Prosecutors argued that this was not a religious case, even though the parents were Christians who had indicated that their congregation was praying for the child's healing, and that the congregation discouraged members from seeking medical assistance as a rule of thumb.

The parents have been sentenced to ten years of probation dependent on their agreement to take their other children in for checkups.  It's not clear from this brief blurb if the checkups are a one-time requirement or an ongoing one.  

This article doesn't clarify the sentence either, but I think the statement at the end of the article is interesting.  

That's an interesting statement.  It's loaded with potential applications.  While I tend to be sympathetic to it being applied in a medical situation, there are plenty of other situations where essentially this same notion is being argued.  The call by some militant atheists to deny parents the right to teach their children their religion is along these same lines.  So are arguments by those threatened by home schooling (despite the volumes of data showing that home school children are on the whole FAR better educated than their public school peers).  

I also think it's interesting that while the prosecution attempted very hard to make sure this wasn't treated as an issue of religious freedom, now that the verdict has been handed down, it's all about religion and the proper context for religion vs. the health of your child.  

As I've stated before, I'm all for protecting and fostering the good and health of a child - any child.  But who defines what is good and healthy for a child, that's a sticky wicket of monumental proportions.  Clearly the prosecutor in this case feels that mandatory checkups are good and healthy (despite there being no allegations of abuse or neglect in the couple's care of any of their other children).  

Thoughts?