i disagree with the author of the article (unsurpisingly) on many points, but thats not really worth getting into.
what is interesting is how we handle this case as a society. if we say that parents who do this kind of thing (let their kid die because they dont provide them with basic health care, opting instead for "faith" based healing) are criminally responsible, we would seem to be encroaching on the whole separation of church and state thing. the state would essentially be invalidating faith as a legitimate health care choice. which i'm all for.
what if the parents were to successfully argue something like an insanity defense? that would have some interesting implicationg on the status of religion (ie, its essentially a mental disease).
i think they should do some time. further incentive for any other parents out there not willing to take their kids to the damn hospital. kids should not pay the consequence for their parent's fanatical religious beliefs.
all in all, pretty depressing. what a waste of human life.