Following is a summary of major case law involving the law and faith healing, both in the U.S. and in Oregon, where Carl and Raylene Worthington will face manslaughter charges in the death of their infant daughter in a trial that starts Tuesday (June 23).
Prince v. Massachusetts
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1994 decision set an often-cited standard for situations where parental and religious rights collide with the government’s interest in protecting children. A Jehovah’s Witness was convicted of violating child-labor laws by requiring a 9-year-old girl to preach on the streets, distribute literature and collect donations. Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge Jr., writing for a 5-4 majority, boiled the issue to its core: “Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.”
Massachusetts v. Sheridan
Dorothy Sheridan, a Christian Scientist, was convicted of manslaughter in 1967 after her 5-year-old daughter died of pneumonia. A medical examiner called it “an unnecessary death.” The case served as a wake-up call to the Boston-based Christian Science Church, which launched a national lobbying effort to protect parents who choose spiritual healing. In 1975, the federal government required states to adopt religious exemptions or forgo federal funding for child-protection programs. Most states complied. Although the federal rule was dropped in 1983, few states repealed the exemptions.
Massachusetts v. Twitchell
Robyn Twitchell, a 2-year-old Massachusetts boy, died in 1986 of peritonitis and a twisted bowel after suffering for several days. His parents, Ginger and David Twitchell, were convicted of manslaughter in 1990. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned the conviction because a lower-court judge prohibited some evidence offered by the Twitchells, but the court affirmed the state’s right to prosecute parents who fail to provide necessary medical care for their children. The case prompted the Massachusetts legislature to repeal a religious exemption.
Oregon v. Loyd and Christina Hays
The Brownsville, Ore., couple, members of the Church of the First Born, were prosecuted after their 7-year-old son, Tony, died from leukemia in 1994. A jury acquitted Christina Hays but found Loyd Hays guilty of criminally negligent homicide. Loyd Hays appealed, citing his constitutional right to freedom of religion. A three-member Oregon Court of Appeals panel said that once a “reasonable person should know” of a substantial risk that the child would die without medical care, the parent has to provide the care or face criminal charges if the child dies.
Faith healing and Oregon law
1995: Lobbied by the Christian Science Church, legislators introduce a religious defense to Oregon’s homicide statutes, protecting parents who try to heal their children solely with prayer. Parents who could prove to a judge or jury that faith governed their actions became immune from criminal liability, just as others could assert a claim of self-defense or extreme emotional disturbance.
1997: Again at the behest of Christian Scientists, Oregon legislators add religious shields to the state’s first- and second-degree manslaughter statutes.
1998: Citing legal immunities for faith healers, Clackamas County District Attorney Terry Gustafson declines to prosecute the parents of an 11-year-old diabetic boy who died after the couple withheld medical treatment in favor of prayer. Her decision, which conflicted with the state attorney general’s interpretation of the law, sparked a statewide controversy.
1999: After months of debate, legislators dissolved parents’ legal defense for treating sick children only with prayer. The new law eliminated religious protections in cases of second-degree manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and first- and second-degree criminal mistreatment, opening the door to prosecution in the Worthington case.
