Freedom of religion and separation of church and state: these are two of the most fundamental principles on which this country was founded. Lately, the government has been forced to take a greater role in religious issues than it was originally meant to have. I am referring to the decision of the Supreme Court last week not to review the case of McKown v. Lundman. This means that a Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling upholding an award of $1.5 million to the father of Ian Lundman will stand as it is. Eleven-year-old Ian Lundman died in 1989 when his mother, stepfather and two Christian Science practitioners tried to bring him out of a diabetic coma through the use of prayer.
Christian Scientists believe in using prayer as the sole means to treat sickness, foregoing all forms of modern medical intervention. In the suit brought by Ian's father, medical experts testified in court that the child would have lived had he been given insulin. This damning testimony seemed to make the outcome of the case a given: judgment in favor of Ian's father.
The New York Times printed a lengthy editorial Jan. 31 which attacked the Supreme Court's decision and proclaimed support for Ian's mother and stepfather, citing "the right of the family to make religious decisions for children." This attitude, while seemingly in accordance with the right to freedom of religion, violates a concept which is really assumed by the Constitution (the pursuit of life, liberty, and property): the right to live!
Have no illusions -- I firmly believe in the right to live one's life as one sees fit. How could I not? But when that liberty causes another person to suffer unnecessarily, then a problem arises. An adult has the right to refuse medical treatment. Does an adult have the right to make that decision for a child?
This scenario may seem extreme, but the fact is that the right of religious groups to protect their children from outside influences has long been recognized by the courts. For example, in the 1972 case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court ruled that the Old Order Amish could take their children out of school after the eighth grade, despite compulsory education laws. The Amish argument was that mandatory schooling might destroy the Amish way of life. (This is also mentioned as supporting evidence in the Times editorial.)
However, there is a huge difference between education and medical care. If parents don't want their children educated in a particular system, then they have a right to take their children out of it. If they don't want their children to be treated using certain medical practices, then it is also their right to seek alternate methods of treatment. But when the actions of the parents -- indeed, the negligence of the parents -- to seek effective medical treatment is impaired by religious beliefs, then the government must step in and deal with this. When all is said and done, there is a difference between a child educated outside of the traditional system and a dead child.
Several states have compromised on this issue and require Christian Science practitioners to notify state medical authorities when they are treating a child. This gives the state the opportunity to intervene if necessary, often against the parents' wishes. But wait -- doesn't this violate the concept of separation of church and state? What right do state governments have to meddle in the affairs of Christian Scientists?
State governments have every right to intervene if it involves the life of a child. Why should a child be threatened by a medical disorder simply because his parents happen to be Christian Scientists? Government agencies should not sit by idly, hiding from responsibility under the cloak of "freedom of religion." In cases such as this (and they are more numerous than one would think), the expansion of governmental power to act as an intermediary between medicine and religion is completely justified. Freedom of religion -- in its most abstract and primordial sense -- is an inalienable right. But not when it is taken to such extremes! Not when there is a potential for people to die unnecessarily.
