Get Alerts

Enter your email address below to receive emails from the Center for Inquiry. After you press the “Sign Up” button, you’ll have the opportunity to choose which CFI groups and interests to receive emails from.

In order to receive alerts related to the Keep Health Care Safe and Secular campaign, please make sure the “CFI Office of Public Policy Alerts” box is checked when selecting which emails to receive.

Email Address


End of Life

Many people who are terminally ill want the option of hastening their death, so they can spare themselves and their families needless suffering. The Center for Inquiry firmly believes competent patients have a right to determine what happens to their bodies, so CFI supports legislation that authorizes physician-assisted dying. Although three states have now passed laws permitting physician-assisted dying, adamant and well-financed opposition from religious institutions, especially the Catholic Church, has stalled efforts in other states. At the end of a person’s life, no one else’s religious views should bear on how or when they choose to go. Our lives don’t belong to any church, politician, or cultural tradition. Our lives are our own.

End of Life Issues

There is, perhaps, no more personal a set of decisions an individual can make than those surrounding the end of life. CFI believes that such difficult and personal decisions should be made by patients themselves, in conjunction with their families and medical professionals. Respect for the individual requires respecting that individual’s autonomy. As CFI CEO Ron Lindsay has said, “There can be no more intimate, self-defining decision for a person than the decision whether to continue living.” For that reason, CFI supports state laws legalizing assistance in dying, and will continue to work to see those laws spread throughout the states. The opposition comes chiefly from religious organizations seeking to impose their own faith-based beliefs about God’s will on the whole of society.

Physician Assistance in Dying

In 1994, Oregon became the first state to legalize physicians assisting patients in choosing to die with dignity, by prescribing drugs that would lead to death. In a close election, 51.3% of the state voted to enact the Death With Dignity Act. This was met with a hailstorm of opposition from religious groups and the Bush Administration alike, with an attempt to repeal being rejected by 60% of voters in 1997, and by the Supreme Court’s ruling 6-3 in favor of the law in Gonzales v. Oregon. Between 1994 and 2013, 1,173 Oregonians received prescriptions for life ending drugs under the law, and 752 took the drugs.

As seen below, aid in dying has slowly spread to other states. Most recently, a New Mexican court found that it could not “envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying.” CFI intends to file an amicus brief in the inevitable appeal of this decision; well-funded and vocal opponents of this right have included the Roman Catholic Church, the Christian Medical and Dental Society, and the multiple Right to Life groups.

Oregon

Ballot Initiative

Since 1994, doctors may prescribe lethal drugs in controlled situations.

Washington

Ballot Initiative

Since 2008, doctors may prescribe lethal drugs in controlled situations.

Vermont

Legislation

Since May 2013, doctors may prescribe lethal drugs in controlled situations.

Montana

Court Decision

In December 2009, a Montana court ruled that physicians prescribing lethal drugs for self-administration will not face legal punishment. The Montana Supreme Court ruled the same month that physician aid in dying was not against public policy in Montana.

New Mexico

Court Decision

In January 2014, a New Mexico Court found a right to assistance in dying. Doctors will not face prosecution for prescribing lethal drugs in controlled situations.

California

Ballot Initiative

In 2005, a ballot initiative to permit physician aid in dying was defeated.

Michigan

Ballot Initiative

In 1998, a ballot initiative to permit physician aid in dying was defeated.

Maine

Legislation

In 2013, the Maine legislature refused to decriminalize physician aid in dying by a vote of 94-43

Withdrawal of Life Support

The same groups that seek to prevent individuals from receiving assistance in dying from physicians often also seek to prevent individuals from controlling when they can refuse to be kept alive by artificial methods, whether through ventilators or by being fed and given water while in a vegetative state. As part of our commitment to respect for individuals, CFI believes that the wishes of a patient are paramount. Any prior instructions as to care should be respected, and, in absence of such instructions, it should be the next of kin of the patient, not Church groups and politicians who determine when care should be ended.

The level of interference in such cases is shocking. No one will forget the spectacle of Terry Schiavo, kept artificially alive while in a persistent vegetative state despite court rulings that her wishes were to have her feeding tube removed in such a situation, while Operation Rescue founder and anti-abortion extremist Randall Terry sought to prevent the removal of the tube, and Senator Bill Frist claimed to be able to diagnose Ms. Schiavo via videotape despite all genuine medical opinion contradicting him. More recently Marlise Munoz was kept breathing by machines in Texas for two months against the wishes she had expressed to her husband, because she was pregnant when she fell into a coma. The lessons of such situations are clear. CFI recommends individuals planning for such eventualities through Advance Health Care Directives, or “Living Wills.” These are recognized in 48 states, and CFI will fight for the rights of the patient where groups seek to deny such an expression of a patient’s autonomy.

News

This section will be updated as news develops on this topic.

Resources

Faith Healing

There is perhaps no more dire misuse of religious freedom as a justification in health care issues/debates than in cases of so-called “faith healing,” where genuine medical care is avoided or refused outright, and prayer or other practices based on the supernatural take their place, sometimes entirely.

Though informed and consenting adults should be free to exercise their First Amendment rights to refuse scientifically proven medical treatment in the name of their religious beliefs, they should not be able to deny medical care to their children, who have no choice in the matter, and are clearly not capable of making these enormous medical and theological decisions on their own. No child should suffer or die for the sake of their parents’ religious dogma – yet all too often they do.

Between 1975 to 1995, the most comprehensive study of the issue found at least 172 children died due to faith-based medical neglect. That number has only increased since.

Notable Recent Cases

  • In 2013, Oregon 12-year-old Syble Rossiter died from untreated diabetes. Her family belongs to the Church of the Firstborn, whose prohibition against medical treatment has been linked to over 80 child deaths since 1976.
  • For failing to say “Amen” during meals, members of a Baltimore sect starved 16-month old Ria Ramkissoon in 2007, choosing instead to pray over the boy as his health deteriorated, continuing even after his death.
  • In 2008, Madeline Kara Neumann died of undiagnosed diabetes. Her parents were convicted of 2nd-degree reckless homicide, a conviction upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2013.
  • In 2008, the parents of 15-month old Ava Worthington—members of the Followers of Christ—were criminally convicted after she died of untreated pneumonia.
  • In 2011 the parents of newborn Alayna Wyland—also of the Followers of Christ—were charged with first-degree criminal mistreatment for refusing to provide medical care for their daughter, who suffered from a facial tumor that nearly blinded her.
  • A Philadelphia couple was charged with 3rd degree murder for the deaths of two children—in 2009 and 2014—from untreated pneumonia. Their father was quoted:
    “We believe in divine healing, the Jesus shed blood for our healing and that he died on the cross to break the devil’s power.”

Religious Exemptions From Laws Protecting Children

Following a now-repealed Nixon-era law—advocated for by the Christian Science Church—requiring that states create faith-healing exemptions in order to receive certain federal funding, a diverse swarm of laws were passed which, to varying degrees, excuse the withholding of health care from children in the name of the parents’ religious beliefs. Today most of these laws persist, and in many states the neglectful parents of suffering or dead children may escape with no charges at all. Some states even allow a religious defense for crimes against children such as manslaughter, neglect resulting in death, criminal mistreatment, and murder.

In the state of Washington, lawmakers are pushing to revoke a decades-old exemption that allowed Christian Scientists—and only Christian Scientists—to use religion as a defense for withholding medical care from children. Last year, the American Academy of Pediatrics called for the elimination of all such exemptions.

In other states, however—including Idaho, where Followers of Christ has been linked to the deaths of over 100 children—conservative legislators have fought to stop proposed laws which would attempt to protect sick children from faith-healing parents.

In defense of faith-healing exemptions, Idaho Rep. Christy Perry stated:

“This is about religious beliefs, the belief God is in charge of whether they live, and God is in charge of whether they die. This is about where they go for eternity.”

Faith Healing and The Affordable Care Act

Lobbying groups from various religious sects are still working to introduce and expand such protections, including at the federal level. With support from Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Il.) and William Keating (D-Ma.), Christian Scientists and others have been working to gain special treatment under the Affordable Care Act.

The Equitable Access to Care and Health (EACH) Act (H.R.1814) would allow special exemptions for religious believers who wish to refuse to purchase mandated medical coverage for themselves and their children, and instead rely on faith-based rituals. The EACH Act has already passed the House of Representatives—we must not allow it to be approved by the Senate.

News

This section will be updated as news develops on this topic.

Resources

A Center for Inquiry Campaign