This post is a part of our Bioethics in the News series
By Devan Stahl, PhD
On August 2, 2018, Seth Welch called 911 after finding his 10-month-old daughter, Mary Anne Welch, unresponsive in her crib. Mary was pronounced dead at the scene and the medical examiner determined Mary’s death was the result of malnutrition and dehydration. During interviews, Seth Welch and his wife Tatiana Fusari admitted they were aware of Mary’s skinny appearance for at least a month prior to her death, but claimed that they had fed her appropriately and did not believe her to be ill. The parents are now awaiting trial for felony murder and first-degree child abuse.
The case has made national headlines, because the parents claim their decision not to take Mary to a doctor was based, in part, on their religious beliefs. Mrs. Fusari said she failed to reach out for medical help for her daughter because she feared having her children removed by Child Protective Services, a lack of faith in the medical system, and “religious reasons.” Further, Mr. Welch claims he is being unfairly charged in Mary’s death because of his “very strong faith.” Neither Mr. Welch nor Mrs. Fusari have explained their religious beliefs, but in Facebook videos, Mr. Welch claims he is “not opposed to medicine or doctors,” but he believes some doctors are part of a “priesthood of the medical cult.” He also claims not to believe in vaccines, and expressed a desire to live in a “commune of Christian disciples living off the grid somewhere.” The reasons Mary’s parents did not take her to see a physician appear to be multifaceted, but their claims to religious liberty are a hot button issue in bioethics and politics today.
The case of Mary Anne Welch is yet another in a long line of child neglect and abuse cases where a religious exemption defense is likely to be mounted. All U.S. states have laws prohibiting child abuse and neglect, but 39 states also have laws protecting parents from abuse and neglect charges (though not murder charges) when they fail to provide medical assistance to their children because of their religious beliefs. Religious exemption laws are meant to protect the religious liberty of individuals who use faith-based practices in place of medical science; although in many states the religious exemption only applies to people who are part of “recognized” religious denominations. These exemptions grew out of a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) ruling after the 1974 passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which specified that religious exemptions be added to states’ child protection laws. In 1983, HEW adopted new regulations that removed the requirement for religious exemption, however, few states have repealed their religious exemption laws. In many states with exemptions, including Michigan where Mr. Welch and Mrs. Fusari reside, courts can order medical services to be provided to a child whose health or life are at risk without medical care.
In nearly all cases, competent adults are free to make medical decisions according to their religious beliefs, and cannot have treatment forced on them for any reason. At the same time, parents have certain obligations toward their children, which restrict their right to exercise their religious beliefs on behalf of their children. In the famous U.S. Supreme Court case Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the court ruled that “Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves,” but they are not free “to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.”
The case of Mary Anne Welch is a microcosm of a larger debate happening in health care around religious liberty and the rights of children. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has stated that parental desires regarding their child’s medical treatment should be followed, unless these decisions clearly go against the child’s best interests. At the same time, for decades the AAP has been opposed to religious exemption laws. In cases where parents are acting maliciously or with gross indifference to the well-being of their child, it is easy to see why overriding parental decision-making would be appropriate. Prosecuting parents for neglect and abuse if their child suffers as a result of their decisions feels appropriate as well. Knowing very little about Mr. Welch and Mrs. Fusari, however, it would be presumptuous to make any judgments about their fitness as parents, or about their care for Mary. At this point it is not clear that given Mary’s weight loss, other reasonable parents in a comparable situation would have taken their child to the doctor regardless of their religious beliefs. Time will tell if Mary’s death should have been foreseeable or if it would have been preventable with proper medical care.
What is likely to happen in the meantime, and seems to be happening already in the media, is that Mr. Welch and Mrs. Fusari’s religious beliefs will be scrutinized. (Their concerns about the dangers of hospitalization are supported by recent studies about medical errors.) Religious exemption laws regarding parental neglect are controversial, and critics are right to question the legitimacy of such laws when children die as a result of their parent’s religious beliefs. Despite their religious beliefs, we ought to hold parents to a standard where they are expected to prevent injuries to their children. At the same time, we ought not to hold parents such as Mr. Welch to a higher standard for parental care, simply because he has particular religious beliefs that are not widely held by other parents. Plenty of parents choose to opt out of certain medical treatments for religious and non-religious reasons alike, and it is not clear that medical orthodoxy should always be determinative of a child’s best interest. Time will tell if other prudent parents would have taken a child in Mary’s condition to the doctor. If that is found to be the case, then Mary’s parents should be held accountable for their decisions.
Devan Stahl, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences and the Department of Pediatrics and Human Development in the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine.
Join the discussion! Your comments and responses to this commentary are welcomed. The author will respond to all comments made by Thursday, October 4, 2018. With your participation, we hope to create discussions rich with insights from diverse perspectives.
You must provide your name and email address to leave a comment. Your email address will not be made public.
- John Agar. “Couple ‘grief stricken’ after daughter’s alleged malnutrition death, attorney says,” MLive 20, 2018. https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2018/08/couple_grief_stricken_after_da.html.
- Ken Kolker. “Records outlive why parents didn’t get help for starving baby,” Woodtv 9, 2018. https://www.woodtv.com/news/kent-county/records-outline-why-parents-didn-t-get-help-for-starving-baby/1349369491.
- Michaela Broyles. “Parents didn’t trust doctors, court documents show. Now they face murder charges,” The State 14, 2018 https://www.thestate.com/news/nation-world/national/article216654390.html.
- Lindsey Bever. “A 10-month-old died after her parents refused to get help for religious reasons, police say,” The Washington Post 8, 2018 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/08/08/a-10-month-old-died-after-her-parents-refused-to-get-help-for-religious-reasons-police-say/?utm_term=.20c48845d5d1.
- National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse National District Attorney Association, “Religious exemptions to child neglect” Feb. 2015 https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2-11-2015-Religious-Exemptions-to-Child-Neglect.pdf.
- National Child Abuse and Neglect Training and Publications Project (2014). The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act: 40 years of safeguarding America’s children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/capta_40yrs.pdf.
- Michigan Legislature MCL 722.634. “Child protection law” https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ctyef0ed5imcuvwc4m4jgtsl))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-722-634.
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158. 1944. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/103933/prince-v-massachusetts/.
- Mark R. Mercurio, Marilyn A. Maxwell, Brenda J. Mears, et al. (2008) “American Academy of Pediatrics, policy statements on bioethics: Summaries and commentaries: Part 2.” Pediatrics in Review 29(3): e 15-22. http://pedsinreview.aappublications.org/content/pedsinreview/29/3/e15.full.pdf.
- American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013) “Conflicts between religious or spiritual beliefs and pediatric care: informed refusal, exemptions, and public funding” Pediatrics 132(5):962-965. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/132/5/962.full.pdf.
- Martin A. Makary and Michael Daniel. (2016) “Medical errors—the third leading cause of death in the U.S,” British Medical Journal 353: i2139.
- Vanessa McMains. “Johns Hopkins study suggests medical errors are third-leading cause of death in U.S.” Hub May 3, 3016. https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/.