Religious freedom vs. medical care

[Islander]

Adults who believe in faith healing and the power of prayer eschew medical care. That’s fine for them, but what about children in their care? Last year, 300 children died because their parents belonged to Christian sects that refuse a doctor’s treatment. Not long ago, an 11-year-old Wisconsin girl with treatable diabetes died because her parents insisted on withholding treatment and merely prayed for her. The case went to court and the parent spent six months in jail. That seems like a nod to exceptions for faith-based neglect and/or manslaughter.

This is a real gray area. Should freedom of religion extend to denying lifesaving care to minors?

[WednesdayAddams]

Ignoring a child's illness to the point that they die is not 'faith.' It's criminal neglect plain and simple.

[mlerose]

I've heard of similar stories of minor children of Jehovah's Witnesses that need lifesaving treatments including blood transfusions, but their parents refuse care. There have been some instances where the state has had to intervene and petition the courts to overrule the parents.

No, I don't think religious freedom should be granted in that case. A legal adult should be able to refuse medical treatment, but not refuse to allow medical treatment for their minor children.

[WednesdayAddams]

Well...it depends on the medical treatment. But as far as life saving measures I agree.

[HoHoHo]

It's not always faith-based in the religious sense, either.

There was a court-case here a few years ago in which the parents had refused conventional medical care for a toddler with leukaemia on the grounds that the treatment would be too traumatic and distressing (apparently, they thought that dying from leukaemia would not be). The court ordered the treatment to go ahead after taking into account the likelihood of the treatment being successful (our courts have historically refused to order the continuation of futile care).

I find it equally disturbing when decisions about medical care for adults are made by family who do not share the religious/philosophical/ethical views about medical treatment which are held by a patient who is unable to give informed consent.

I really don't see it as a "grey area" in terms of Constitutional rights. Australia's Constitution has an almost identical clause to the US Constitution regarding religious freedom, but our High Court has pretty consistently taken the view that religious freedom doesn't trump criminal or civil liability or magically waive a legal duty of care.

[Islander]

My first marriage was to a Christian Scientist. If a family member was sick or injured, members of the church would come over to pray and “know the truth for it.” However, his parents had the good sense to understand that things like broken arms needed medical attention despite what Mary Baker Eddy thought. But there are religious extremists who are beyond the reach of common sense. Do we break down doors to remove their children with life-threatening conditions?

[Wretched Creature]

We had this case (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/44568447.html) in our region this year where parents refused chemotherapy for their son based on religious beliefs (some sort of holistic, herbal, new-agey thing, if I remember right). The mother even went so far as to "run away" with her son after the court ruled against the parents, although they later returned and submitted to chemotherapy as ordered. I think basing decisions about medical care on religious beliefs is laughable, but in this case I found myself more inclined to agree with the parents. I don't think their sage waving and random-vitamin therapy is going to save their kid's life, but he is their kid, so shouldn't they be the ones making this type of decision?

IMHO, believing that some sort of invisible Woo-Woo will cure your kid's cancer should be something that makes one ineligible to bear children, but we don't place those kinds of limits on reproduction in this country. If we're going to let just anybody choose to create children, then is it fair to tell them they can't make other life-and-death decisions for their kids? How about the anti-immunization forces :foil:? Do we take their kids away or, better yet, shrink-wrap them to protect the children of more sensible parents? How about parents who raise their kids on Cheetos and Mountain Dew? What makes a parent incompetent to care for its child, and who ultimately makes the decision?

I have strong feelings on both sides of this issue and no useful solution, and I'm glad I'm not in a position where I'll have to deal with it. It seems like the sacred-child-of-society slope is getting more slippery all the time. If I were a youngster like most of you folks, I'd be inclined to gather up my uterus and ovaries and go live in a cave.

[Radical Edward]

But there are religious extremists who are beyond the reach of common sense. Do we break down doors to remove their children with life-threatening conditions?

Yes.

I went to school with a girl who was born with a hole in her heart. Her stepmother refused to allow her to have the surgery needed to fix it (when she was old enough, around 10 I think) due to religious reasons. She lived to be 13, and died in a hospital sometime between the end of eighth grade and the start of our freshman year of high school. I always thought her parents should have gone to prison for murder. Sad side story: apparently when she died she was already registered, and nobody notified the school that she wouldn't be coming. She was on all the teachers' rosters and was included in roll calls on our first day of high school and was marked absent all day until fifth period when somebody burst into tears in a history class and went and told the principal that she had died. If only she had just been absent....

[HoHoHo]

FWIW, I'm in favour of adult children being able to sue their parents for failure to provide adequate medical care during childhood where that choice has resulted in provable, long-term damage. We attach that legal liability to perfect strangers, and IMHO the legal duty of care owed by a parent to a child should be significantly greater than that owed by any stranger.

[Darmund]

I fully agree that religious nutjobbery is no excuse for letting a family member die. It raises an interesting question though... who pays for it? If the parents object to, for example, life-saving chemotherapy for a kid on religious grounds, and we as a society say the kid has to have it anyway, do we also have the right to say the parent has to pay for it too? Or does society foot the bill? If so, that opens another huge can of worms: what about people who will claim religious nutjobbery knowing that means they won't have to pay the bills?

[HoHoHo]

I fully agree that religious nutjobbery is no excuse for letting a family member die. It raises an interesting question though... who pays for it? If the parents object to, for example, life-saving chemotherapy for a kid on religious grounds, and we as a society say the kid has to have it anyway, do we also have the right to say the parent has to pay for it too? Or does society foot the bill? If so, that opens another huge can of worms: what about people who will claim religious nutjobbery knowing that means they won't have to pay the bills?

There are certainly laws here which allow for money spent on essentials for minors to be recovered from the parents. I'd be surprised if there aren't similar laws in the US. I don't see it as fundamentally different from who picks up the cost when children are removed from parental care.

[Victor Frankenstein]

Do we break down doors to remove their children with life-threatening conditions?

If the parents wouldn't take their children to a doctor because they thought doctors were actually evil bugmen from Venus, the state should kick the door open and take the children.

I think the same should be true for people who don't take their children to the doctor because they believe in a magical man who lives in the clouds.

The two play the same in my head.

[Darmund]

There are certainly laws here which allow for money spent on essentials for minors to be recovered from the parents. I'd be surprised if there aren't similar laws in the US. I don't see it as fundamentally different from who picks up the cost when children are removed from parental care.


Hmm. Yeah, I guess if you're going to say (as I would) that religious freedom ends when you're endangering someone else's welfare, economic coercion isn't unreasonable either. So never mind, not that interesting a question after all!

[Radical Edward]

I fully agree that religious nutjobbery is no excuse for letting a family member die. It raises an interesting question though... who pays for it? If the parents object to, for example, life-saving chemotherapy for a kid on religious grounds, and we as a society say the kid has to have it anyway, do we also have the right to say the parent has to pay for it too? Or does society foot the bill? If so, that opens another huge can of worms: what about people who will claim religious nutjobbery knowing that means they won't have to pay the bills?

Hell yes the parents should fucking pay for it. They made the decision to have the kid, and to take on the resulting financial burden for whatever care that child would need for 18 years. If they are destitute that's one thing (if they are destitute they shouldn't have had a kid), but refusing to pay because they think God is going to save their kid is shitty as.... well, shit.

[HoHoHo]

If the parents wouldn't take their children to a doctor because they thought doctors were actually evil bugmen from Venus, the state should kick the door open and take the children.

I think the same should be true for people who don't take their children to the doctor because they believe in a magical man who lives in the clouds.

The two play the same in my head.

I assume that the US has compulsory education laws like most Western countries. If we accept that the state has the right to interfere in the education process in the child's interest, how can we deny its right to interfere on the child's behalf when the stakes are life-threatening? To do so is to endorse the notion of children as property, whose needs are to be met or not at the whim of their owner (I realise that to some extent that is the legal reality in the US, but that's a discussion for another thread).

[john ingram]

It's like the adage of the drowning man who refuses help from passing boaters because he believes God will save him. When he dies and gets to heaven he demands to know why God didn't save him. God replies that he sent three boats by to rescue him, but he refused their help.

Perhaps instead of taking the tack that we know what is best for those who believe in faith healing, we should posit for them the possibility that God has sent to them medical solutions in lieu of miracles.

It's not as though these parents want their children to die. They're just severely misguided. And taking children away from their parents, against everyone's will, is no less traumatic than the alternative. We should be working harder to find middle ground, because that's what tolerance really means.

[Darmund]

We should be working harder to find middle ground, because that's what tolerance really means.
I think tolerance is pretty overrated. Some people are just stupid.

[john ingram]

Reactionary stupidity is no more noble than natural stupidity.

[HoHoHo]

It's like the adage of the drowning man who refuses help from passing boaters because he believes God will save him. When he dies and gets to heaven he demands to know why God didn't save him. God replies that he sent three boats by to rescue him, but he refused their help.

Perhaps instead of taking the tack that we know what is best for those who believe in faith healing, we should posit for them the possibility that God has sent to them medical solutions in lieu of miracles.

It's not as though these parents want their children to die. They're just severely misguided. And taking children away from their parents, against everyone's will, is no less traumatic than the alternative. We should be working harder to find middle ground, because that's what tolerance really means.


In the cases I'm aware of, people have worked as hard as they possibly can to find a middle ground - the cases are in court because one hasn't been found and a time-critical situation exists which needs to be resolved.

IMHO, some of these parents are choosing passive euthanasia for their own children while opposing euthanasia as a choice for others, but I don't think religion should enter into the equation at all - the only question the state needs to decide is whether or not the with-holding of treatment constitutes neglect or failure to provide, if it does, then intervene AND prosecute the parents.

Tolerance should not extend to giving someone a free pass for endangering the lives of others (and yes, I believe that the parents of children who die because they've been left in cars on hot days should be prosecuted too), religious beliefs, political beliefs, or personal philosophies notwithstanding. Religion should no more be a "get out of jail free" card for parents who endanger their children's lives than it would be for a stranger who did the same. If anything, parents should be held to a higher standard of duty of care than pretty much anyone else in a child's life.

[ulfhjorr]

Reactionary stupidity is no more noble than natural stupidity.

Indeed, and it is the religious nutjobs who are displaying both kinds -- both the natural stupidity to fall for the steaming loads of crap that they swallow and the reactionary stupidity to cling to it when presented with reality.

On the other hand, I find it hard to see stupidity in wanting to protect children from very real harm inflicted on them because of their parents' stupidity.

[HoHoHo]

Just out of interest, at what age can a child give informed consent for medical care on their own in the US? Here, parents have no automatic right of access to their children's medical records once a child turns 14 and doctors can only violate their medical confidence under pretty extreme circumstances.

[john ingram]

Indeed, and it is the religious nutjobs who are displaying both kinds -- both the natural stupidity to fall for the steaming loads of crap that they swallow and the reactionary stupidity to cling to it when presented with reality.

Stupidity takes many forms. Referring to someone else's beliefs as "steaming loads of crap" is only one of them.

Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it a steaming load of crap. This is reactionary stupidity. I don't like it, therefore it must be dumb.

[john ingram]

Religion should no more be a "get out of jail free" card for parents who endanger their children's lives than it would be for a stranger who did the same.

And living in the same county as someone else should not grant you the right to dictate how someone else raises their child. Where is the line drawn?

[ulfhjorr]

Stupidity takes many forms. Referring to someone else's beliefs as "steaming loads of crap" is only one of them.

Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it a steaming load of crap. This is reactionary stupidity. I don't like it, therefore it must be dumb.

Yeah, you're right. It would be much better to just shrug your shoulders and say "well, it's their belief" when talking about the idea that you can pray away cancer or that the reason your kid died was because you weren't strong enough in your faith, not because he had a fever of 103 and you did nothing to help him. Yep, that's such a stunningly brilliant idea that it should be taken seriously and not subjected to derision at all.

Right.

[Victor Frankenstein]

Just out of interest, at what age can a child give informed consent for medical care on their own in the US? Here, parents have no automatic right of access to their children's medical records once a child turns 14 and doctors can only violate their medical confidence under pretty extreme circumstances.


I would assume 18 - at least in most States.

[Fish]

The minute the government admits that prayer is an effective means of curing a disease, or admits that prayer is an approved alternate treatment at least the equal of proven medical solutions, that's when the churches line up to be counted as "healthcare providers." That's when the government starts to hand money over to any self-ordained nutjob who can wield an aspergillum.

That is as good a reason as any for governmental institutions like the DHHS, NIH, CDC, and FDA to regard "healing power of prayer" with the same scrutiny, and without sentimental attachment, as they would give any purported cure (such as rubbing your face with magic pizza, drinking dog piss, and sticking weasels up your butt). If prayer had any real, tangible, reliable benefit to the patient, and withstood rigorous double-blind testing, then sure — always bearing in mind what the standard for comparison is. Aspirin works even if you don't believe in it.

[WednesdayAddams]

And living in the same county as someone else should not grant you the right to dictate how someone else raises their child. Where is the line drawn?
Just short of forcing an innocent person to die so you can have that right.

[WednesdayAddams]

Just short of forcing an innocent person to die so you can have that right.
To expand on this:

Every law is restricting someone's rights somewhere. The right to privacy, the right to free speech, the right to vote....ALL of our rights have limitations. Nowhere in the constitution do I recall reading a clause guaranteeing the right to smoke in a public place. In the same way, I don't recall seeing the 'right to raise one's children without interference from the state' in there either unless you're really stretching the privacy laws. Anyone claiming some inherent 'right' as a citizen needs to be shown a copy of the Constitution and asked which of those clauses they're applying. More often than not, people are confusing 'rights' with what they think they ought to be allowed to do.

[kayaker]

Why didn't Jebus save the kids? Maybe they were bad kids.

[john ingram]

Just short of forcing an innocent person to die so you can have that right.

Forcing? That's a little hyperbolic, don't you think? It's not as though these parents are throwing their kids into gas chambers.

[john ingram]

Anyone claiming some inherent 'right' as a citizen needs to be shown a copy of the Constitution and asked which of those clauses they're applying. More often than not, people are confusing 'rights' with what they think they ought to be allowed to do.

It's not in the Constitution. It's in the Bill of Rights. Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[WednesdayAddams]

Forcing? That's a little hyperbolic, don't you think? It's not as though these parents are throwing their kids into gas chambers.
No, they're just letting them die. Dead is dead. It's not a little owie they'll recover from later and go on the talk circuit to whine about how weird their parents were. They are dead, and the people who are supposed to be caring for and protecting them sat back and let it happen. There is no excuse for that kind of neglect.

[john ingram]

But who are you to say that they're wrong? Can you prove that somewhere there's not a man in the clouds who approves of this?

[WednesdayAddams]

It's not in the Constitution. It's in the Bill of Rights. Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Right. No rights that already exist shall be infringed. The fun part is proving said right is legal and does not infringe on other laws already extant. Since neglect is illegal, doing so even for religious reasons is not a right.

[LordVor]

And taking children away from their parents, against everyone's will, is no less traumatic than the alternative.

John, I think that is the single stupidest sentence you've ever written. When "the alternative" is near certain death of their child, taking the child away by force is several orders of magnitude of less traumatic.

[HoHoHo]

And living in the same county as someone else should not grant you the right to dictate how someone else raises their child. Where is the line drawn?

You seem to be arguing from the position that the right of parents to raise their children in any way they wish should be absolute. My position is that not only should it not be absolute, but there are already legal restrictions on parental rights and those restrictions are not based on religion even if their existence affects those practising certain faiths more than it affects others.

I'm just as legally restricted from allowing my children to marry before age 18, having my female children circumcised, denying my children an education, and having multiple spouses as any other Australian - and I'm unequivocably atheist. I am also restrained from failing to provide adequate care for my children (well, not now, because the youngest is about to turn 18).

To take it a step further, I'm legally required to ensure that all children in my vehicle are wearing age appropriate restraints and that no-one in my vehicle smokes if there are children under 16 in the vehicle. I also cannot serve alcohol to under 18s. The law doesn't just regulate my responsibility towards my own children, it regulates my responsibility towards the children of others as well. And my religious, political or philosophical beliefs do not - and in my opinion should not - exempt me from complying with those laws.

It really is quite interesting to see how two different nations with essentially the same establishment clause interpret its meaning. We also have quite different attitudes about the rights of parents in general (you can quite literally leave home here in your early teens without any need for formal "emancipation" from your parents, and there's a definite transfer of legal power from parent to child which starts happening around puberty).

My contention is that if you allow parental power to be absolute, then you effectively make children the property of their parents in the same way that slaves were the property of their masters - and that is a highly undesirable legal status to inflict on anyone, let alone the vulnerable, IMHO. I really don't see any moral difference between a child dying as a result of the actions of the parents and a child dying as the result of their intentional inaction, and I don't believe that there should be a difference in legal culpability between abuse and neglect.

A question for you. Peter Singer postulated a world in which parents would have the right to terminate the lives of their disabled children for a period of several years following birth. Do you really see any difference between Singer's proposal and giving parents the right to decide on the basis of their faith whether their child lives or dies? While I accept that there may be situations where causing active or passive harm to others may be the lesser evil, I reject absolutely the notion that religion/faith alone is ever sufficient reason for doing so.

For the record, I do not believe that religious beliefs are inherently more worthy of tolerance than political or philosophical beliefs, so I'm using the word "faith" in a fairly broad context here.

FWIW, I believe that the UK decision several years ago to compel the separation of conjoined twins was wrong, not because of the parents' faith but because the likelihood of either twin surviving the separation was so low. It was essentially experimental medicine and I don't believe that the courts should be able to compel that.

[WednesdayAddams]

But who are you to say that they're wrong? Can you prove that somewhere there's not a man in the clouds who approves of this?
I don't need to. All I have to do is cite the law. Parents are free to believe whatever they like. They are not free to neglect or abuse their child. That is illegal.

[HoHoHo]

But who are you to say that they're wrong? Can you prove that somewhere there's not a man in the clouds who approves of this?

Can you prove that there's not some man in the clouds who wanted the World Trade Centre bombed? Or does your religious tolerance only extend to Christian beliefs?

[Fish]

It's not in the Constitution. It's in the Bill of Rights. Ninth Amendment:
The intent of the Ninth Amendment was to say, "Although we have enumerated several rights here, we are not implying that they are the only rights retained by the people." They didn't want to expand the federal powers by implication. It was a school of thought which divided the Founding Fathers: was the Constitution a document that gave all power to the government and set aside certain things for the people — all powers not prohibited are permitted — or did it give all power to the people and set aside certain things for the government, i.e., all powers not permitted are prohibited?

The Constitution contains no law against murder, for instance. Does that mean that murder is a right reserved for the people, according to the Ninth Amendment? I suspect that no court in the nation would agree.
But who are you to say that they're wrong? Can you prove that somewhere there's not a man in the clouds who approves of this?
If you're the one advocating that the right to free, uninterrupted parenting, even unto the death of the child, should exist, I declare it is you who must prove there is an invisible man in the clouds who approves.

Until that point, I think it should be treated as a specialized form of murder — murder by deliberate neglect — which is a crime we have empowered the state to prosecute. Otherwise, how do you draw a line between a parent who refuses to treat a child because he (the parent) believes in faith healing, and a parent who refuses to feed a child because the parent is a Breatharian?

[bufftabby]

Can you prove that there's not some man in the clouds who wanted the World Trade Centre bombed? Or does your religious tolerance only extend to Christian beliefs?

Unless you're positing that the bombers of the WTC were in fact the parents of the victims, that's not exactly a valid analogy.

[Islander]

Said simply, there are crimes of omission as well as crimes of comission. Withholding medical care for your child in a life-threatening condition is the former, and should carry the same penalty as the latter.

[WednesdayAddams]

Unless you're positing that the bombers of the WTC were in fact the parents of the victims, that's not exactly a valid analogy.

If one action which harms people based on religious belief is valid, so are they all. No picking and choosing. Either it's inviolate or it isn't. The hoho's analogy is valid.

[bufftabby]

If one action which harms people based on religious belief is valid, so are they all. No picking and choosing. Either it's inviolate or it isn't. The hoho's analogy is valid.

I disagree, but thanks for the ruling.

[HoHoHo]

Unless you're positing that the bombers of the WTC were in fact the parents of the victims, that's not exactly a valid analogy.

It'll do when my argument is essentially that neither parenthood nor belief systems are a valid reasons for causing harm to others. john ingram's argument seems to be that belief systems should be a valid excuse for harming others and that parents in particular should be allowed to use them as a defence against the consequences of illegal acts. I am arguing that the religion of parents in no more relevant to whether or not they should be prosecuted for the harm they cause than is the religion of terrorists.

If you're the one advocating that the right to free, uninterrupted parenting, even unto the death of the child, should exist, I declare it is you who must prove there is an invisible man in the clouds who approves.

Nope. The mere existence of a god would no more mean that his wishes should be complied with than the wishes of any other dictator.

[bufftabby]

Also, that's not even to say that I agree that religious beliefs permit any sort of egregious behavior, along the lines of letting children go without medical care OR bombing buildings. I think it's more of a question of personal autonomy as it extends to one's children, and religion as the basis for these decisions is irrelevant. If I don't think my child should receive treatment, it shouldn't matter why or why not; what really matters is whether I should be able to make this decision or not. Personally, I'm not sure where this line should be drawn, but I don't think the fact that terrorists don't have the right to commit bombings will affect my decision.

[bufftabby]

I am arguing that the religion of parents in no more relevant to whether or not they should be prosecuted for the harm they cause than is the religion of terrorists.


This, I agree with. I don't think religion should enter into it. I think it's irrelevant why the parents want to act/fail to act, and the only issue is whether they should be allowed to do so for any reason.

[WednesdayAddams]

Also, that's not even to say that I agree that religious beliefs permit any sort of egregious behavior, along the lines of letting children go without medical care OR bombing buildings.
No, I got that.

I think it's more of a question of personal autonomy as it extends to one's children, and religion as the basis for these decisions is irrelevant. If I don't think my child should receive treatment, it shouldn't matter why or why not; what really matters is whether I should be able to make this decision or not.
The courts and the laws disagree with you. 'Should' does not come in to play. Parents are not generally allowed to refuse standard medical care for their children, regardless of the reason. This is considered criminal neglect.

Because children are not considered able to make responsible medical decisions for themselves. Parents are expected to make those responsible decisions until such time as the law recognizes the children as adults. Failure to do so (regardless of the reason) is illegal, and at that point the state has the duty and the right to step in.

U.S.C.A. Title 42, Chapter 67, Sec. 5106a orders states to provide services through CPS against medical neglect up to and including competency hearings against the parents should they withhold care.

SHOULD you be able to make that decision? Yes. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing if you're going to invoke some esoteric belief as an excuse for not doing what is in your child's best interest. So the state provides for that.

Once again, refer back to my opinion WRT idealists and what 'should' be.

[Fish]

Nope. The mere existence of a god would no more mean that his wishes should be complied with than the wishes of any other dictator.
That wasn't really my point. John essentially said, "I believe parenting is a universal and unabridged right, to be exercised at the discretion of the parents alone, and you have to prove why it isn't." I am putting the burden of proof back where it belongs, nothing more; if he wishes for that right to exist, on that basis, it is his job to prove it, not mine.

[HoHoHo]

Also, that's not even to say that I agree that religious beliefs permit any sort of egregious behavior, along the lines of letting children go without medical care OR bombing buildings. I think it's more of a question of personal autonomy as it extends to one's children, and religion as the basis for these decisions is irrelevant. If I don't think my child should receive treatment, it shouldn't matter why or why not; what really matters is whether I should be able to make this decision or not. Personally, I'm not sure where this line should be drawn, but I don't think the fact that terrorists don't have the right to commit bombings will affect my decision.

If we're talking solely about religion should be a basis for restraining the state from being able to prevent harm to those who are legally unable to make their own decisions about life-threatening situations, I don't think that our views are very different. I just don't see religion as any different to any other belief system and object to it being accorded any special status at law.

For me, the acid test should be "the best interests of the child" and I believe that there exist (fortunately rare) situations in which the best interests of the child should be determined by someone other than the parents - especially when the consequences are irrevocable, and the need to make decisions is time-critical.

As I've already said upthread, I absolutely believe that adult children should be able to sue their parents for any long term harm they have suffered as a consequence of their parents failing to provide appropriate medical care when they were fully able to do so. So know, I don't think that you, me, or any other parent should always have an absolute and inalienable right to make decisions which will harm my child to the point of death. When there is disagreement about what is "in the best interests of the child, I absolutely believe that the state has both a right and a duty to act as guardian ad litem for the child until the issue is resolved.

[bufftabby]

The courts and the laws disagree with you. 'Should' does not come in to play. Parents are not generally allowed to refuse standard medical care for their children, regardless of the reason. This is considered criminal neglect.

Because children are not considered able to make responsible medical decisions for themselves. Parents are expected to make those responsible decisions until such time as the law recognizes the children as adults. Failure to do so (regardless of the reason) is illegal, and at that point the state has the duty and the right to step in.

U.S.C.A. Title 42, Chapter 67, Sec. 5106a orders states to provide services through CPS against medical neglect up to and including competency hearings against the parents should they withhold care.

SHOULD you be able to make that decision? Yes. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing if you're going to invoke some esoteric belief as an excuse for not doing what is in your child's best interest. So the state provides for that.

Once again, refer back to my opinion WRT idealists and what 'should' be.

You misunderstand me. I did not say, 'I should be able to make this decision,' I said, "whether I should be able to make this decision or not", "whether" being the key word there. I personally fall on the side of NO, much like the courts and the laws do. As I said, I'm not sure where this line should be drawn. To elaborate, how far should forcing medical care extend, particularly in light of the vaccination debate. Once again, refer back to my opinion that religion should have no bearing on this. I don't care why some parents believe their child shouldn't be vaccinated; the only relevant bit is whether they should be allowed to treat vaccinations as either optional or necessary medical procedures.

[WednesdayAddams]

Ah, then I did misunderstand. I didn't see the 'whether.' Thanks for clearing that up. Going by your last post, I'd say the dividing line lies in the guidelines hoho laid out: best interest of the child. That's open to interpretation and reasonable people can disagree as to what's in the best interest, but medical guidelines WRT a child's care should be fairly clear.

[bufftabby]

If we're talking solely about religion should be a basis for restraining the state from being able to prevent harm to those who are legally unable to make their own decisions about life-threatening situations, I don't think that our views are very different. I just don't see religion as any different to any other belief system and object to it being accorded any special status at law.

The only thing I disagree with you on is your analogy.

[HoHoHo]

Ah, then I did misunderstand. I didn't see the 'whether.' Thanks for clearing that up. Going by your last post, I'd say the dividing line lies in the guidelines hoho laid out: best interest of the child. That's open to interpretation and reasonable people can disagree as to what's in the best interest, but medical guidelines WRT a child's care should be fairly clear.

FWIW, there are occasional cases here where hospitals make applications to the court to discontinue futile care, so doctors don't always argue that heroic medicine is in the patient's best interests.

There's an interesting challenge happening here at the moment with children's hospitals asking for the right to refuse to return life-threateningly obese children to the care of their parents in situations where the parents have consistently ignored medical advice about dietary and lifestyle change. It will probably pan out in favour of the hospitals.

[HoHoHo]

The only thing I disagree with you on is your analogy.


I suspected that might be the case.

[Fenris]

The problem is that the examples given are easy. Sure, the 3 year old kid who needs a minor procedure to live but the parents want her to die is a possiblity, but let's posit a tougher case (which is a real case, and the details are as close as I can remember).

Kid is 12-14 years old. Has a new-age hippie mom. Dad is not in the picture.

Kid has a semi-treatable form of cancer. With immediate treatment his life might be extended as much as 10 years. Without, dead within 2 years, max. Doctors say that there's a new treatment that will be available in 4-5 years that looks like it might have a near 100% chance of a cure.

Mom (and kid--who's been indoctrinated thoroughly by mom) point blank refuse the treatment (chemo/radiation)-she thinks "natural" foods and cosmic vibrations (or whatthehellever) will cure him.

Kid explains that he doesn't want to be "poisoned" and says that if the doctors are correct (and he doesn't believe it--natural food and cosmic vibrations will heal him, but IF) he'd rather have two non-sick years than seven years of chemo/radiation (note that regular treatments are/will be needed). It's clear the kid understands what the doctors say his chances are.

Judge orders the kid to accept treatment. Kid goes ballistic and says he won't do it. Mom "kidnaps" the kid (with his cooperation) and runs towards Mexico.

They get caught and hauled before you, the judge.

Kid is unrepentant and tells you he'll run away again and he'll fight anyone who tries to "poison" him-he will physically rip out the IV tubes and "beat the crap" out of anyone who tries to force him--it's his body, his choice.

What do you, the Judge, do?

Remember, this is as close to a real case as I can remember. It's not a hypothetical.


(ETA--I don't think this is the same case as the one Wretched Creature linked to, although there's a lot of similarities)

[Fish]

Make both parents and the kid both sign an AMA agreement (against medical advice) that explains, "Yes, I understand the diagnosis of (insert medical stuff), and yes I realize that by foregoing the recommended treatment I may wither and die, and yes I accept responsibility, and yes I agree that neither I nor any relation shall sue the doctors, the courts, or the insurance companies, and yes I agree to be bound by this up until the point where the doctor's diagnosis changes."

And I'd only do that if the disease wasn't some deadly contagion.

[HoHoHo]

The problem is that the examples given are easy. Sure, the 3 year old kid who needs a minor procedure to live but the parents want her to die is a possiblity, but let's posit a tougher case (which is a real case, and the details are as close as I can remember).

Kid is 12-14 years old. Has a new-age hippie mom. Dad is not in the picture.

Kid has a semi-treatable form of cancer. With immediate treatment his life might be extended as much as 10 years. Without, dead within 2 years, max. Doctors say that there's a new treatment that will be available in 4-5 years that looks like it might have a near 100% chance of a cure.

Mom (and kid--who's been indoctrinated thoroughly by mom) point blank refuse the treatment (chemo/radiation)-she thinks "natural" foods and cosmic vibrations (or whatthehellever) will cure him.

Kid explains that he doesn't want to be "poisoned" and says that if the doctors are correct (and he doesn't believe it--natural food and cosmic vibrations will heal him, but IF) he'd rather have two non-sick years than seven years of chemo/radiation (note that regular treatments are/will be needed). It's clear the kid understands what the doctors say his chances are.

Judge orders the kid to accept treatment. Kid goes ballistic and says he won't do it. Mom "kidnaps" the kid (with his cooperation) and runs towards Mexico.

They get caught and hauled before you, the judge.

Kid is unrepentant and tells you he'll run away again and he'll fight anyone who tries to "poison" him-he will physically rip out the IV tubes and "beat the crap" out of anyone who tries to force him--it's his body, his choice.

What do you, the Judge, do?

Remember, this is as close to a real case as I can remember. It's not a hypothetical.


(ETA--I don't think this is the same case as the one Wretched Creature linked to, although there's a lot of similarities)

The kid's wishes would not be automatically discounted here. The focus would be on determining the individual kid's capacity to make that decision and what factors are influencing it. This is entirely consistent with how the law in general treats adolescents here, not just in regard to medical care but in other areas as well (our family law system pretty much won't enforce access orders for children over 12 here and will give priority to the wishes of children 12 and over when determining custody). Where it would become a legal grey area is when the disease process renders the kid incapable of giving informed consent - I'm pretty sure that a teen could not execute a valid DNR without going to court, for instance.

There have been cases here where teens have successfully appealed to the courts to obtain medical intervention against their parents' wishes - it has happened in cases of trans teens commencing medical transition. There tends to be some consistency in the application of our laws here - the right of teenagers to contract for medical care without parental consent is well established and my own experience as a parent of teens confirms that at least after age 14 doctors will pretty much honour the patient's wishes in the absence of evidence of impaired capacity to consent. I'm damned sure I would never have been able to force my child to donate a bone marrow or a kidney, for instance, if the child raised any objection. I know that great care is taken to establish that the wishes of pregnant teens to either continue or terminate a pregnancy are honoured no matter what the teen's parents would prefer.

Here, at least, you're talking about an age at which runaways are not automatically returned to parental care and where the right to increasing independence of decision-making is already enshrined in law. The judge would almost certainly order a comprehensive psych evaluation of the kid and proceed from there.

[Islander]

The situation Fenris refers to, and Wretched Creature’s case, come closest to my own leanings on this issue. The case of the parents praying over a child in a diabetic coma is clear-cut, but the gray area I referred to in my OP was more along the lines of what I’m reading here. The Daniel Hauser case is a good example.

I’m going to stick my neck out and say that not all cancers are deadly; that there is a huge body of evidence that certain alternative approaches — what you’d call woo-woo medicine — do in fact work; and that some tumors will simply disappear of their own accord, or be engulfed and destroyed by one’s own immune system, because the corollary would be that miracles happen, and I don’t believe in miracles.

By the time the Hauser case got to court, IIRC,* all evidence of tumors was gone. Repeat: the boy was free of cancer. The parents expressed a willingness to resort to chemo if the tumors returned. The judge nonetheless ordered the parents to comply with conventional treatment, and the boy was forced against his own and his parents’ wishes to undergo the harshest, most destructive therapy modern medicine has to offer.

Of course parents want what is in the child’s best interest...but “best interest” may be disputable. The ultimate question in dodgy cases like these is whether the child’s condition is truly life-threatening. I don’t know that any hard-and-fast line can be drawn here. Instances like this call for judgment on a case-by-case basis.

* There's a chance I'm confusing this with a similar case in California.

[HoHoHo]

By the time the Hauser case got to court, IIRC,* all evidence of tumors was gone. Repeat: the boy was free of cancer. The parents expressed a willingness to resort to chemo if the tumors returned. The judge nonetheless ordered the parents to comply with conventional treatment, and the boy was forced against his own and his parents’ wishes to undergo the harshest, most destructive therapy modern medicine has to offer.

See that's an instance in which I have a hard time supporting the court's ruling - because at the time of the ruling the boy was cancer free and the parents had agreed to conventional treatment if the cancer returned. Frequent monitoring for recurrence or additional medical opinions, I could support, but what the judge ordered seems little different to me than a prophylactic mastectomy. Had the cancer been active at the time of the ruling, I would feel differently.

ETA that I do understand that "tumour-free" only means that any tumors present are unable to be imaged, not that there are none present at all.

[Clothahump]

Adults who believe in faith healing and the power of prayer eschew medical care. That’s fine for them, but what about children in their care? Last year, 300 children died because their parents belonged to Christian sects that refuse a doctor’s treatment. Not long ago, an 11-year-old Wisconsin girl with treatable diabetes died because her parents insisted on withholding treatment and merely prayed for her. The case went to court and the parent spent six months in jail. That seems like a nod to exceptions for faith-based neglect and/or manslaughter.

This is a real gray area. Should freedom of religion extend to denying lifesaving care to minors?

In a word, No.

If a child is sick and the parents withhold treatment based on religion and the child dies, they should be arrested for murder.

[Wretched Creature]

By the time the Hauser case got to court, IIRC,* all evidence of tumors was gone. Repeat: the boy was free of cancer. The parents expressed a willingness to resort to chemo if the tumors returned. The judge nonetheless ordered the parents to comply with conventional treatment, and the boy was forced against his own and his parents’ wishes to undergo the harshest, most destructive therapy modern medicine has to offer.

Of course parents want what is in the child’s best interest...but “best interest” may be disputable. The ultimate question in dodgy cases like these is whether the child’s condition is truly life-threatening. I don’t know that any hard-and-fast line can be drawn here. Instances like this call for judgment on a case-by-case basis.

* There's a chance I'm confusing this with a similar case in California.

Actually, the cancer was present when the court case was decided, I believe. I know that evidence was presented in court while he was on the run with his mother that the tumor in his chest had increased in size. (He has finished all chemotherapy treatment, as noted in this update (http://www.startribune.com/local/57328077.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKU7DYaGEP7v DEh7P:DiUs).) You might be confusing it with that other case, but I understand the point you're making.

I'm still uncomfortable with the courts being able to take that authority away from the parents. I know it's not the popular opinion, but if we're going to allow these people (meaning any people involved in this kind of case) to bear children and make all other decisions for them, why are we drawing the line at lifesaving medical procedures? At what point do children become not their parents' responsibility but an asset that must be protected by society against all perceived threats?

Islander, you said that "certain alternative approaches" might actually have value, so who actually gets to decide which Woo Woo is the Woo Woo we should try to do? :D Is Native American or Asian herbal medicine okay but Christian faith healing less so? Do crystals beat chants? How about spiritual surgery?

Mind you, I don't believe any of that mummery would save Daniel Hauser from Hodgkin's. For me and my hypothetical child, chemotherapy would be the way to go. My point is that if we are going to let Woo-Woo-believin' whack jobs breed at will (as we do), isn't it just logical that they also be allowed to decide what constitutes appropriate medical care for their spawn?

[Fish]

My point is that if we are going to let Woo-Woo-believin' whack jobs breed at will (as we do), isn't it just logical that they also be allowed to decide what constitutes appropriate medical care for their spawn?
I don't have a problem with allowing parents to decide upon appropriate medical care for their spawn: note I deliberately exclude the word "medical," because I don't think the government should aggrandize some of the wackier methods with words like "medical treatment" or "surgical procedure" or even "health care." The government should objectively measure, in appropriate scientific double-blind studies, which methods are effective; and just as objectively state when they are not.

I do think that the parents should be absolutely required to sign a form indicating that they understand the doctor's recommendation and they are not just choosing to disregard it, but choosing to accept liability for the results.

It's interesting to note: the very same "right to deny medical care" that the religious folks are using to allow them to choose prayer and faith healing is the same logic (at least in my mind) that could be used to promote assisted suicide. You choose to forego medical care; you choose instead a method that will hasten your end. If one is your right, then so is the other, yes?

[HoHoHo]

I know it's not the popular opinion, but if we're going to allow these people (meaning any people involved in this kind of case) to bear children and make all other decisions for them, why are we drawing the line at lifesaving medical procedures?

But we don't allow parents to make all other decisions for their children. They have to meet many legal responsibilities to their children in other areas of their lives and those responsibilities are determined by the state. It would be utterly incongruous to accept the state's right to interfere in "minor" issues like education, seat-belt wearing, age of consent, drug and alcohol consumption, freedom to marry etc, etc while simultaneously arguing that the state should be restrained from interfering in life-threatening situations because "parents know best".

[SmartAleq]

So, what if a couple belongs to a religion that requires parents to sexually initiate their children before puberty, do they have a right to do that?

[Anacanapuna]

While SCOTUS has twice ruled against parents seeking protection from prosecution for letting their children die for lack of medical treatment based on religious belief, this TIME (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,100175,00.html)magazine article exposes some loopholes in the decision.

We haven't heard of a case like that recently, but IIRC, prosecutors in all but the four states mentioned in the article have said they will not hesitate to prosecute, and social services agencies will intervene.

[Wretched Creature]

I do think that the parents should be absolutely required to sign a form indicating that they understand the doctor's recommendation and they are not just choosing to disregard it, but choosing to accept liability for the results.

It's interesting to note: the very same "right to deny medical care" that the religious folks are using to allow them to choose prayer and faith healing is the same logic (at least in my mind) that could be used to promote assisted suicide. You choose to forego medical care; you choose instead a method that will hasten your end. If one is your right, then so is the other, yes?

I completely agree on both points, but then I'm a filthy right-to-deather.

But we don't allow parents to make all other decisions for their children. They have to meet many legal responsibilities to their children in other areas of their lives and those responsibilities are determined by the state. It would be utterly incongruous to accept the state's right to interfere in "minor" issues like education, seat-belt wearing, age of consent, drug and alcohol consumption, freedom to marry etc, etc while simultaneously arguing that the state should be restrained from interfering in life-threatening situations because "parents know best".

Each of those "rights to interfere" grew out of a discussion much like this one. When I was growing up, there was no seatbelt law, for instance, and no real action was taken to prevent or even discourage corporal punishment. While there were compulsory education laws (I'm not that old), enforcement was a little, uh, haphazard.

Every one of those areas you mentioned added another layer of government or societal "ownership," if you will, of children and removed an aspect of parental responsibility. At some point we need to 'fess up and let people know ahead of time that their children are not simply family members but resources that belong to the world. That way they can avoid making decisions that will offend the masses.

So, what if a couple belongs to a religion that requires parents to sexually initiate their children before puberty, do they have a right to do that?

I think there have been several cases (especially in regard to polygamist sects) that have shown that they do not.

While the issues might be emotionally equivalent, I don't think they are ethically or legally. IANAP, but I don't think many people believe that religious-based sexual initiation of children is performed for the good of those children or as a true expression of faith, regardless of the claims of the perpetrators, so I don't think this issue really relates to the topic raised in the OP.

[SmartAleq]

I think there have been several cases (especially in regard to polygamist sects) that have shown that they do not.

While the issues might be emotionally equivalent, I don't think they are ethically or legally. IANAP, but I don't think many people believe that religious-based sexual initiation of children is performed for the good of those children or as a true expression of faith, regardless of the claims of the perpetrators, so I don't think this issue really relates to the topic raised in the OP.

I suppose you're right, I just have a blinky button about parents who mess up kids for religious reasons--I spent some time as a young woman being a Jehovah's Witness and I've seen some really awful stuff done to kids in the name of religion. When I was pregnant with my daughter I had JWs quite earnestly talking to me about how I'd have to stay strong and let my daughter die if there were birth complications requiring a transfusion. I was threatened with disfellowshipping when I refused to kowtow and told them I'd do whatever the doctors and I thought prudent to keep my child safe regardless of whatever spiritual consequences there might be for it. I tend to get cranky when the subject of "child as chattel" comes up. If parents can't bring themselves to make the right decisions regarding medical care for their kids they should abrogate that responsibility in favor of someone who's more level headed on the subject.

[Islander]

Islander, you said that "certain alternative approaches" might actually have value, so who actually gets to decide which Woo Woo is the Woo Woo we should try to do? :D Is Native American or Asian herbal medicine okay but Christian faith healing less so? Do crystals beat chants? How about spiritual surgery?

Mind you, I don't believe any of that mummery would save Daniel Hauser from Hodgkin's. For me and my hypothetical child, chemotherapy would be the way to go. My point is that if we are going to let Woo-Woo-believin' whack jobs breed at will (as we do), isn't it just logical that they also be allowed to decide what constitutes appropriate medical care for their spawn?

One woo at a time, here.

Please understand that “alternative health care” casts a wide net, and I consider some of the approaches in that net to be outright quackery, e.g. homeopathy, crystals, drumming, the laying on of hands, or the baking-soda-and-maple-syrup cancer cure. On the other hand, CAM, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, cherrypicks the best of both worlds in its approach to disease. It’s illogical to reject certain foods, or certain herbs, as having healing or preventive properties when we consider that over 80% of our prescription drugs are plant-based.

Having dismissed that woo, I can assure you that there are thousands of well documented cases of successful alternative cancer cures, and add that there are some oncologists at highly respected institutions who are aware of these therapies and may in fact recommend them. Two of the better-known are Jerry Brunetti, and the Gerson Therapy, both nutrition-based. This is where faith-based and evidence-based medicine part company. Keep in mind, too, that with chemo drugs running as high as $30,000/month, cancer is a highly profitable business.

I like the compromise that Fish mentioned in which parents sign an agreement choosing to accept liability for their decision.

[Guinastasia]

Wasn't that boy also mentally retarded?

I read of a case not too long ago where a boy kept having seizures and a family took him to a minister to have him "exorcised". Because they believed it was a demon causing the convulsions.

Yes.

I went to school with a girl who was born with a hole in her heart. Her stepmother refused to allow her to have the surgery needed to fix it (when she was old enough, around 10 I think) due to religious reasons. She lived to be 13, and died in a hospital sometime between the end of eighth grade and the start of our freshman year of high school. I always thought her parents should have gone to prison for murder. Sad side story: apparently when she died she was already registered, and nobody notified the school that she wouldn't be coming. She was on all the teachers' rosters and was included in roll calls on our first day of high school and was marked absent all day until fifth period when somebody burst into tears in a history class and went and told the principal that she had died. If only she had just been absent....

How sickening. My great-aunt was born with a hole in her heart and at the time my great-grandmother was told she only had a 50% chance of surviving the operation. So Aunt Gina didn't have the surgery until she was 18. I'm sure Great-Gramma would've slapped this woman and told her she was lucky to have that chance to survive the surgery. (In my aunt's case, she was told she would have made it to forty without said operation)

So unless we're talking something that's iffy and a parent is refusing extraordinary measures that have dubious chances, I cannot support this as "religious freedom."

[HoHoHo]

One woo at a time, here.

Please understand that “alternative health care” casts a wide net, and I consider some of the approaches in that net to be outright quackery, e.g. homeopathy, crystals, drumming, the laying on of hands, or the baking-soda-and-maple-syrup cancer cure. On the other hand, CAM, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, cherrypicks the best of both worlds in its approach to disease. It’s illogical to reject certain foods, or certain herbs, as having healing or preventive properties when we consider that over 80% of our prescription drugs are plant-based.

Having dismissed that woo, I can assure you that there are thousands of well documented cases of successful alternative cancer cures, and add that there are some oncologists at highly respected institutions who are aware of these therapies and may in fact recommend them. Two of the better-known are Jerry Brunetti, and the Gerson Therapy, both nutrition-based. This is where faith-based and evidence-based medicine part company. Keep in mind, too, that with chemo drugs running as high as $30,000/month, cancer is a highly profitable business.

I like the compromise that Fish mentioned in which parents sign an agreement choosing to accept liability for their decision.

I don't know enough about the US healthcare system to comment on what is considered "alternative" there, but I can assure you that every oncology unit here supports and encourages the use of "complementary" therapies such as meditation, creative visualisation, nutritional support, and a shitload of other things which have been proven to improve quality of life. They just aren't regarded as the PRIMARY medical intervention.

Perhaps the sticking point is that they are labelled COMPLEMENTARY therapies rather than cures. Given the how high the bar is set for conventional medicine to be able to claim a "cure" (and as yet conventional medicine has NOT claimed a cure for cancer), I do not think it's unreasonable to evaluate "alternative" or "complementary" therapies by a similar standard.

And yes, here as world-wide, the very same companies which hold the patents for evidence based medicine also manufacture and market the products for which there is NO evidence of efficacy. They're quite happy to sell you whatever you believe in.

[Roo]

I like the compromise that Fish mentioned in which parents sign an agreement choosing to accept liability for their decision.
Does this also hold true for the case in the OP where the reason for withholding treatment is religious?

If the religious parents signed an agreement choosing to accept liability for their decision, would that count as a waiver against government intervention?

If the child dies, do they have any additional responsibility?

[HoHoHo]

Does this also hold true for the case in the OP where the reason for withholding treatment is religious?

If the religious parents signed an agreement choosing to accept liability for their decision, would that count as a waiver against government intervention?

If the child dies, do they have any additional responsibility?

In my very personal and not very humble opinion, religion should be neither a mitigating factor nor an aggravating one. They should not be punished any more or less because their negligence was based on religion. But it's easy for me as an atheist to sprout that as an ideal when I give no more weight to religious beliefs than I do to political beliefs or philosophical beliefs.

I believe that a parent should have a higher legal duty of care to their child than just about anyone else on the planet, and I guess that by extension that means that I believe that a parent should be punished MORE severely than a stranger for bringing harm to their child, whether actively or passively. So yes, I believe that parents should have additional responsibility for the well-being of their children at law than the legal responsibility which applies to perfect strangers.

[Islander]

Does this also hold true for the case in the OP where the reason for withholding treatment is religious?

If the religious parents signed an agreement choosing to accept liability for their decision, would that count as a waiver against government intervention?

If the child dies, do they have any additional responsibility?

I think I agree with the compromise posted by Fish, though I haven't scrolled back to re-read it. The parents would be held fully responsible for any outcomes, and (IIRC) would comply with medical intervention should the situation become life-threatening.

[Islander]

I don't know enough about the US healthcare system to comment on what is considered "alternative" there, but I can assure you that every oncology unit here supports and encourages the use of "complementary" therapies such as meditation, creative visualisation, nutritional support, and a shitload of other things which have been proven to improve quality of life. They just aren't regarded as the PRIMARY medical intervention.

Perhaps the sticking point is that they are labelled COMPLEMENTARY therapies rather than cures. Given the how high the bar is set for conventional medicine to be able to claim a "cure" (and as yet conventional medicine has NOT claimed a cure for cancer), I do not think it's unreasonable to evaluate "alternative" or "complementary" therapies by a similar standard.

And yes, here as world-wide, the very same companies which hold the patents for evidence based medicine also manufacture and market the products for which there is NO evidence of efficacy. They're quite happy to sell you whatever you believe in.

I see some significant differences here. From what I read, cancer patients are discouraged from using vitamins during the course of treatment. I'm also unaware of pharmaceutical companies selling patent medicines. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration), corrupt as it may be, overlooks supplement sales and is vehement in enforcing the rule that they can make no health claims. In fact, they recently went after a cereal company (General Mills?) for claiming that their Cheerios supported a healthy heart. Yes, consumers are free to buy whatever product or service they wish, but the manufacturer or provider cannot legally make any health claims for it.

[Fish]

Please understand that “alternative health care” casts a wide net, and I consider some of the approaches in that net to be outright quackery, e.g. homeopathy, crystals, drumming, the laying on of hands, or the baking-soda-and-maple-syrup cancer cure. On the other hand, CAM, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, cherrypicks the best of both worlds in its approach to disease.
Oh, absolutely — I have an agnostic view toward the cures that should be examined and researched. If I had any notion that sticking weasels up my butt would cure my genetic liver dysfunction, pass the mustelids and don't spare the whip!

The history of standardized medicine has only comparatively recently embraced the idea of germ theory, hygiene, wearing sterile gloves to surgery, and so on; the establishment resisted these concepts because it overturned the safe and conventional (and profitable) way they did business. Lest we forget, the goal is healing people, not extracting their money. Any cure that works, from any source, I don't care what it is.

But let's not throw money down the drain. If prayer works as a placebo effect, only 5% of the time on only 20% of the population, or whatever the statistics are, it's not a cure upon which I would care to rely.

[Islander]

Quite so, Fish.

On the other hand, once my holiday bills are paid, I plan to try acupuncture. If it actually makes my chronic back pain go away, I don't care if it's just placebo effect!