Religion-Based Medical Neglect

You can argue over whether raising a child with certain religious beliefs should be considered mental child abuse.

But it’s hard to deny that religion has the potential to harm children when you read these cases in the On Faith article by Shawn F. Peters:

A hemophilic boy in Pennsylvania bleeds to death over a period of two days from a small cut on his foot. An Indiana girl dies after a malignant tumor sprouts from her skull and grows so enormous that it’s nearly the size of her head. A boy in Massachusetts succumbs to a bowel obstruction. (His cries of pain are so loud that neighbors are forced to shut their windows to block out the sound.)

None of these children benefit from the readily-available medical treatments that might save their lives, or at least mitigate their suffering. Because the tenets of their parents’ religious faiths mandate it, their ailments are treated by prayer rather than medical science. The results are tragic.

You can see the results of one study (from 1997) of this type of abuse here:

Participants. One hundred seventy-two children who died between 1975 and 1995 and were identified by referral or record search. Criteria for inclusion were evidence that parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals and documentation sufficient to determine the cause of death.

Results. One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. Eighteen more had expected survival rates of >50%. All but 3 of the remainder would likely have had some benefit from clinical help.

Peters adds the following:

Defining these obligations through the enforcement of secular laws – especially ones that are constitutionally fuzzy – can be a complicated business. Moreover, there is no guarantee that it will deter devout and stubborn parents from engaging in religious practices that endanger the health of their children. But the alternative – simply ignoring the suffering of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our nation’s churches – seems unconscionable.

It’s absurd that religious beliefs are legally allowed to trump potentially life-saving science in the 21st century.

I still find it difficult to understand how Jehovah’s Witnesses can consider abortion murder and yet allow a child who needs a blood transfusion to die unnecessarily.

Prayer can sometimes help people in its role as a placebo, but it’s no replacement for medicine or techniques that are clinically proven to work (at least the vast majority of the time).


[tags]atheist, atheism, child abuse, medicine[/tags]

  • http://www.primordial-blog.blogspot.com/ Brian

    It’s most tragic when applied to children because they don’t have the ability to make their own decisions, but these numbers would be a lot higher if they took in adults who consciously declined medical treatment for themselves. I knew a man that thought that god would heal him of his diabetes and so he stopped taking his insulin. He was dead within a year.

    I’d say the adults are victims of religious stupidity as much as the children, only in their case it is self inflicted.

  • http://brettmaxwell.com brett maxwell

    Perhaps you could point out which religions teach these practices.

  • Philosopher Jeff

    I find it interesting that so many people think that just because medical technology has come up with ways to treat biological problems that people should be forced to have those treatments. I find no problem with people refusing treatment because I think it is one’s right to decide what should go into one’s own body. People make bad decisions all the time and should be allowed to do so even if their illogical decisions are based upon religious beliefs.

    But children are a different issue. This is more a discussion about children’s rights and whether or not our laws are correct when they define children as property of the parents. I personally do not have the answer nor a solid opinion. I do believe that children need to be treated less as property and more as individuals with rights, but whom should have the medical decisions for children to young to speak for themselves is a messy conundrum. Doctors are far from impartial observers.

  • Mriana

    It’s absurd that religious beliefs are legally allowed to trump potentially life-saving science in the 21st century.

    IMHO, it is child abuse, yet we allow it to continue. It’s a shame we as a society can’t change this and charge parents with abuse and neglect under these circumstances, but noooo we have this dumb law that exempts these parents because it’s on religious grounds. IMHO, it’s all stupidity and it’s also down right abuse.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl

    Some parents allow their children to go untreated, yes, that’s true. But most religious believers don’t follow these practices willingly, many times more are denied treatment for their children by the insurance industry and medical system than die as a result of their religion.

    No one who isn’t responsible for this is responsible for it, why make a blanket condemnation? You want to be responsible for irresponsible acts done by atheists? Why shouldn’t your own standards be applied to atheists?

    The remark about prayers and placebos is gratuitous and baseless. If prayer has a “placebo” effect, why didn’t it show up in those phony prayer studies, the ones with the negative results so often mentioned here? There is no way to scientifically study something as undefined as prayer for any kind of effect, to pretend that there is is basically dishonest.

  • Mriana

    olvlzl, my children never went without medical care. Why? Because to do otherwise is abuse- So yes, I have holding these religious extremists to my own standards. Besides this article did NOT talk about lack of insurance, it talked about lack of medical treatment to their children based on religion.

    Prayer is not going to heal their children from a tumor and alike. So, in all honesty, you are not making any sense with your post, olvlzl.

  • Claire

    many times more are denied treatment for their children by the insurance industry and medical system than die as a result of their religion.

    I’m pretty sure that’s more of your standard bullcrap. Where did you get that statistic from?

  • Claire

    but noooo we have this dumb law that exempts these parents because it’s on religious grounds.

    And yet the government has no problem banning psychoactive mushrooms that some cultures use in religious rituals.

    So, in order of importance to the government, from most to least, we have:

    the drug war
    religious freedom
    children’s lives

    Isn’t that just pathetic?

  • Claire

    Perhaps you could point out which religions teach these practices.

    Christian Scientists believe in treating illness with prayer rather than medicine, although if there is trauma from outside (a cut, a broken bone, etc) they will have that treated.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in blood transfusions.

    In addition, any religious group or individual can suddenly decide that something somewhere in their religious text or a revelation says, no doctors, prayer is all you need, so who knows how many small sects or families are out there who believe this.

  • http://www.runicfire.net ansuzmannaz

    No one who isn’t responsible for this is responsible for it, why make a blanket condemnation? You want to be responsible for irresponsible acts done by atheists? Why shouldn’t your own standards be applied to atheists?

    We condemn the fools who get it into their head that only Gawd can heal all their ills, the charlatans who perpetuate that delusion and the religious tenants that make people so susceptible to pseudoscience. And that “phony” prayer studies indicating the irrelevance of prayer were controlled, if I recall. Of course, if prayer is so ill-defined that its effectiveness cannot be tested, that is a mark against it. Sadly that doesn’t get in the way of people who use semantic fuzziness to construct their own imaginary castle that keeps them from seeing, hearing, or interacting with the real world in any meaningful way.

  • http://www.primordial-blog.blogspot.com/ Brian

    I find it interesting that so many people think that just because medical technology has come up with ways to treat biological problems that people should be forced to have those treatments.

    Nobody said anything about forcing adults to get medical treatment against their wishes. I was merely pointing out the stupidity of it and the harm it is doing. They are victims of religous based ignorance.

    Perhaps you could point out which religions teach these practices.

    The bible teaches that god heals and that we should put our trust in him rather than in man. Is it any wonder that some should take this literally and apply it to the extreme? They believe that it is a way to prove their faith in god.

  • Maria

    I find it interesting that so many people think that just because medical technology has come up with ways to treat biological problems that people should be forced to have those treatments. I find no problem with people refusing treatment because I think it is one’s right to decide what should go into one’s own body. People make bad decisions all the time and should be allowed to do so even if their illogical decisions are based upon religious beliefs.

    But children are a different issue. This is more a discussion about children’s rights and whether or not our laws are correct when they define children as property of the parents. I personally do not have the answer nor a solid opinion. I do believe that children need to be treated less as property and more as individuals with rights, but whom should have the medical decisions for children to young to speak for themselves is a messy conundrum. Doctors are far from impartial observers.

    I agree. It’s one thing to let adults make stupid decisions for themselves, but kids are a different issue. I also agree that some doctors are far from impartial observers. If I took all the medical “advice” I’ve ever been given and hadn’t done research on my own, I’d probably be dead. So, who do you allow to make medical decisions for kids when their parents have beliefs such as those stated above?

    As for the insurance thing, it is actually true that many kids are denied treatment b/c of money and insurance. But I don’t know if there’s more of those than childhood deaths related from parents who refuse to get their children medical care on account of their religion……..

  • mneves

    I don´t know how it is in US, but in some countries when the patient is underage the medical decision can overlap the parents decision if the life is in danger.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl

    Mriana, since the large majority of people who pray also do their best to obtain medical treatment for their children, and many do what they can to see that other peoples’ children get it, and since Hemant made the unscientific assertion about prayer, distorting the practice of the vast majority of those who engage in it for the purpose of blaming all religion for the sins of a few, what I said was quite relevant.

    You’ve always been able to provide medical care for your children, well, I’m glad for you. Most people around the world don’t get that basic right met, a very large number of people here don’t. In many situations it is religiously based doctors, nurses, and other health care workers who provide that for people who can’t pay. They do so out of their religious beliefs and actions. How do we know this? Because they have said so.

    And that “phony” prayer studies indicating the irrelevance of prayer were controlled, if I recall. Of course, if prayer is so ill-defined that its effectiveness cannot be tested, that is a mark against it. Sadly that doesn’t get in the way of people who use semantic fuzziness to construct their own imaginary castle that keeps them from seeing, hearing, or interacting with the real world in any meaningful way.

    ansuzmannaz, having learned through experience with neo-atheists who consider themselves as the only true and rightful owners of science that they generally have not the first idea of what is necessary for a scientific study to happen, knowning what it is that you are studying and being able to account for its presence, I’m not surprised that you think this is a verbal game. Neo-atheism is entirely constructed of such verbal games with an eye towards their PR value so they think that’s the way serious people think. But it really does matter that phony science is conducted and the even phonier results reported in the press as “findings” or “facts”, where would the world of neo-atheism be without that kind of junk “science”?

    It might make you unhappy that science can’t be done in this area and for most others, see the “meme” argument a few threads down, but that really has nothing to do with whether science can be conducted around the question of prayer. Most of human experience and the universe isn’t able to be studied with science, people have the right to decide those questions out of their own experience no matter how unhappy that makes you.

  • valhar2000

    Well, with any luck we will get some Jehova’s Kooks here trying to justify stuff like this; it’ll be good for a laugh.

  • http://heathendad.blogspot.com/ HappyNat

    So it is a law (in most states) that my child has to be in a rear facing child seat in the car, but I can refuse to give them medical care that would save their life. That makes perfect sense. I wonder if I got pulled over while driving with my daughter on my lap if I could get out of it because of religious reasons. After all, I believe the FSM will protect me on the roads.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl

    I didn’t exactly ask but I did recieve, here is something to think about in regards phony science and it’s possible dangers.

  • http://religiouscomics.net Jeff

    Like it or not, for financial reasons, medical care in our society will change over the next generation where people stop running to the doctor for every runny noise and become a bit more like “Christian Scientists”. Our society simply can’t afford to keep our existing system of seeing a doctor to get a prescription for a pill to treat all possible ailments the pharmaceutical industry can think of.

  • stogoe

    More dipshit trolling from Olvlzl, via the tired old “Why isn’t this post about Topic X discussing Topic Z?” Grow a brain, dumbass, and stop trolling.

  • Brian

    Some studies have shown that prayer has the opposite effect of a placebo.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl

    stogoe, am I supposed to take that as another example of brilliant, on-topic discourse from you? I’m sorry, I don’t do post-realism.

  • Mriana

    olvlzl, we aren’t talking about insurance. These people do deny their children medical care based on religious grounds and that IS abuse. JWs deny their children medical treatment for religious reasons, not insurance reasons. There are many others that do the same.

    We aren’t talking third world countries whose only option is to pray either. We are talking about people who truly believe God said no to medical treatment and that God wanted their child to be sick for a reason. This is superstitious BS that leads to the abuse of a child and has nothing to do with insurance or being poor.

    I don’t know how in the world you can jump from religious denial of medical treatment to insurance. Those are two different things and I would love to see a report that gives the stats as to how many people are HONESTLY healed by prayer alone with no medical treatment. I have yet to see it happen in reality.

  • EI

    I believe you have your religious beliefs confused. It is the Christian Scientist community who refuse medical assistance, not the Jehovah Witnesses.

  • http://emergingpensees.com MikeClawson

    JW’s only refuse blood transfusions.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl

    But it’s hard to deny that religion has the potential to harm children when you read these cases in the On Faith article by Shawn F. Peters:

    It’s absurd that religious beliefs are legally allowed to trump potentially life-saving science in the 21st century.

    Mriana, I don’t see how it is off topic to bring up economic and commercial beliefs and practices which are responsible for the deaths and untreated illness of, I’d guess, hundreds of times more children than go untreated because of the religious beliefs of their parents. It must all depend on what you want to emphasize, the lives and welfare of children or anti-religious invective. I guess we don’t see eye-to-eye on that.

    As for my remarks about placebos and prayer, that was also in direct response to the post. You will have to forgive me if I think the post is what determines the topic instead of people commenting on the post. I’ve got a very big problem with the just about non-existent science behind the belief in placebos but thought going into that would veer into the off topic.

  • Claire

    Olvzl, I asked where you got your statistics about

    many times more are denied treatment for their children by the insurance industry and medical system than die as a result of their religion.

    and you haven’t answered. Let me guess – you just made it up, right?

  • http://paxnortona.notfrisco2.com Joel Sax

    175 is nothing compared to the number of people who follow “religious” teachings when it comes to mental health. How many people do you think committed suicide because they relied on prayer rather than antidepressants? Or ended up on psych wards where they were compelled to be compliant because they’d done something dangerous in a mania or schizophrenic episode?

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl

    Claire, are you trying to refute that millions of people in the United States don’t have medical insurance and so aren’t treated? Or that in many cases those with insurance are still denied treatment, like that case last month of the girl whose insurance company bowed to massive pressure to finally allow treatment when it was too late to possibly save her life? Are you denying that the medical system in the United States doesn’t result in us having one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world and that it is largely a matter associated with the ability of their parents to pay? Or are you just trying to defend using a children dead from the religion based neglect of their parents, few in number due to the vast majority of religions not having those restrictions, to blame their deaths on all religious believers? And that in the face of the fact that there are people whose medical treatment depends on the religious devotion of those providing it.

    Neo-atheism is largely a matter of dishonesty but it’s when you use the deaths of children in this way that really shows your movement for what it is.

  • Claire

    Olvzl, you’re being completely dishonest as usual. I said absolutely none of those things. I asked where you got your statistics. That was a question (which you haven’t answered), not an excuse for another one of your rants. Since you still haven’t answered, I’m going to have to assume you pulled it out of your ass, where you appear to get most of your ideas.

    Also, on what grounds do you call me a neo-atheist? You don’t know me, and you haven’t defined the term, nor can I find a decent definition on the internet. Let me guess – you got that the same place you got your ‘statistics’…

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    Claire, I was trying to find out if you were under the delusion that all of the people whose children don’t get medical treatment, a considerable number in a wealthy democracy didn’t get it as a result of the religious beliefs of their parents. If that is not the case then the very small number of cases known are outnumbered by those sacrificed to the real religion of the United States, Mammonism, which anyone with more than a vestigal brain would realize. Or don’t you agree this is true.

    Well, are you a neo-atheist? You sure argue like one. Gutter mouth.

  • Claire

    Olvlzl, admit it – you made it up, you lied, and you don’t have the guts to own up to it. And you don’t like the way I argue?

    How can I tell you if I’m a neo-atheist when I don’t know what that means? Which I mentioned, by the way…

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    I didn’t make it up as I’ve now explained to you twice. If you can’t understand that it doesn’t surprise me.

    If you don’t know what a neo-atheist is maybe you should read more. I don’t believe you don’t, by the way. What’s the matter? Ashamed to own up?

  • Claire

    Olvlzl, just because you say something is true doesn’t make it so. You stated something as fact, I asked where you got your statistics, and then you ranted about the state of healthcare in the US. If you want to demonstrate what you said was true, give me a source, not a diatribe.

    Every time I have seen anyone else use the term “neo-atheist”, they are referring to one of several authors, and I’ve never published anything. I don’t know how you use the term, except as empty disparagement of anyone you disagree with. Although that is, in itself, a recommendation.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    Claire, did I assert that I was using statistics? Apparently you think that the American system of for-profit insurance and medicine are blameless for the problems of infant mortality and people who can’t get treatment when they want to. That, despite the fact that there are religious institutions and individuals who provide free or reduced fee treatment for some of those people, religion in general is to blame for the fanatical followers of the handful of religions that reject some or all medical treatments. I’ve invited you to correct this impression twice now and you have not taken the opportunity so what else am I to think?

    Funny, no one else seems to be in any doubt about my using the term neo-atheist. I don’t think anyone who can read would say that the disparagement in my comments here this weekend would say they were empty, they’re rather specific.

    As to ranting and diatribe, gnothi seauton .

  • Mriana

    olvlzl said,

    January 4, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    But it’s hard to deny that religion has the potential to harm children when you read these cases in the On Faith article by Shawn F. Peters:

    It’s absurd that religious beliefs are legally allowed to trump potentially life-saving science in the 21st century.

    Mriana, I don’t see how it is off topic to bring up economic and commercial beliefs and practices which are responsible for the deaths and untreated illness of, I’d guess, hundreds of times more children than go untreated because of the religious beliefs of their parents.

    It is because it is two different subjects. Here we are talking about parents denying their children medical care on religious grounds- not due to lack of insurance. Your desire to talk lack of insurance is a completely different topic and worth ignoring because it has nothing to do with this subject.

    This is the topic Religion-Based Medical Neglect, not Insurance-based medical neglect. Get with the topic please.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    Mriana, I thought the topic was children who were not getting medical treatment which was available and dying from it. If you don’t think that market based medical insurance for the purpose of generating a profit for investors is a matter of religious devotion, you should leave aside your prejudices and open your eyes to the reality of the situation.

    Me, I see children being hurt and killed by a cargo cult, some of whom are helped by people who provide care without charge based on their religious practices. I guess you think that care is tainted or unimportant, though I can tell you from observation that it isn’t to the people who depend on it. As I said, it all depends on what’s most important to you and for me it’s the people.

  • Claire

    Olvlzl, your dishonesty is beyond pathetic. You stated that “many times more are denied treatment for their children by the insurance industry and medical system than die as a result of their religion” and I asked you to supply either the statistics or a source for this statement, and you have provided neither. Please either provide some substantiation (other than just you yapping on about how it’s true) to prove your assertion or admit it’s false.

    Then you add a lot of baseless crap about what I must think on the topic, based on nothing more than the fact that I questioned the word of the Great and Mighty Oz Olvlzl. Sorry, I’m not telling you anything about what I think because that would just be a distraction from you actually having to provide some substance for what you stated as fact.

    Also, you say that “no one else seems to be in any doubt about my using the term neo-atheist”, but that’s not true. What’s happening is that they are ignoring it, since most of them just consider you a troll that should be ignored, and since you seem unable to respond to even simple questions, I can’t really argue with them.

    Still, just to be fair, I looked up “neo-atheist” at dictionary.com – it wasn’t there. I did a google search for a definition, and google gave me NO definitions. Maybe because it’s a loaded pejorative used only by a few fringe elements? I don’t really know, I just know there isn’t any definition out there, and you can’t or won’t supply one.

    So, either define it, or admit you are just using it for name-calling when someone bests you in an argument.

    FYI – I do know myself, you just don’t know your facts.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    Claire, you are silly. In my experience angry neo-atheists are invariably silly, serious atheists and those who aren’t hate-based would be better to avoid them if they want to be accepted in the wider world of non-atheists.

  • Siamang

    I think he just defined it as a name he calls people when “silly” just doesn’t say it all.

    That’s about as close to an admission of losing the argument as you’re likely to get, Claire.

    Olvizl, if silliness is the current topic under discussion, you are far sillier. If you were serious, or non hate-based, you would know when asked, you should bring evidence for a claim, and leave personal attacks out of a discussion. That is, if you want to be accepted in the wider world of non-trolls.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    Siamang, so how would you answer the questions I asked Claire and Mraia?

    Does the term neo-atheist offend you? My quick definition is it’s the name that rude atheists who like to call other people names, distort their beliefs and practices in order to lie about them, assert that they own science and logic while showing they don’t have the first clue as to what those require are begging to be called.

    Given time I could come up with a more refined definition.

  • Mriana

    Well this topic has really gone in a different direction than it originally began. Gee thanks olly. You’ve completely derailed it.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    Mriana, you are correct that is is derailed and that I shouldn’t have given into Claire and Siamang. But they wanted to know what I meant by “neo-atheist” and I figured it was turning into a distraction to be asked repeatedly.

    By the way, from what you say, apparently I’m late in congratulating you for being taken on as a partner at this blog in the way Wade was. Have you been monitoring all the threads for “off topic” comment or only on those I haven’t read?

  • Siamang

    Is there a word that means “pissy combative name-calling nominally atheist concern troll?”

    Unfortunately, Olvizl fits the self-superior, impressed beyond measure by his own intellect, combative atheist stereotype to a T.

    That he claims to lecture us about how best to get along with non-atheists is nothing but sheer added entertainment-value. Physician, pull that beam out of your own ass first… I think that’s how that saying goes.

  • Mriana

    By the way, from what you say, apparently I’m
    late in congratulating you for being taken on as a
    partner at this blog in the way Wade was.

    What are you talking about? I’m not a partner of this blog. How did you get that idea?

    I doubt this thread will ever get back on topic. :roll: The thing is, it started derailing the first time you posted- which was off topic because this thread had nothing to do with insurance, but rather lame religious beliefs. I’m beginning to wonder if you are a troll. :(

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    Siamang, don’t let the torpor from the allergy meds fool you. I always slow down to long, drawn out sentences when taking them.

    As for being taken with myself, as compared to the general run of neo-atheists who think they stand within the golden circle of the truly enlightened, the only true possessors of absolute knowledge in direct contact with truth and light? Find one place in which I’ve ever pretended to knowing what I only believe, then we can talk attitude.

  • Eric

    Religion by its very nature is based on antiquated pre-scientific dogma. If people want to base their lives on such thinking I feel sorry for them. I especially feel sorry for the children of fundamentalist sects which deny their children medical science advances of the Post-Enlightenment period. We need laws to protect these children from such adult foolishness.

  • http://www.dbd-sxa-psycho.webs.com/main.htm Victoria

    Okay, so there was a point made about abortion and this religious-treatment. I really do think long and hard on this because it changes the whole abortion scope argument.

    I find it really funny how abortion can NOW be considered murder when it isn’t murder (to these Christians) to deny a life-saving experience.

    I also find it utterly humorous how they think a prayer to a man who has a 99% chance of NOT existing can save a life. I mean, if they say it is in the bible, well they need to think on this question: Do we revolve around the sun, or does everything revolve around us? The bible has been wrong nearly a hundred times. And it clearly is wrong once again.

    RIP children of NEGLECT and I guess this is considered abuse. A child is dying out there and all the parents do is pray. Yeah, pray for their child’s soul not to haunt them for MURDER.

    I mean, it is against the law to withhold medication and support against a dependent person like someone who needs help around the house and needs other people to give them their medicine. Like the one case where the guy left his dependent… someone in the bathroom for like… ever. It was illegal then, why is it less of a charge for when it comes to children?!

    America, in all religious aspect, is going down into the slums because people can’t pull their heads out of the bible and see that the scientific uprising of modern day is going to be 100% MORE effective than praying which will get you a grave. At least with scientific treatment, a life has a better chance of survival. I hope the Neumanns get a long hard coming to them.

  • Jason

    Looks like you are being linked to by:

    http://www.helptheneumanns.com/

    Just thought you would like to know.

  • Matthew

    I’m an atheist, former Christian, who has an aversion to medical treatment. It’s dehumanizing, treating a person like some sort of science experiment.

    Besides, as an atheist I realize that life means nothing except the meaning we give to it, so death only means something if you think it does. I don’t.

  • salt

    A question: Why do you atheists believe it is okay to insult those who chose faith but than turn around and declare religious people intolerant? I have seen nothing but skewed and disparaging remarks about religion on this forum, with blanket statements being dispensed like ketchup. Do you all feel that you are immune to hypocrisy? Until you all are well versed on every single religion and spiritual view, then there might be some room for the term “stupid” you all so generously apply to religion.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X