In June 1990, a jury in Boston, Massachusetts,found David and Ginger Twitchell guilty of thenegligent homicide (involuntary manslaughter)of their 2-½ year–old son Robyn. The Twitchellswere sentenced to ten years’ probation for failing to provide medical care that could havesaved the life of their son, who died of an untreated bowel obstruction. The parents had contacted a Christian Science practitioner, but not amedical doctor. Massachusetts law does recognize spiritual healing as a form of medicine, butit requires parents to seek orthodox medical carefor seriously ill children.Testimony at their trial revealed that Robynhad suffered excruciating pain during the lastfive days of his life. A large section of his colon,scrotum, and other tissues had become necrotic,and even the pressure of a diaper on his abdomen caused him to scream in pain. Beforebecoming comatose, he began vomiting fecalmaterial. The Twitchells consulted a ChristianScience practitioner and nurse whose treatmentconsisted of “heartfelt yet disciplined prayer.” Amedical doctor was not consulted.The jury was said to be affected by testimonythat, while forbidding medical care for childrenwith critical illnesses, Christian Science doespermit orthodox obstetric care (Mrs. Twitchellhad received an anesthesia when Robyn wasborn) and orthodox dental care (Mr. Twitchellhad received treatment from a dentist for a rootcanal and impacted wisdom teeth).What should be the legal responsibility ofparents with critically ill children? Should society legally obligate all parents, regardless oftheir religious convictions, to utilize orthodoxmedical care? Would this, as Christian Scientistsclaim, interfere with the First Amendment rightto religious freedom? Do judges and juries havea right to state that prayer is inadequate medical treatment? Based on the histories of alternative healing practices presented in this chapter,what dangers would there be from this type ofregulation?On the other hand, there are many laws inthe United States governing parental behaviortoward children and prohibiting child abuse andneglect. Shouldn’t the failure to get medical carethat would probably have eliminated their son’spain and saved his life be considered the ultimate act of child abuse? Even if adults have aright to use whatever type healing practice theychoose, shouldn’t society require orthodox medical care for children (after all, wasn’t Robyntoo young to adopt Christian Science as his ownreligious philosophy)?
In June 1990, a jury in Boston, Massachusetts,
found David and Ginger Twitchell guilty of the
negligent homicide (involuntary manslaughter)
of their 2-½ year–old son Robyn. The Twitchells
were sentenced to ten years’ probation for failing to provide medical care that could have
saved the life of their son, who died of an untreated bowel obstruction. The parents had contacted a Christian Science practitioner, but not a
medical doctor. Massachusetts law does recognize spiritual healing as a form of medicine, but
it requires parents to seek orthodox medical care
for seriously ill children.
Testimony at their trial revealed that Robyn
had suffered excruciating pain during the last
five days of his life. A large section of his colon,
scrotum, and other tissues had become necrotic,
and even the pressure of a diaper on his abdomen caused him to scream in pain. Before
becoming comatose, he began vomiting fecal
material. The Twitchells consulted a Christian
Science practitioner and nurse whose treatment
consisted of “heartfelt yet disciplined prayer.” A
medical doctor was not consulted.
The jury was said to be affected by testimony
that, while forbidding medical care for children
with critical illnesses, Christian Science does
permit orthodox obstetric care (Mrs. Twitchell
had received an anesthesia when Robyn was
born) and orthodox dental care (Mr. Twitchell
had received treatment from a dentist for a root
canal and impacted wisdom teeth).
What should be the legal responsibility of
parents with critically ill children? Should society legally obligate all parents, regardless of
their religious convictions, to utilize orthodox
medical care? Would this, as Christian Scientists
claim, interfere with the First Amendment right
to religious freedom? Do judges and juries have
a right to state that prayer is inadequate medical treatment? Based on the histories of alternative healing practices presented in this chapter,
what dangers would there be from this type of
regulation?
On the other hand, there are many laws in
the United States governing parental behavior
toward children and prohibiting child abuse and
neglect. Shouldn’t the failure to get medical care
that would probably have eliminated their son’s
pain and saved his life be considered the ultimate act of child abuse? Even if adults have a
right to use whatever type healing practice they
choose, shouldn’t society require orthodox medical care for children (after all, wasn’t Robyn
too young to adopt Christian Science as his own
religious philosophy)?
Step by step
Solved in 5 steps
