Freedom from harm is more important than freedom of religion

We as Americans enjoy the freedom to practice any religion we want, however strange or outlandish that religion may be. The problem, however, arises when following one’s religion entails harming or causing the death of another person.

Last year a couple in Oregon City allowed their 15-month-old infant to die of pneumonia and a blood infection; both of which are easily curable ailments with antibiotics. One may think that this is an open and shut case of criminal negligence for which the parents may serve jail time. But one would be wrong.

Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution of Oregon states that, “No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.”

Since Carl Brent Worthington and his wife, Raylene Marie Worthington, the parents of the deceased child, were members of The Followers of Christ Church, which explicitly forbids all forms of medicine or professional medical care, they are covered under this right.

If an adult were to choose to end their own life by refusing medical treatment there would be little to argue about, assuming they were practicing their religion by doing so. But minors, not to mention infants, are by definition incapable of making their own decisions—that’s what parents are for.

If a child wanted to play Russian Roulette with his or her friends, I assume their parents would forbid them to do so. If the same parents did allow their child to play Russian Roulette, they would be guilty of child endangerment at the very least.

But here we have this nifty little right wherein anyone may do almost anything they please as long as it is in the form of religious expression. Under this law an action that would normally be criminally negligent becomes freedom of religion.

Fortunately the state of Oregon does not agree. The Worthingtons are being brought up on charges of criminal mistreatment and manslaughter in regards to the death of their infant daughter and will face trial on the Jan. 26. Unfortunately we have two contradicting laws at work here.

On the one hand we have the fundamental right, written into the Oregon Constitution, that forbids persecution, under the law, of religious beliefs. On the other hand we have a senate bill passed in 1999 (HB 2492) that holds parents accountable for a child’s death if they refused medical attention. The upcoming trial will be the first test of this law.

The law itself is pretty clear, saying that treatment by purely spiritual means is effectively illegal if it is going to cause the death of an individual less than 14 years of age, (i.e. in the case of severe illness). But the law itself directly conflicts with our very clearly stated Constitutional rights.

I believe in the free practice of religion, but only when the practice of that religion applies to oneself and does not cause physical harm to others. This should be a no-brainer. Religion has long enjoyed a carte blanche on harmful and manipulative behavior but now, finally, the state is forcing people to be responsible for their actions, regardless of what made them perform those actions.

The simple truth is that parental negligence, for any reason, should not be tolerated. Yes, the parents were and are free to follow their religion, but what about the right of that child to live?

Because the child had diminished autonomy, was unable to make choices that affected his or her life, and the parents used the power they had inappropriately, the state had an obligation to step in and care for the child’s wellbeing, even after the fact. That is what the senate bill is all about.

Carl and Raylene Worthington knowingly took away that right and should be punished accordingly.