Diabetic girl dies as parents pray instead of calling for medical aid

[yg17]

An 11-year-old girl died from diabetes after her parents prayed for her recovery rather than calling for medical assistance.

Madeline Neumann died on Sunday in Wisconsin, from an undiagnosed but treatable ailment.

Dan Vergin, the local police chief, said she had been ill for a month, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.

"She just got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said.

Even after her death, her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, who did not belong to any organised faith, prayed over her body in the hope that she might be resurrected.

Mr Vergin said the couple, who run a coffee shop in Wausau, had blamed her death on their lack of faith.

"They have a little Bible study of a few people," said Mr Vergin. "These are not bizarre people."

Police are now preparing a report for prosecutors. However, legal action against the parents may be prevented by a Wisconsin state statute against failing to act to protect children from bodily harm.

The statute contains an exemption for what it refers to as "treatment through prayer". Mrs Neumann, whose husband is a former policeman, said they had never expected her daughter to die. She suffered from diabetic ketoacidosis, which left her with too little insulin.

She said her family believed in the Bible and that healing came from God. But she insisted that they were not "crazy religious people" and had nothing against doctors.

She said their daughter had been tired over the past two weeks but the day before she died, her bad health "went into a more serious situation". She explained: "We stayed fast in prayer. We believed that she would recover. We saw signs that - to us - it looked like she was recovering."

Mr Neumann said he started trying artificial resuscitation "as soon as the breath of life left" his daughter's body.

However, Madeline's aunt said she pleaded with the dead girl's parents to take her to a doctor in the last few days of her life. As Madeline went into a coma, Ariel Gomez telephoned the emergency services from her home in California. But they were too late to save her.

She told the ambulance control room that Mrs Neumann had "explained to us that she believes her daughter's in a coma now and she's relying on faith".

The parents, who have three older children, told police that Madeline last saw a doctor when she was three to get some injections. The state law that allows healing through prayer became an issue in 2003 when a two-year-old autistic child in Milwaukee was crushed to death during an attempted exorcism.

The "exorcist" was convicted on a far lesser charge than many people believed was appropriate.

The local district attorney urged legislators to remove the exemption but they failed to act on his advice.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/28/wprayer128.xml


Thoughts? IMO, if she would still be alive had she gotten the proper medical care, I think the parents should be charged with murder.

[kainjow]

So there is a law that allows for healing by prayer? :confused:

[xUKHCx]

So there is a law that allows for healing by prayer? :confused:

It's in the US and it seems as if there might be

Police are now preparing a report for prosecutors. However, legal action against the parents may be prevented by a Wisconsin state statute against failing to act to protect children from bodily harm.

The statute contains an exemption for what it refers to as "treatment through prayer".

[sushi]

It's in the US and it seems as if there might be
Government vs. Freedom of Religion concerning medical treatment.

Interesting to see how this plays out.

[Cromulent]

Rather sickening if you ask me.

[leekohler]

People trying to use religion in place of science. Never seems to work, does it?

[Cromulent]

People trying to use religion in place of science. Never seems to work, does it?

What makes it even worse is that they won't even learn anything from it. They'll just say it was "God's will" and not think they have done anything wrong.

Yet another reason to be opposed to religion, but there you go. I'll not start an anti-religion flame war :).

[yg17]

What makes it even worse is that they won't even learn anything from it. They'll just say it was "God's will" and not think they have done anything wrong.



Which is exactly the reason why these two need to be locked up for the rest of their life. Maybe that will send a message to others who are going to try to do the same

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't think it's the state's place to tell people that God can't heal people, as much as it's not the state's business to tell students that intelligent design is a valid alternative to Darwinian evolution.

Alternative medicine gets a lot of money these days for research, and respected hospitals are beginning to set up alternative medicine clinics. I think most of that stuff is BS, but if people are going to support reiki and other forms of folk medicine it's hypocritical to say that religious healing is right out.

I also detect a perception among a lot of people in the US that non-western mysticism is seen as OK or even fashionable but similar activities that happen within religions more common in the US (usually some form of Christianity) are looked down on as backwards. A double standard.

My opinion? These people essentially killed their daughter, and I think they are completely deluded. But as for putting them in jail...it's hardly that clear cut, is it?

[iMpathetic]

Oh my God, this absolutely kills me.:(:mad::(

My uncle died a little over a year ago from cancer. He would have had chemo, but his wife said "Let's just pray. God will save you".

Wake up, people. A little prayer is a good thing, but modern medicine is great.

[Shotglass]

yg17, you're being unreasonable. You can't charge these people with murder. Murder is killing a person after devising a plan how to do that.

If you put them in prison for the rest of their lives, you are going to send a message. You're going to send a message to other religious people that they can't practice their religion without facing serious consequences. And good luck with that in a free country.

You must understand that these people are not evil, they're simply deluded. They need help, not punishment.

[Lord Blackadder]

Wake up, people. A little prayer is a good thing, but modern medicine is great.

I totally agree, but to what extent does the government get to tell people how to deal with illness?

Now because the girl was a minor I can see some restrictions being placed on what the parents are allowed to choose, but it's a slippery slope to legislate the choices parents can make when a child has a serious illness...where do we draw lines?

[Hawkeye411]

I read about this in the paper. It's unbelievable that this kind of thing still happens. :eek: There are some extremely radical people out there. :mad:

[Gelfin]

Mr Vergin said the couple, who run a coffee shop in Wausau, had blamed her death on their lack of faith.

I think I have a new example for people who don't know what "irony" means.

Things like this are precisely why I cannot be a religious person anymore. Nobody thinks they themselves are "crazy religious people." Tom Cruise wouldn't call himself a "crazy religious person." All religion looks sane from the inside and crazy from the outside. When neighbors say "these are not bizarre people" all they mean is they do not seem obviously threatening. These people are crazy, notwithstanding the fact they were polite enough to keep it to themselves until it killed their child.

If one does not actively seek out sanity rooted in practical reality, eventually reality catches up and one finds oneself sitting around waiting for a magical person in the sky to make one's dead child not dead anymore. Living in a fantasy world, however pleasing, is setting oneself up for tragedy. It may not be the state's place to tell people that, but no one is served by mollycoddling those who choose to flee the real world for one of their own invention.

[Lord Blackadder]

I think I have a new example for people who don't know what "irony" means.

Things like this are precisely why I cannot be a religious person anymore. Nobody thinks they themselves are "crazy religious people." Tom Cruise wouldn't call himself a "crazy religious person." All religion looks sane from the inside and crazy from the outside. When neighbors say "these are not bizarre people" all they mean is they do not seem obviously threatening. These people are crazy, notwithstanding the fact they were polite enough to keep it to themselves until it killed their child.

If one does not actively seek out sanity rooted in practical reality, eventually reality catches up and one finds oneself sitting around waiting for a magical person in the sky to make one's dead child not dead anymore. Living in a fantasy world, however pleasing, is setting oneself up for tragedy. It may not be the state's place to tell people that, but no one is served by mollycoddling those who choose to flee the real world for one of their own invention.

Making value judgments and blanket statements about religion like that will offend sensible people, religious or otherwise.

I understand your revulsion but it sounds pretty arrogant to belittle religion in general because of a couple of people who have taken their religion to a rather extreme extent.

[Cromulent]

yg17, you're being unreasonable. You can't charge these people with murder. Murder is killing a person after devising a plan how to do that.

I agree it is not murder. But it most certainly is manslaughter. They deserve a prison sentence for incompetence and negligence.

If you put them in prison for the rest of their lives, you are going to send a message. You're going to send a message to other religious people that they can't practice their religion without facing serious consequences. And good luck with that in a free country.

Your not sending that message at all. They can pray for their loved ones all they like. All we are saying is that while they pray they have to make use of all the available tools to try and help that person get better and that includes medicine and hospitals.

No one has said they can't pray, just that prayer should never be the only thing that someone utilises in the treatment of a sick person.

[Lord Blackadder]

They can pray for their loved ones all they like. All we are saying is that while they pray they have to make use of all the available tools to try and help that person get better and that includes medicine and hospitals.

Says who?

[Cromulent]

Says who?

Says any sensible person with an interest in keeping people alive.

Knowingly or unknowingly letting someone die because you refuse to take advantage of all available treatments is negligence on a huge scale and is bordering on manslaughter.

[killerrobot]

You know, maybe they stuck with prayer because it was free and it wouldn't put them into financial debt for the rest of their lives.:rolleyes:

With that enormously satirical and callous comment (however true it may be) out of the way, this is a pretty messed up situation, and no matter how pissed I am at the parents, I've got to side with the comment that the government doesn't have the right to say that prayer/faith isn't as valid as a medical prescription.

I don't think it's the state's place to tell people that God can't heal people, as much as it's not the state's business to tell students that intelligent design is a valid alternative to Darwinian evolution.
...
My opinion? These people essentially killed their daughter, and I think they are completely deluded. But as for putting them in jail...it's hardly that clear cut, is it?

[Lord Blackadder]

Knowingly or unknowingly letting someone die because you refuse to take advantage of all available treatments is negligence on a huge scale and is bordering on manslaughter.

OK, first off, because this case involves a minor I agree there are mitigating circumstances.

But since when was the level of medical treatment given to a person determined solely by what was possible? Have you ever worked at a hospital? I have...people must make decisions and weigh their health/potential lifespan against what they will undergo by simply trying every available treatment (never mind the cost, loss of dignity/low quality of life etc) until they either recover or die. That's a totally flawed perspective IMO.

Under your reasoning people could be forbidden from smoking, drinking, and eating unhealthily - medical science has already proven those will kill you. Heck, praying merely allows someone to die, whereas smoking actively kills you...perhaps people should be fined or imprisoned for destroying their bodies through unhealthy living?

The issue is not blindly seeking increasingly aggressive medicine, but the fact that the girl was a minor and was not legally allowed to choose how to treat herself - she may have never even understood the danger...THAT can be seen as something the parents might be responsible for on some level. But if they don't "believe" in modern medicine how far can you force them to make use of it? How much right does society have to compel people to tow that line? Again, the fact that the girl was a minor is the only mitigating circumstance.

But to assume that its reprehensible to not always choose every possible medical treatment when a serious illness occurs is simply not thinking things through fully.

[Cromulent]

OK, first off, because this case involves a minor I agree there are mitigating circumstances.

But since when was the level of medical treatment given to a person determined solely by what was possible? Have you ever worked at a hospital? I have...people must make decisions and weigh their health/potential lifespan against what they will undergo by simply trying every available treatment (never mind the cost, loss of dignity/low quality of life etc) until they either recover or die. That's a totally flawed perspective IMO.

Maybe all was too strong a word. I don't mind if people want to pray or use herbal remedies or whatever, just as long as they pursue standard medicine as well. That was my point.

Under your reasoning people could be forbidden from smoking, drinking, and eating unhealthily - medical science has already proven those will kill you. Heck, praying merely allows someone to die, whereas smoking actively kills you...perhaps people should be fined or imprisoned for destroying their bodies through unhealthy living?

Nonsense. That is not my reasoning at all. Smoking, eating unhealthily etc is something which the person themselves chooses to do and therefore they take full responsibility for their actions.

This was her parents making the decision for the girl which resulted in her death. Clear cut manslaughter by any legal definition.

The issue is not blindly seeking increasingly aggressive medicine, but the fact that the girl was a minor and was not legally allowed to choose how to treat herself - she may have never even understood the danger...THAT can be seen as something the parents might be responsible for on some level.

Might be? They are responsible. Parents are legally responsible for their children until they are adults.


But to assume that its reprehensible to not always choose every possible medical treatment when a serious illness occurs is simply not thinking things through fully.

How is it not? The simple fact is that the girl died when she could have lived. What is not reprehensible about that?

[yg17]

Fair enough....if not murder, then manslaughter, or at the very least, child endangerment. Their actions should not go unpunished. The government can't say that you cannot pray for your child, but they should be able to say that if your child is sick, you at least seek medical treatment. Even if the extent of the medical treatment is a doctor stating that her illness is terminal and it's best to let her die peacefully. But the fact of the matter is they did not get the proper care for their daughter, and she died from something that she should not have died from.

[jessica.]

How tragic. I don't believe prayer is tragic fwiw, but I believe child endangerment charges are in order. Murder seems a bit harsh. I guess that is really up to the state to decide. However, the biggest issue here is that I believe this does fall in the realm of mixing church and state....no good will ever come of that.

[Ugg]

Says any sensible person with an interest in keeping people alive.

Knowingly or unknowingly letting someone die because you refuse to take advantage of all available treatments is negligence on a huge scale and is bordering on manslaughter.

Now you're talking about forcing people to stay alive at all costs. That is simply wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

How do you feel about assisted suicide?

A lot of people simply don't believe that life is something that should be prolonged at any cost. Forcing someone into dehumanizing and expensive medical treatment is IMHO, very inhumane. Life isn't about who live the longest.

The fact that the girl was a minor is troubling but in the end her parents made a decision about the sanctity of life.

[skunk]

The fact that the girl was a minor is troubling but in the end her parents made a decision about the sanctity of life.No they did not, they simply failed egregiously in their duty of care.

[Ugg]

How tragic. I don't believe prayer is tragic fwiw, but I believe child endangerment charges are in order. Murder seems a bit harsh. I guess that is really up to the state to decide. However, the biggest issue here is that I believe this does fall in the realm of mixing church and state....no good will ever come of that.

What if the parents were atheists and simply didn't believe in medical treatment? Diabetes can be a very debilitating disease. Isn't nature (the antithesis of religion) trying to tell us something when disease strikes? Aren't we simply reducing our collective genetic fitness when chronically ill people to reproduce?

There have been a lot of studies done on children born prematurely and those conceived with IVF. Generally speaking, they oftentimes have severe learning and physical disabilities. Who is going to care for these people when they get older? At what cost?

I'm the last person in the world to defend whacko religious freaks but when it comes to quality of life issues, there needs to be some realism injected into the discussion.

[Cromulent]

Now you're talking about forcing people to stay alive at all costs. That is simply wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

How do you feel about assisted suicide?

It depends on the situation. If the person states that they want to die at a certain point (loss of communication abilities for example) then fine as long as there is some evidence of that agreement.

Allowing assisted suicide though by family members is an incredibly dangerous thing to allow. It should only ever be carried out by trained doctors.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with assisted suicide though.

A lot of people simply don't believe that life is something that should be prolonged at any cost. Forcing someone into dehumanizing and expensive medical treatment is IMHO, very inhumane. Life isn't about who live the longest.

Luckily I live in a country were medical expense is not something that needs to be considered on a personal level.

In most western countries assisted suicide is still illegal and the law reflects public opinion.

The fact that the girl was a minor is troubling but in the end her parents made a decision about the sanctity of life.

The parents made no such decision on the sanctity of life, they simply felt that the best course of action was prayer only, despite the enormous amount of evidence to the contry.

[TheQuestion]

No they did not, they simply failed egregiously in their duty of care.

Did Ugg not say "a decision", which is not the same as a good decision?

[Cromulent]

What if the parents were atheists and simply didn't believe in medical treatment? Diabetes can be a very debilitating disease. Isn't nature (the antithesis of religion) trying to tell us something when disease strikes? Aren't we simply reducing our collective genetic fitness when chronically ill people to reproduce?

If you are trying to say that it is fine to let sick people die without doing anything to save them then I disagree wholeheartedly.

There have been a lot of studies done on children born prematurely and those conceived with IVF. Generally speaking, they oftentimes have severe learning and physical disabilities. Who is going to care for these people when they get older? At what cost?

That is the states responsibility.

I'm the last person in the world to defend whacko religious freaks but when it comes to quality of life issues, there needs to be some realism injected into the discussion.

Reality? Of course you are correct technically, but where do you draw the line? It is all too easy to go from your line of thinking to thinking about expunging genetic impurities from the human race.

[Ugg]

Luckily I live in a country were medical expense is not something that needs to be considered on a personal level.

In most western countries assisted suicide is still illegal and the law reflects public opinion.
.

The costs of medical care do need to be considered on a collective level however. The UK is facing the same problems that the US is in regards to an aging population.

The law rarely reflects "current" public opinion. That same aging population is increasingly choosing not to go gently into that sweet night. Why prolong human suffering needlessly?

Western governments are mostly 20 years behind when it comes to assisted suicide laws. It's sad that so many people are being forced to suffer simply because medicine can keep people "alive".

[Cromulent]

The costs of medical care do need to be considered on a collective level however. The UK is facing the same problems that the US is in regards to an aging population.

That is why the age of retirement is being extended to help offset the fact that people live longer.

The law rarely reflects "current" public opinion. That same aging population is increasingly choosing not to go gently into that sweet night. Why prolong human suffering needlessly?

Western governments are mostly 20 years behind when it comes to assisted suicide laws. It's sad that so many people are being forced to suffer simply because medicine can keep people "alive".

I've never mentioned old people in my use of the term forced. I do think that parents and people in a position of care of an individual should be forced. I've never stated that an individual who is legally in a position to make decisions on their own medical care should be forced.

This whole discussion was based on the original post about parents withholding medical care from a child. That is wrong. They should have been forced to seek medical care for that child and sod their beliefs.

If they had been the ones who were ill and had decided that they did not want medical treatment themselves, then sod them let them die if they want.

[yg17]

Now you're talking about forcing people to stay alive at all costs. That is simply wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

How do you feel about assisted suicide?

A lot of people simply don't believe that life is something that should be prolonged at any cost. Forcing someone into dehumanizing and expensive medical treatment is IMHO, very inhumane. Life isn't about who live the longest.

The fact that the girl was a minor is troubling but in the end her parents made a decision about the sanctity of life.

If she had terminal cancer, that's one thing (although, IMO, they still should only make decisions after consulting a doctor) but she had diabetes, which, most of the time, is not fatal and does not reduce the quality of life. I know a few people who are diabetic, and besides having to monitor their diet and blood sugar more closely and inject insulin, they live completely normal lives and their quality of life is just as good as anyone else's. At this young of an age, diabetes is not a debilitating disease and her parents robbed her of a life.

[Ugg]

That is why the age of retirement is being extended to help offset the fact that people live longer.



I've never mentioned old people in my use of the term forced. I do think that parents and people in a position of care of an individual should be forced. I've never stated that an individual who is legally in a position to make decisions on their own medical care should be forced.

This whole discussion was based on the original post about parents withholding medical care from a child. That is wrong. They should have been forced to seek medical care for that child and sod their beliefs.

If they had been the ones who were ill and had decided that they did not want medical treatment themselves, then sod them let them die if they want.

If a person works two more years is that somehow going to pay for their additional ten year life span? I doubt it.

Why?

What aspect of western morality or law forces a parent to seek medical care for their child?

This is a relatively new legal and moral morass. Effective medical care has only been around for a half century. Just because the technology exists should we be forced to use it?

Somehow I have serious problems with that concept. At what point do we stop becoming individuals and simply become automatons?

If what you're advocating becomes reality, then the only way to ensure that it is followed is to conduct not only blood tests on prospective parents but also tests of moral, intellectual and emotional rectitude. Do you really want to live in such a society?

I feel sorry for this little girl but in all honesty, I feel even sorrier for the millions of children around the world who have no concept of what medical care is.

[Dustman]

Some people take religion waaay too far. It's supposed to be used as a guide in terms of morals.. If there was a god, he'd never want a child to die because their parents refused to give the kid effing isulin. the parents should go to prison for being unfit parents.

[Cromulent]

If a person works two more years is that somehow going to pay for their additional ten year life span? I doubt it.

The average age (and that is what is important, not individual life span) has not increased 10 years. The increased tax revenue will pay for the added expense.

Why?

What aspect of western morality or law forces a parent to seek medical care for their child?

This is a relatively new legal and moral morass. Effective medical care has only been around for a half century. Just because the technology exists should we be forced to use it?

Somehow I have serious problems with that concept. At what point do we stop becoming individuals and simply become automatons?

I'm not sure how you got from enforcing medical care on children who are unable to make the decisions themselves to becoming automatons.

If what you're advocating becomes reality, then the only way to ensure that it is followed is to conduct not only blood tests on prospective parents but also tests of moral, intellectual and emotional rectitude. Do you really want to live in such a society?

I feel sorry for this little girl but in all honesty, I feel even sorrier for the millions of children around the world who have no concept of what medical care is.

Hardly you just make it a crime. If they break the law they go to prison. After all murder is illegal, but we don't go around phsycologically testing everyone, we just hope that the vast majority don't break the law.

By making it illegal we set the the general level of morality that our culture thinks is reasonable.

[MacNut]

If they had been the ones who were ill and had decided that they did not want medical treatment themselves, then sod them let them die if they want.So why not charge the spouse for not doing more, even if the husband says let me die, can they not charge the wife for not making a moral decision.

[CalBoy]

So why not charge the spouse for not doing more, even if the husband says let me die, can they not charge the wife for not making a moral decision.

No, they can't. You have the freedom to reject medical care if you want to.

The question is, did this girl have that option? I think the answer is "no."

[skunk]

So why not charge the spouse for not doing more, even if the husband says let me die, can they not charge the wife for not making a moral decision.The wife is not in loco parentis. She does not have a duty of care towards a minor in her charge.

[Cromulent]

So why not charge the spouse for not doing more, even if the husband says let me die, can they not charge the wife for not making a moral decision.

Because they were an adult and fully capable of making that decision as I have previously said.

This discussion is just for those who are not capable of making such decisions (children, mentally impaired etc).

[MacNut]

Well what if the child said I don't want to take treatment, can they force her.

[Cromulent]

Well what if the child said I don't want to take treatment, can they force her.

Yes. Parents are fully responsible for their children. That is how it is now and has been for years and years. That is nothing new.

[CalBoy]

Yes. Parents are fully responsible for their children. That is how it is now and has been for years and years. That is nothing new.

Although not in all cases. I believe a teenaged girl can refuse to have certain procedures performed on her (all "down there" related).

[MacNut]

Yes. Parents are fully responsible for their children. That is how it is now and has been for years and years. That is nothing new.So what is to stop a parent from having a procedure done to a child to make sure she wins a beauty pageant. If the child has no say in what happens to their body the parent can do what ever they want.

[CalBoy]

So what is to stop a parent from having a procedure done to a child to make sure she wins a beauty pageant. If the child has no say in what happens to their body the parent can do what ever they want.

It's called medical ethics. You can't perform plastic surgery on a minor unless it's warranted (skin grafts for burns, etc).

[Cromulent]

So what is to stop a parent from having a procedure done to a child to make sure she wins a beauty pageant. If the child has no say in what happens to their body the parent can do what ever they want.

Nothing technically. Although any right minded doctor would refuse to perform the operation.

Children do not have any real legal decision making rights, they are all the responsibility of the parent.

[MacNut]

It's called medical ethics. You can't perform plastic surgery on a minor unless it's warranted (skin grafts for burns, etc).But if a procedure is going to cause more pain does a child have the right to say no to it.

[CalBoy]

But if a procedure is going to cause more pain does a child have the right to say no to it.

What procedure exactly? Is it going to make sure that the child survives?

Is it going to end a disease?

Even so, that decision is left up to the parent up till a certain age (it's not 18, I think it's 14 or 15).

And normally it's difficult to gauge how much pain a certain procedure will cause relative to the pain of dying a slow death. Most reasonable people would choose to have the procedure done if their chances of survival post-op are high. I don't know how many people reject the idea of heart surgery because they think, "it's going to hurt."

[Cromulent]

But if a procedure is going to cause more pain does a child have the right to say no to it.

In a word, no.

CalBoy has explained it pretty well. I'm unaware of many, if any procedures that would cause more pain in the long run than the threat of dying.

[Shotglass]

Your not sending that message at all. They can pray for their loved ones all they like. All we are saying is that while they pray they have to make use of all the available tools to try and help that person get better and that includes medicine and hospitals.

No one has said they can't pray, just that prayer should never be the only thing that someone utilises in the treatment of a sick person.I absolutely understood what you were saying, but the people I'm talking about are not nearly smart enough to do. With some people, you just need to push the right buttons and all hell breaks loose.

[solvs]

I also detect a perception among a lot of people in the US that non-western mysticism is seen as OK or even fashionable but similar activities that happen within religions more common in the US (usually some form of Christianity) are looked down on as backwards. A double standard.
Alternative medicine is still often seen as less than modern medicine, but there are studies to prove that some things actually can help. While not all of it, some herbs, exercises, even acupuncture can be shown to have positive effects with some health issues and illnesses. Even positive thought or prayer can help in some cases. But it's not the end all be all. If Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists want to do nothing but pray or meditate for something like this, it would be equally frowned upon. The problem here is that she had something easily treatable by modern medicine in a way that's not overly painful. I don't know if the situation would be different if she had something worse, but I remember the case of a boy who had cancer and had almost no chance anymore, who had been through a long and painful treatment, who simply refused to keep going. He had to fight in court to stop treatment. This isn't like that.

This is a tough case. It shouldn't be, because it's pretty obvious this was neglect and yes, possibly even manslaughter. But this was a decision based on religion. We would have to figure out just how far we can take freedom of religion. Obviously, not everything is going to be ok just because you claim it's your religious belief. But nor is it ok for the state to decide to override your families beliefs with it's own. It's a sad case, and this was so easily treatable, but it cost her and them dearly. I wish that would tell them something, but it never does. I have to wonder if it's my place to say otherwise, no matter how much I think it is.

[.Andy]

Alternative medicine is still often seen as less than modern medicine
It is less. Alternative medicine is synonymous with unproven medicine or in many cases disproven medicine, provided even though there is evidence of its complete ineffectiveness.

but there are studies to prove that some things actually can help.
And if scientific studies show that alternative medicines do help, then that treatment is no longer an alternative medicine. It has become a modern medicine. Unfortunately when studies prove an alternative medicine to be ineffective, it still remains a alternative medicine.

While not all of it, some herbs, exercises, even acupuncture can be shown to have positive effects with some health issues and illnesses.
By some herbs good example would be aspirin. It is a widely used modern medicine that has been used and studied extensively. We know when ti can be used, for what ailments, and most importantly when it can't be used. It is no longer an alternate medicine. Acupuncture is a funny one. It's good for pain relief although I don't really think it can be called 'acupuncture'. All the mysticism of energy lines, precise needle placement, or needle stimulation is largely a sham - you can pretty much just stick the needles anywhere and get a result. It's thought to be largely due to gate theory where one set of physical stimulation 'distracts' a person from an alternate set of physical stimulation.

Alternative medicine also isn't the poor picked on sibling people make out - in australia (and I'd wager all countries) the alternative medicine market is far larger than the modern medicine market. There is no incentive for alternative medicine makers to prove the efficacy of their treatments - they're cashing in on peoples perceptions of these treatments being 'natural' and 'safe', making empty or vacuous claims and marketing the products as nothing more than dietary supplements to avoid legislation.

[chrmjenkins]

This is definitely a case where I would say the law needs to be changed. I fully believe that parents have responsibility for their children and are their caretakers, but there needs to be allowable state intervention in these cases. We have no problem allowing people like DCFS taking away kids from parents who are negligent, so there shouldn't be a problem for administering care where the benefits greatly outweigh any risks. By letting parents have sole discretion in this matter, they are effectively allowing the parents to choose the child's religion. Now, if this child had been 17, she still would have been a minor, but very arguably capable of making her own religious decisions. I'm not saying the child should be taken away, but they should be at least be able to get parents to provide basic care for a child who has no choice regardless.

[Don't panic]

There are different types of alternative medicine.
some are are actually alternative, not-well-understood treatments with some basis (like herbal or some traditional medicines), others are complete medical hogwash which at times work because of placebo-like effects. Of course if the patient is in a coma, placebo treatments loose any efficacy.

sometimes alternative treatments are possibly warranted because the canonical approach is ineffective or carries unbearable effects, in term of pain or consequences. In such cases, it could be a hard call, and certainly quality of life issues become relevant.

The case here isn't a hard case.
it was a totally unnecessary and unwarranted death.
it was an easily treatable condition which would have led to a normal life.
The parents simply knowingly decided to ignore what was clearly the best course of action for the girl, against the repeated advice of family members, because they didn't think it was necessary.

It is manslaughter at the very minimum and more likely a more serious charge, from depraved indifference to murder, depending of what they were told, when and how the disease progressed. AND custody of their remaining minor children should be transferred to other family members, as they clearly lack the judgment to take care o them.

it would be fine if they had used faith healing of themselves and died of it as consenting adults. I do believe that adults have a right to die and i am for assisted suicide (within regulated situations).
but parents are responsible for the well-being of their children, and that duty trumps whatever reason they pretend to have to cause harm to the kids.

[mactastic]

Christ, on one hand we have charges of endangerment being brought against a woman who left a sleeping child in the car in sleeting conditions for no more than a few minutes and never out of her sight, and on the other we have this?

I seem to recall a case from a year or so ago where a couple of DFHs were charged because their child, who was being raised a vegan like them, died from malnutrition. It would seem that if you can bring charges in a case like that, you should be able to do so here as well.

There is something known as a reasonable standard of care that must be exercised. Sure you can make a decision to reject medical care for your child, but you must show that it was an informed decision based upon something more than blind faith. A "reasonable person" (the court's standard) would have gotten opinions from more than just their church before making a decision with such potentially dangerous outcomes.

[atszyman]

I agree it is not murder. But it most certainly is manslaughter. They deserve a prison sentence for incompetence and negligence.

Says who?

...But if they don't "believe" in modern medicine how far can you force them to make use of it? How much right does society have to compel people to tow that line?

What aspect of western morality or law forces a parent to seek medical care for their child?

This is a relatively new legal and moral morass. Effective medical care has only been around for a half century. Just because the technology exists should we be forced to use it?

Somehow I have serious problems with that concept. At what point do we stop becoming individuals and simply become automatons?

If what you're advocating becomes reality, then the only way to ensure that it is followed is to conduct not only blood tests on prospective parents but also tests of moral, intellectual and emotional rectitude. Do you really want to live in such a society?

I feel sorry for this little girl but in all honesty, I feel even sorrier for the millions of children around the world who have no concept of what medical care is.

The state requires me to strap my kids into car seats any time my car leaves the driveway to protect them. Should I be allowed to let them roam free in the car (like I was back in the day) provided I pray for a safe trip every time I leave the driveway? What if my religion tells me to cage my kids 14 hours out of every day? What if their cages are padded and comfy? (sure they'd have mental issues when they grew up, but they'd be alive). The government puts all kinds of restrictions on parents as it is to make sure that kids are kept safe, how would compelling them to seek medical attention be any different than that?

The parents were negligent and should be tried for manslaughter. I'm also pissed at the aunt for not calling the paramedics on her own once she realized that the parents weren't going to do squat. And where were the older siblings? did they know what was going on?

This really hits close to home, I grew up in a small town not 15 miles from Wausau.

I need to make sure that once my kids get old enough that if my wife or I ever tries to do something like this to call 911 and get the ambulance to pick them, or their siblings up. Call the neighbors to restrain my wife and I if necessary... hopefully I'm many years from senility though.

[Iscariot]

who was being raised a vegan like them

It was a fair bit more complex than that.

[Badandy]

As far as I see the morality of it, prayer shouldn't be an issue in the punishment of the parents.


I think the main points are that their daughter was dying, and upon the repeated attempts of people to get them to take their daughter to a hospital, they did nothing about it. That should be child endangerment or manslaughter. The praying merely adds stupidity, not charges.

[mactastic]

It was a fair bit more complex than that.
As I'm sure the religious among us would say about these parents...

[Iscariot]

I think the main points are that their daughter was dying, and upon the repeated attempts of people to get them to take their daughter to a hospital, they did nothing about it. That should be child endangerment or manslaughter. The praying merely adds stupidity, not charges.

I'm inclined to agree. The parents were charged with the care of minors when they became parents, and did not live up to their responsibilities.

[takao]

I seem to recall a case from a year or so ago where a couple of DFHs were charged because their child, who was being raised a vegan like them, died from malnutrition. It would seem that if you can bring charges in a case like that, you should be able to do so here as well.


we had a similar case around here in austria as well a few years ago where some mother thought it was a great idea to only give her kids salads/spices out of the woods
until the 14 year old daugther died

when police investigated they were kinda surprised that her younger brothers were normally healthy .. until they said that they were simply eating burgers at mcdonalds after school regularly

[Iscariot]

As I'm sure the religious among us would say about these parents...

Perhaps. But most newborns six weeks old are technically vegan, since they're not eating food yet, and usually fed mothers milk.

The difference between the two is that one case is used to vilify all vegans, and one case is used to vilify only the parents and their neglect.

[fridgeymonster3]

yg17, you're being unreasonable. You can't charge these people with murder. Murder is killing a person after devising a plan how to do that.

There are varying degrees of murder, distinguished by intent, mitigating and aggravating factors, etc., etc, but you are right because murder is basically killing intentionally with premeditation, which this was not a case of.


Knowingly or unknowingly letting someone die because you refuse to take advantage of all available treatments is negligence on a huge scale and is bordering on manslaughter.

It does not border on manslaughter at all. Manslaughter is killing without premeditation or malice; also, manslaughter occurs without any previous accessories and with no time for premeditation, basically a crime in the heat of the moment. I agree that there is vehicular manslaughter and malpractice manslaughter, all based on negligence, but I do not believe this would fit the definition of manslaughter. Here is why I say that. The article says the daughter was sick for about a month, the daughter's condition continued to get worse, and an Aunt pleaded they take her to the hospital. Therefore, you can argue that there wasn't premeditation to kill there daughter (out goes murder in any form) but their were accessories to the crime (out goes manslaughter). I think the charge of negligent homicide, which is the charge when through inaction, a person under someone;s care dies. Negligent homicide is not 1st or 2nd degree murder, and is much more similar in prison time to manslaughter, but still is legally different.

[mactastic]

Perhaps. But most newborns six weeks old are technically vegan, since they're not eating food yet, and usually fed mothers milk.
If you're drinking mother's milk, you're not a vegan.

The difference between the two is that one case is used to vilify all vegans, and one case is used to vilify only the parents and their neglect.
Huh? I'm certainly not villifying any vegans, let alone all of them. :confused:

[Iscariot]

If you're drinking mother's milk, you're not a vegan.

Yes, you are. Veganism has to do with not eating products that come from the suffering or enslavement of animals by human hands. I suppose it wouldn't be vegan if you fed your baby the breast milk of a woman you have chained in your basement though ¬_¬

(actually, I'm kind of surprised that more children haven't been killed by new-age bone-headedness)

Huh? I'm certainly not villifying any vegans, let alone all of them. :confused:

No offense intended, but statements "raised vegan like them" and the above statement indicate a lack of a full understanding of the principals of veganism. Just like in this case, thay child is dead because the parents were willfully ignorant and neglectful.

[Don't panic]

letting or causing a child to die when such death is easily avoidable based on a principle is criminal and should be prosecuted as such.
There might be attenuating circumstances, but i can't think of many solid ones, and i would submit that, as they say, "that is for the jury to decide".

[mactastic]

Yes, you are. Veganism has to do with not eating products that come from the suffering or enslavement of animals by human hands. I suppose it wouldn't be vegan if you fed your baby the breast milk of a woman you have chained in your basement though ¬_¬

(actually, I'm kind of surprised that more children haven't been killed by new-age bone-headedness)
My understanding (and I've known numerous vegans) is that the line is drawn at "animal products". Full stop. No consideration of whether the animals are held captive or not. For instance, even wild honey is considered off limits to a strict vegan.

No offense intended, but statements "raised vegan like them" and the above statement indicate a lack of a full understanding of the principals of veganism. Just like in this case, thay child is dead because the parents were willfully ignorant and neglectful.
LOL! I think your being overly sensitive if you think "raised vegan like them" is some kind of indictment of the vegan lifestyle. And to make the leap from there to saying I don't understand veganism... that's a pretty big stretch.

I could just as easily say that your statement about "new-age bone-headedness" indicates a lack of understanding about new-age stuff. But I won't, because that would be a cheap shot based on parsing a few words out of context. No offense intended of course.

[Iscariot]

My understanding (and I've known numerous vegans)...

Breastfeeding is 100% vegan because it's a natural process, and not derived from any kind of animal suffering. Sorry I'm not making my point well. You can find literature about breastfeeding on just about any vegan website.

And to make the leap from there to saying I don't understand veganism... that's a pretty big stretch.

It's not a stretch, because you are wrong. You can't raise a baby "vegan like you" because a baby is already vegan until it starts eating solid food, and this baby didn't live that long. If you assert that breastfeeding isn't something vegans consider vegan, then you don't understand veganism fully.

I could just as easily say that your statement about "new-age bone-headedness" indicates a lack of understanding about new-age stuff. But I won't, because that would be a cheap shot based on parsing a few words out of context. No offense intended of course.

None taken, but a good jab that demonstrates how poorly I'm making my point. I was trying to make a comparison point about a blanket statement that can be selectively applied versus a statement made with a clear-cut subject. Perhaps I am being a little sensitve... you would not BELIEVE the hate literature I've received after that court case. It's become instinct to want to set the record straight.

[Gelfin]

It's not a stretch, because you are wrong. You can't raise a baby "vegan like you" because a baby is already vegan until it starts eating solid food, and this baby didn't live that long. If you assert that breastfeeding isn't something vegans consider vegan, then you don't understand veganism fully.

Do keep in mind that generally the few vegans who have killed a child through malnutrition seem to have made precisely the error you are criticizing. I seem to recall one of them giving the infant soy milk instead of breast milk so as to prevent it from "developing a taste" for animal products.

No doubt there are well-informed vegan organizations that spread proper nutritional information for vegans and their children, but don't think it's only biased non-vegans who are failing to take advantage of it.

[Iscariot]

but don't think it's only biased non-vegans who are failing to take advantage of it.

I don't, not for a second. I do volunteer work for one of those responsible organizations, I've seen and heard an awful lot of it from all sides.