Your first post was an argument against government intervention when parents refuse treatment. The burden of proof is not on my side, but rather yours. The child was not taken to the doctor despite obvious symptoms such as losing the ability to speak or walk as stated in the article. At that point, the child must be taken to the hospital. There is no indication that the child refused help at any point, rather all reports have it as the parents merely prayed instead of seeking medical attention for an obviously sick child. If you want to say that the child refused care, you need to prove that. It's not presented in any of the facts in the case. Instead all the facts point to the family choosing prayer over science and not seeking proper medical attention when it was clearly warranted. That is a crime. This isn't about the child refusing help, there's no indication that a mute child unable to walk denied her treatment. There's every indication that the family purposefully decided to pray rather than seek proper medical help. While we have freedom of religion in this country, that right ends at the rights of others. If the child had not refused treatment specifically, as the facts of the case indicate, then withholding proper medical treatment from said child is a crime. Saying that a parent has the right to deny medical treatment for their child as it goes against their religious beliefs is a defense of murder through religion.