Should the state decide if mother knows best?

WHEN OUR children fall ill with what seems like a cold, most of us try to treat the condition at home. But if the symptoms linger or worsen, we put the Children's Tylenol and St. John's wort back in the medicine cabinet and head off to the doctor, especially if the child is young.

Well, apparently not all of us.

What we learned from the recent trial of Catherine and Herbert Schaible is that when their 2-year-old son, Kent, fell ill, their brand of Christianity allowed only for divine intervention.

So an innocent child died needlessly of pneumonia. According to the assistant medical examiner, had the Schaibles sought medical attention or even bought over-the-counter medication, Kent would still be alive. But as tragic as this story is, it's clear that they believed that they were doing what was in the best interest of their child.

As a mother, fellow Christian and concerned citizen, this and similar tales that play themselves across the nation have me wondering about the right balance between parental freedom and government intervention.

Some cases involve religion. But many others don't. Remember the bizarre story of Abby Sunderland, the 16-year-old daredevil who decided she'd like to make her mark by becoming the youngest person to sail around the world on a solo mission?

Unlike most teenagers who have to sneak behind their parents' backs when they engage in reckless and dangerous behavior, Abby left with her parents' full approval.

AM I THE only one convinced these folks needed to have their heads examined?

The parents defended their position by saying their daughter was well-trained and prepared for the challenge. (If only her parents were comparably "prepared" and "trained" to be sensible and responsible parents.) Like the Schaibles, I'm sure the Sunderlands thought they were doing what was in the best interest of their daughter by allowing her to pursue her dream.

And what about the morbidly obese kids often featured on newsmagazine programs. Too many parents let their children eat to excess to the point that some can barely walk, let alone exercise. Like the Schaibles and the Sunderlands, many believe they're being good parents by not denying their children the food they crave.

Stories like these keep me up at night. Should parents have this much latitude? Doesn't the line have to be drawn somewhere? As someone who is typically opposed to excessive government intrusion, I believe that these three cases are worthy exceptions.

Basic medical care, reasonable parental oversight and a sensible diet should be parental mandates.

But who gets to determine what's reasonable and sensible? At what point should the Schaibles have turned to medicine? Should parents under any circumstance be allowed to support minors in the pursuit of life-threatening endeavors? How heavy is "too heavy"?

After thinking about it, I was forced to draw a troubling and unsettling conclusion. In order to preserve the freedoms and the rights of most "reasonable" parents to raise our children the way we see fit, I believe we must accept some degree of parental ineptitude and religious extremism.

Here's why: In order to adequately guard against extreme cases such as these, the role of "parent" would have to be legally defined with rules, mandates and enforcement measures to give the law teeth.

While some in parental roles would certainly benefit from such direction and oversight, like requiring them to ensure that their children exercise 30 minutes a day, three times a week, most Americans (including me) would reject such measure as being over the top.

For one, once the government has the right to decide when we must seek medical attention for our children and the nature of that care, we're also giving the government the right to determine when medical care can't be sought or when another treatment might be more "reasonable."

And when the government, instead of parents, can control a child's diet, we by extension relinquish our right to decide what foods and portions we believe to be most "sensible" given our child's metabolism, activity level and other individual factors, like the family's financial status.

In addition, in giving the government the freedom to define "reasonable" requirements for parental oversight, we're abandoning our rights as parents to give varying degrees of freedom and autonomy based on our child's maturity and our unique family dynamics, like letting an 11-year-old stay home unattended until we get home from work.

The Schaibles are facing 10-year sentences for behavior that was deemed grossly negligent. Their other children have been taken from their custody and put in the care of the state.

It's a tragic ending for two parents who, despite what others may think, believed they were acting in the best interest of their child and honoring their faith.

The Schaibles got caught in the crosshairs of parental freedom and government intervention. But if we're not careful and intervention is expanded too far, the next mother on trail could very well be you or me.

Mother may not always know best. And all moms get it wrong sometimes. But in most cases, I still have more confidence in the mothers of our country to exercise good judgment than in the government to impose it.

Faith Beacham-Ritter, a native of Philadelphia, is a political columnist and work-at-home mother.