them. Establishment of religion is out of the window when it comes to the states. My newly formed religion has as much rights as yours does when it comes to the spiritual well-being of my children. Are you suggesting that there should be a judge who gets to decide which religions are permissable, and what point they become 'established' enough? Surely that would be a violation of that dear old Constitution?The correct response isn't "Yeah Right", but "Freedoms are necessarily limited". Under these laws the child can be 16 years old (or more in some of them). I'd say the child determines their beliefs, regardless of age. If a 15 year old was not given medical aid but was prayed over, even though he had clearly stated in public that he believes that souls were poisoned forever by prayer...the parents could still get off if the 15 year old died, because of this exemption.In the end, the point I am making is that the beliefs of the child are immaterial. You said that it was "not the religious right of the parent being protected, but that of the child.", hopefully it should be clear that this is not true. OK, so we agree that these laws are clearly discriminative of types of belief, elevating religious beliefs as a viable defence where secular ones are not.Do you believe it is possible to be criminally negligent?I can guarantee that in every case of parental negligence we would find a belief that the parent was acting under that explains why they were negligent. If we are to ever prosecute parents for being negligent...we have to draw a line. People have to accept responsibility for the consequences of putting their beliefs in practice, yes? Assuming there is a heaven and that the way to get there is to not receive medical treatment for trivial but life threatening medical conditions. And yet if I believe I can get my child into adulthood (which definitely does exist) by feeding her milk (which does exist) based on advice from a doctor (who definitely does exist), but I'm wrong - I could still go to prison, just like the woman in the example I gave earlier.Why? Because the law says that I have a responsibility to the preservation of the earthly life of my child until it reaches a certain age when it can make informed decisions about its spiritual fate. The law makes an arbitrary exemption to this responsibility in the case of prayer healing.However, it doesn't make this exemption in the case of punishing the child. I don't get to break my child's bones as punishment for the sake of her soul and entrance into a paradise world. I don't get to starve her to death (whilst feeding her water) in the interests of pleasing a deity who will reward her soul with perfecti status. Your argument about protecting the rights of the parents to safeguard a child's soul are peculiarly contemporary-popular-western-religion-centric. As if you are special pleading that withholding lifesaving medical attention is OK if it is good for the soul, but crushing a child's fingers for the good of soul is not OK.I have a broken finger, it was crushed and is now slightly deformed and it still throbs with pain several years after the accident, and I have lost some sensitivity to it.I have suffered from acidosis for a mere 18 hours and I have no lasting pain or discomfort from it.If you gave me the choice of having the same finger on my other hand crushed or going through acidosis again, I'd choose the finger - it is far more pleasant. And that is knowing that with acidosis, medical attention can quickly alleviate the suffering.And yet, you are suggesting that crushing the finger of a young girl for the good of her soul is more abhorrent than her parents maintaining in her the sickness of acidosis?You might try the 'Yeah right' defence - but pain rituals do exist and indeed are fairly common. Are you suggesting that if the State hears about a family that has crushed their child's fingers between two blocks of metal and have then neglected to get medical assistance shouldn't face a jury because of their religious beliefs?

Yeah, it's state law but I was short-handing it because most states have it. 44 I believe molbiogirl pointed out earlier. I provided a list to all the states that do (I haven't counted them, feel free to ) back in Message 27. Utah Code Ann. 76-5-109 (2007) {Child Abuse} defines physical injury to include "any other condition which imperils the child's health or welfare and which is not a serious physical injury as defined..." with the following exemption:

quote:

---

A parent or legal guardian who provides a child with treatment by spiritual means alone through prayer, in lieu of medical treatment, in accordance with the tenets and practices of an established church or religious denomination of which the parent or legal guardian is a member or adherent shall not, for that reason alone, be considered to have committed an offense under this section.

---

Sorry bluejay

Lots of people came to the states with the understanding they would be allowed to keep slaves. They notoriously didn't consent to having that right removed, and free (to quote one early slave apologetic: "we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin"). Eventually the tyranny of the majority managed to strip away of those rights, also against their consent, gave those people the freedom to vote.

quote:

---

On the lawfulness of holding slaves, considering it in a moral and religious view, the Convention think it their duty to exhibit their sentiments, on the present occasion, before your Excellency, because they consider their duty to God, the peace of the State, the satisfaction of scrupulous consciences, and the welfare of the slaves themselves, as intimately connected with a right view of the subject. The rather, because certain writers on politics, morals and religion, and some of them highly respectable, have advanced positions, and inculcated sentiments, very unfriendly to the principle and practice of holding slaves; and by some these sentiments have been advanced among us, tending in their nature, directly to disturb the domestic peace of the State, to produce insubordination and rebellion among the slaves, and to infringe the rights of our citizens; and indirectly, to deprive the slaves of religious privileges, by awakening in the minds of their masters a fear, that acquaintance with the Scriptures, and the enjoyment of these privileges would naturally produce the aforementioned effects; because the sentiments in opposition to the holding of slaves have been attributed, by their advocates, to the Holy Scriptures, and to the genius of Christianity. These sentiments, the Convention, on whose behalf I address your Excellency, cannot think just, or well founded; for the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were directed to purchase their bond-men and bond-maids of the Heathen nations; except they were of the Canaanites, for these were to be destroyed. And it is declared, that the persons purchased were to be their bond-men forever;" and an "inheritance for them and their children." They were nor to go out free in the year of jubilee, as the Hebrews, who had been purchased, were; the line being clearly drawn between them...

---

So says Richard Furman, an influential community leader in the Southern Baptist Convention once upon a time, and possibly still is ("Clergyman, patriot, educator, and pioneer denominational stateman"). I suppose you would've stood up for his rights to put foreigners in bondage? No, I doubt you would. Taking away certain rights by pointing them out as immoral or abusive privileges, is not necessarily a bad thing even when the community feels their freedoms or religious rights are at stake.

I think a better wording would be to simply point out that if a parent chooses 'a wing and a prayer' as a policy to look after their child they should be required to face a jury to decide whether the mitigating factors in the given case are good enough should the child die, or receive any injury etc etc.Didn't educate your child because Satan relies on the evils of knowledge? Tough - you are required to ensure your child is educated.Didn't feed your sick child in some kind Cathar-like endura ritual to give their soul the requisite purity before resurrection? Tough - you are required to ensure your child is fed.Didn't get easily obtainable medical diagnosis after an illness because you think you know a better method of healing than doctors (spiritual surgery/leeches/praying/whatever)? Tough - you are required to ensure your child receives proper medical care.As I said earlier - there are many mitigating factors in many of these cases but if a person has died as a result, those factors must be pretty impressive before the parents/family members escape a jury. Given the mother whose breast milk wasn't nutritious enough was found to have neglected her responsibilities - those factors should be mighty indeed.Granted - working out the fine details of exactly what the responsibilities of the parent are and should be and exactly how to balance that against other concerns and/or responsibilities is less than trivial work. It's hard to dilineate exactly where society should step in to protect a child against something that is sometimes difficult to strictly define like neglect and any solution is almost certainly going to be imperfect. That doesn't mean that the best solution is to do nothing, or provide arbitrary exemptions for certain kinds of religious belief when it comes to certain kinds of neglect. I wouldn't worry about it - as per you have you hands full, I won't pester you for a response if you prioritize another poster. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : I lost an hour's sleep - the whole thing was riddled with incomplete sentences and spelling errors.

You comment like movements in power changing how that power is used is a bad thing and maybe it is - but it happens all the time, it is political realism. Indeed - the religious exemptions were put in place largely from pressure from such religious nuts in the first place (Christian Scientists in the past few decades). Coalitions form trying to get the constitution interpreted one way, the repurcussions of that change upset another group who form a coalition to have it changed back and so on. Yes, there are some real possibilities of this. Heck - we don't have to limit it to children. If we map the brain out, understand consciousness and discover that freewill is an illusion, that'll cause us all sorts of problems in a legal system based on a backbone of personal responsibility and communal enforcement of punitive rehabilitation.But the government does have rights that cut into our freedoms, and it is a very sticky wicket - nobody is saying otherwise. The important point is, imperfect as they are, our laws should not be so inconsistent as to allow for the possibility of avoiding court if you had a sincere religious belief regarding your child's healthcare which was detrimental to the child's health but that do not explicitly provide the same possibility for sincere secular beliefs regarding your child's healthcare.Right now, that which you fear - a group of people managing to apply enough pressure to change the wording of law in their favour, is the state of things. Those arguing against religious exemption laws are trying to restore things to the way they were before these groups got involved.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

As I said, they were put in place largely from pressure from religious nuts. Everywhere I can find that discusses this topic is in agreement that Christian Science lobbyists have been instrumental in getting these exemptions in place. I doubt we differ too significantly on this. We probably only differ on the details of how crazy can a belief be before we, whilst sympathizing with the believer, conclude they aren't able to function as responsible adults. Well we could go back further and further finding different ways of doing things. However, if the laws about parental responsibility are problematic to you - I'm sure you can see that the solution isn't bad patches - it's new laws. That would probably mean that any unintentional neglect would end up being non-punishable. I foresee some issues arising from the trend regarding the concept of personal responsibility and punishment for not living up to those responsibilities - but the area is muddy wherever we tread.

Yes, in certain circumstances. Yes, in certain circumstances. Yes, in certain circumstances. They do, in certain circumstances.The interesting circumstances are those in the gray area of those certain circumstances.For example, if my child got sick and I couldn't be bothered to get medical treatment for the child I would probably be prosecuted for negligent homicide or something similar if the child dies.If I tried to heal the child with arsenic, I would probably be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder.If I performed a home surgical operation and the child died, manslaughter or murder seem likely charges.If I fed a baby milk that was recommended by a health professional, and the health system was so knackered I couldn't get a second opinion, and the milk turns out to not have enough nutrition and the child dies, I could be charged with negligent homicide.If my child is sick and I, according to my own personal religious doctrine, engage in rollerdisco as a healing method, I could be charged with negligent homicide (on the child's death).If my child is sick and I am part of an established religious group that agrees that a certain ritual can, sometimes, heal the sick and I practice that ritual as a healing method (all of this lieu of seeking medical assistance remember), then I could find myself free of any charges without the need to go to court to plead my case.I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out a consistent and non-religiously based moral argument that ties all that together without special pleading.

The grey area is 'life'. Life doesn't come in well defined packets. That said, the law is as well defined as possible but language will always render it slightly fuzzy. Right, but you've just said that if you have not committed the crime of negligence, then have not committed the crime of negligence. Hardly an inciteful look at the legal and moral arguments involved is it? OK, this is our control scenario but already you have gone back on your original premise. Clearly you feel that parents don't have the right to refuse medical treatment out of apathy. What is illegitimate about it? I sincerely believed arsenic would heal my child - is my belief not good enough? I can even refer to medical literature which describes the medical benefits of arsenic, and even name doctors who have prescribed it. Why is it illegit? Why? I'm making an effort to heal my child - what is illegitimate about my effort? I know that you can be charged with negligent homicide (and it is thus negligence) that is why I said "I could be charged with negligent homicide". Why? Why is a healing method only acceptable if other people believe that it works but is not if it is just you or your family? Yes I know, that's why this thread is here, it's right there in the OP. Why should it be legitimate according to law? That is the question. Yes, but that as I said up post is useless. You can't have a negligence law which simply says 'comply with this law and don't be negligent'. What does it mean to be negiligent? Why is it criminal to act in good faith regarding secular beliefs but it is OK if your beliefs have no real world evidential backing and are believed by others? Right - and there are some people who think it is legitimate don't think that following your doctor's advice is legitimate, that don't think that using proven medical treatments (without a qualified doctor) is not legitimate or that using a religious supplication that isn't endorsed by an organisation is not legitimate. Right - those are one of those 'certain circumstance' I mentioned earlier. But you are happy to charge parents with a crime unless they do (assuming they don't pray but try some other method to heal their child)? Yes it is. But should it be? I take it you are as incapable of working out a consistent and non-religiously based moral argument that ties all that together without special pleading. You've basically said, its OK because it's law. It's OK because a majority of people accept it (which might not be true). So its morally OK if the majority say it is? What if the majority think it is OK for doctors to let nature take its course when they are presented with sick Jewish children? (Hi Godwin, how's it going?) Right, but the law, as it stands, can and does charge people who do not seek out medical treatment for their children. I can't force them, see how no matter of my opinion the law remains?How about this as a consistent and non-religiously based moral argument that was brought up 100 or so posts back. The child's right to life supercedes the parent's right to religious freedom - the argument is a little more involved than that obviously, but there it is.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Agreed. The mother whose child died partially as a result of the fact that she didn't receive the medical support she was entitled to receive from the the government serves as an excellent example of this strange double standard. Choosing to allow yourself to die doesn't make you a religious nut. Nutterhood starts to raise its head when your actions lead to others dying. As I commented earlier we probably only differ on the details of how crazy can a belief be before it qualifies as 'nutty'. Most of the countries in the UK have their own strange unique laws. Yes, abortion and similar issues are basically illegal in both parts of Ireland (ie., ROI and NI). How does all that work? With difficulty - that wiki article points to about 45,000 abortion tourists coming over here in the last 40 years or so.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm not sure that appeals to the Tyranny of the Majority are particularly good when we are discussing rights which were put in place to avoid such a tyranny (religious rights and the right to life). A further note: laws are not decided by voting, they are decided by lawmakers who have to listen to what the loudest and most powerful lobbyists want as well what they believe is for the best. Such a lawmaker who relies on public support can put an unpopular law in, and rely on the good things he has done/political momentum/voter apathy to keep him in office. Right, and that's the point. It probably shouldn't be there, hence why people are arguing that it shouldn't be there. Maybe not. But it is your place (as a citizen; We the People) to develop a system of law that governs how these people treat others - including their children. If you don't like the current law, speak out! In the US an atheist has no choice in the matter, if they did not seek medical attention they get charged (even if they prayed for the child). They do not have the authority to make decisions on this matter. A member of a very small religious sect with no formal organisation does not have this authority (even if they prayed for the child). We simply don't give parents the authority to make these types of decisions for their children except in the singular case of religious parents who belong to a religious community that believes that they shouldn't have this responsibility can heal children with prayer alone despite evidence that the death rate for children under the care of these believers seems to indicate otherwise. Yes it is. It was on these grounds that the exemptions have been added to the laws. Whether or not people should be charged retroactively when a law is changed is a different issue entirely. However, the deep question is whether or not we should consider prayer a legitimate form of treatment^*. Other than your argument regarding the legitimacy of the tyranny of the majority (of people who consistently and loudly speak out/have other political influence/money), I don't think it can be reasonably argued that it can be considered as such. Exactly, and there is nothing like spreading one's ideas of justice, morality and legality to help convince the lawmakers that they should change the law. With ideas spread, people might talk. Might write to their representatives, might begin to lobby, might worry those who rely on votes for their job. One can only hope.And then of course one could hope that the USA will make sure that Somalia is the only UN country not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child - but I doubt it will happen, and there are at least valid legal arguments to made as to why.^* An interesting thought. If we're going to be consistent and rule that home surgery on children is illegal - shouldn't we only allow licensed prayors to perform miracles? I mean we'd need standards right? Legal oversights and all that. How would we know that the parents didn't pray for the death of the child (and that in fact there is an evil god that answers evil prayers)?