Jail terms for faith healing pair

[edesignuk]

A US couple who prayed rather than seeking medical attention for their dying daughter have been sentenced to six months in jail.

Dale and Leilani Neumann, of Wisconsin, could have received up to 25 years in prison over the 2008 death of Madeline Neumann, who was known as Kara.

The 11-year-old died of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes. BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8294225.stm).

[nullx86]

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8294225.stm).

Damn religious nuts. The girl could have been alive, but instead they pray? Lock them up please.

[Heilage]

Six months sounds a bit soft considering they by proxy killed their daughter.

[iBlue]

Stupidity - it kills.

[dalvin200]

Dial M for Murder?

Just how dumb can people be?

[nullx86]

Stupidity - it kills.

Dial M for Murder?

Just how dumb can people be?

OFT. +1 to the both of you.

[Xfujinon]

I am content with anything, but six months seems like weak sauce.

Morons.

[yg17]

They could've given them the maximum of 25 years and it still wouldn't have been enough.

[IntheNet]

A US couple who prayed rather than seeking medical attention for their dying daughter have been sentenced to six months in jail.

Dale and Leilani Neumann, of Wisconsin, could have received up to 25 years in prison over the 2008 death of Madeline Neumann, who was known as Kara.

The 11-year-old died of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes. .

This is a sad case but had Dale and Leilani Neumann aborted their daughter there would be no deal here; as concerned parents that prayed for her, as is their right, and they faced 25 years in jail (six-months sentenced) and court finds that they should have tried medical care at clinic! Fair? What if Kara was brought into the clinic with her "treatable" form of diabetes and she still died? Would the clinic face 25 years (six-months sentenced) by the court? Seems to be some religious persecution here by a secular judge who is want to sentence parents for religious belief absent of medical care but I wonder if the reverse is true. While I find it incredibly sad for the young life lost I am not sure sentence is fair and equally applied under our current law.

[edesignuk]

This is a sad case but had Dale and Leilani Neumann aborted their daughter there would be no deal here;Genius, if she hadn't existed she couldn't have died. problem solved.
as concerned parents that prayed for her and they faced 25 years in jail (six-months sentenced)! Fair? What if Kara was brought into the clinic with her "treatable" form of diabetes and still died? Would the clinic face 25 years (six-months sentenced)?They were useless parents who gave no one the chance to help their daughter. Had she still died after seeking treatment (as any sane, normal person would have), of course the hospital wouldn't face charges. They would have done their best.

What's wrong with you? :confused:

[iBlue]

This is a sad case but had Dale and Leilani Neumann aborted their daughter there would be no deal here; as concerned parents that prayed for her, as is their right, and they faced 25 years in jail (six-months sentenced) and court finds that they should have tried medical care at clinic! Fair? What if Kara was brought into the clinic with her "treatable" form of diabetes and she still died? Would the clinic face 25 years (six-months sentenced) by the court? Seems to be some religious persecution here by a secular judge who is want to sentence parents for religious belief absent of medical care but I wonder if the reverse is true. While I find it incredibly sad for the young life lost I am not sure sentence is fair and equally applied under our current law.

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/images_other/trollspray.gif

[yg17]

What if Kara was brought into the clinic with her "treatable" form of diabetes and she still died? Would the clinic face 25 years (six-months sentenced) by the court?

If she had a very treatable form of diabetes and she still died while in a doctor's care, that doctor would likely be facing a huge malpractice suit, and a multi million dollar settlement can in some ways be worse than 6 months in what is probably a minimum security prison.

[tofagerl]

This is a sad case but had Dale and Leilani Neumann aborted their daughter there would be no deal here; as concerned parents that prayed for her, as is their right, and they faced 25 years in jail (six-months sentenced) and court finds that they should have tried medical care at clinic! Fair? What if Kara was brought into the clinic with her "treatable" form of diabetes and she still died? Would the clinic face 25 years (six-months sentenced) by the court? Seems to be some religious persecution here by a secular judge who is want to sentence parents for religious belief absent of medical care but I wonder if the reverse is true. While I find it incredibly sad for the young life lost I am not sure sentence is fair and equally applied under our current law.

I agree, I say we jail God as well, as he clearly is guilty in this case.

[iBlue]

I agree, I say we jail God as well, as he clearly is guilty in this case.

I agree but I bet the extradition process would be brutal!

[iShater]

God tells us to work hard and pray for the best, not to sit on our lazy behinds and just wish for thinks to happen.

Did anybody notice this part:

Kara died on the floor of the family's rural home as people surrounded her and prayed.

So more than the parents where there? why did they call medical services at all if they sooooooooo thought "western" medicine was bad.

I remember hearing about this on a BBC show and I was speechless.

They should take the rest of the kids away before it is too late.

[IntheNet]

They were useless parents who gave no one the chance to help their daughter. Had she still died after seeking treatment (as any sane, normal person would have), of course the hospital wouldn't face charges...

Why do you give the hospital the benefit of the doubt that you do not extend to the parents?

The precedent here is quite amazing actually; now parents will be prosecuted for not giving full medical care in the eyes of the law; that scrape at the playground that required a band-aid should have been a emergency room visit - that headache that required a Tylenol should have been an out-patient doctor's exam. You take rights from parents and put the law as judge and jury on child raising based solely upon an alleged "undiagnosed" but assumed "treatable" form of diabetes that a clinic may have addressed.

They would have done their best.

Statistically speaking, hospitals do make mistakes and in some cases they don't do their best. Sadly, hospitals largely get a pass on these mistakes, when they are made, a pass that you are not at all willing to extend to the parents in this case.

[edesignuk]

Why do you give the hospital the benefit of the doubt that you do not extend to the parents?The hospitals/doctors were never given a chance.

The parents sat there idly and let their child die because they thought praying was adequate, when it quite simply isn't.

Nothing else matters here, they did nothing and as a consequence a child in their supposed care died needlessly.

[arkitect]

Why do you give the hospital the benefit of the doubt that you do not extend to the parents?

Is this truly a difficult concept for you to grasp? :confused::rolleyes:

Hospitals: doctors, medication, equipment etcetera have a rather decent track record when it comes to healing and curing people.

Now prayer on the hand, not so much. ;)

Seriously, reading your comments on other threads I am sure you're just a troll.

[yg17]

Why do you give the hospital the benefit of the doubt that you do not extend to the parents?

We don't. If a hospital screws up, they'll be in bigger trouble with the law than these two parents are.


The precedent here is quite amazing actually; now parents will be prosecuted for not giving full medical care in the eyes of the law; that scrape at the playground that required a band-aid should have been a emergency room visit - that headache that required a Tylenol should have been an out-patient doctor's exam. You take rights from parents and put the law as judge and jury on child raising based solely upon an alleged "undiagnosed" but assumed "treatable" form of diabetes that a clinic may have addressed.

A band aid is a reasonable treatment that works for a scrape. A Tylenol is a reasonable treatment that works for a headache. Prayer is an unreasonable treatment that doesn't work for diabetes.

And why do you keep putting "treatable" in quotes as if diabetes isn't treatable? Millions of people live perfectly normal, long lives with it. There's no cure for it, but with proper diet and insulin shots if needed, you can certainly prevent the negative effects of it. My grandmother, for example, lived to be 90 with diabetes and died of something else completely unrelated to it. It's not curable, but it is definitely treatable. This girl didn't have to die at 11 because she was diabetic.


Statistically speaking, hospitals do make mistakes and in some cases they don't do their best. Sadly, hospitals largely get a pass on these mistakes, when they are made, a pass that you are not at all willing to extend to the parents in this case.
Praying to cure your daughter of a treatable illness goes far beyond a mistake. It is neglect, and in my opinion, first degree murder that should be punished just as harshly as if they put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger. At least if they did the latter, she would've died a quick, painless death.

[iShater]

Why do you give the hospital the benefit of the doubt that you do not extend to the parents?

The precedent here is quite amazing actually; now parents will be prosecuted for not giving full medical care in the eyes of the law; that scrape at the playground that required a band-aid should have been a emergency room visit - that headache that required a Tylenol should have been an out-patient doctor's exam. You take rights from parents and put the law as judge and jury on child raising based solely upon an alleged "undiagnosed" but assumed "treatable" form of diabetes that a clinic may have addressed.



Statistically speaking, hospitals do make mistakes and in some cases they don't do their best. Sadly, hospitals largely get a pass on these mistakes, when they are made, a pass that you are not at all willing to extend to the parents in this case.


Dude, it is called negligence. They saw and KNEW something was wrong, but opted to not seek any medical care.

[velocityg4]

Why do you give the hospital the benefit of the doubt that you do not extend to the parents?

The precedent here is quite amazing actually; now parents will be prosecuted for not giving full medical care in the eyes of the law; that scrape at the playground that required a band-aid should have been a emergency room visit - that headache that required a Tylenol should have been an out-patient doctor's exam. You take rights from parents and put the law as judge and jury on child raising based solely upon an alleged "undiagnosed" but assumed "treatable" form of diabetes that a clinic may have addressed.


This is why I disagree with the verdict.

What about parents that use a herbalist, if someone of another religion used a traditional medicine man/shayman, or traditional chinese medicine? None of which are approved western medicines. Then got sent to jail, would peoples reactions be the same?

One might say that at least the above examples tried. Since none of those people are qualified and licensed medical professionals, then any treatment from alternative medicine is about as valid as a prayer group.

Do I disagree with what they did? Yes, wholeheartedly.
Do I support their right to do so? Yes, when you start picking away at a freedom you give others the ability to take away more.

[Thomas Veil]

If these two nut jobs had killed the kid by a sin of commission (e.g., stabbing) than a sin of omission (withholding treatment), they would've gotten a much longer sentence.

But because religion was involved, that somehow makes it less heinous of a crime. :rolleyes:

This country's head is so up its ass where religion is concerned.

BTW, no "freedom" gives the parents the right to do this. Their right to raise the kid doesn't extend to taking her life.

[yg17]

This is why I disagree with the verdict.

What about parents that use a herbalist, if someone of another religion used a traditional medicine man/shayman, or traditional chinese medicine? None of which are approved western medicines. Then got sent to jail, would peoples reactions be the same?

If the alternative medicine didn't work, yes, my reaction would be the same.

[ucfgrad93]

As a person of faith, I think what they did was wrong. They should have taken Kara to the doctors. If they wanted to pray (which in my opinion is a great thing) they should have prayed for healing, wisdom of the doctors to figure out what was wrong with their daughter, that the treatment would work, etc.

It is sad, this girl is now dead.

[P-Worm]

This is a sad story, but I can't help but think about the Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't allow blood transfusions in their church, and I'm sure that there have been instances where a needed blood transfusion could have saved the life of a child. Why do Jehovah's Witnesses get a pass on this and this couple doesn't? Seems a bit unfair to me.

Granted this is a tragic story. I believe in God and that He answers prayers, but I also believe that God expects us to do everything in our power to solve the problems and trials that come our way.

P-Worm

[Gelfin]

What about parents that use a herbalist, if someone of another religion used a traditional medicine man/shayman, or traditional chinese medicine? None of which are approved western medicines. Then got sent to jail, would peoples reactions be the same?

One might say that at least the above examples tried. Since none of those people are qualified and licensed medical professionals, then any treatment from alternative medicine is about as valid as a prayer group.

You mean like Daniel Hauser (http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2009/05/the-matter-of-daniel-hauser-parents-right-to-refuse-medical-treatment-for-their-kids.html), the Minnesota child with cancer whose parents cited new age religion to support treating him with herbs instead of medicine?

Yes, those people were idiots who were murdering their child to pridefully indulge their own sense of self-righteous spiritual purity. Their "treatment" was neglectful, and a court stopped it before it was too late. Hauser began chemotherapy in late May under court order.

I keep hearing more and more thinly stretched versions of this self-pitying "double-standard biased against Christians" victimization nonsense. It's getting pretty worn out. Let me be clear: I am entirely opposed to murdering children through the application of b******t. I do not care in the least what your particular b******t of choice happens to be. Don't murder your kids with it. Just don't.

If your kid is in serious medical trouble, you do the best you can to save your child, and the best you can do is to take him to a doctor of the non-witch variety. Maybe diet, exercise and happy thoughts will save your child, as in some instances of diabetes it actually can (the diet part anyway), but you won't know that until someone who actually knows what he's talking about tells you so.

[No1451]

This is why I disagree with the verdict.

What about parents that use a herbalist, if someone of another religion used a traditional medicine man/shayman, or traditional chinese medicine? None of which are approved western medicines. Then got sent to jail, would peoples reactions be the same?

One might say that at least the above examples tried. Since none of those people are qualified and licensed medical professionals, then any treatment from alternative medicine is about as valid as a prayer group.

Do I disagree with what they did? Yes, wholeheartedly.
Do I support their right to do so? Yes, when you start picking away at a freedom you give others the ability to take away more.


Their freedom of belief takes a backseat to the girls freedom to live. If my parents tried to PRAY over me rather than take me to the hospital for something they would be lucky to get to make it to jail without a broken nose.

As for alternative medicine: if the practitioner is not licensed and recognized by scientific/medical knowledge then ONLY taking them in for that should definitely be negligence, plain and simple.

[Zombie Acorn]

They are lucky I wasn't the judge, I would have thrown the book at them ( literally and figuratively).

Tell me why religion is needed again? I keep forgetting.

[No1451]

They are lucky I wasn't the judge, I would have thrown the book at them ( literally and figuratively).

Tell me why religion is needed again? I keep forgetting.

It's not but again, we can't do away with something because a small minority don't know how to handle their faith, that is doing a disservice to all people of a faith.

[Macaddicttt]

Tell me why religion is needed again? I keep forgetting.

I'll remember this quotation next time an innocent person is killed by a gun. I'll have my perfect retort: "Tell me why guns are needed again? I keep forgetting."

[Zombie Acorn]

I'll remember this quotation next time an innocent person is killed by a gun. I'll have my perfect retort: "Tell me why guns are needed again? I keep forgetting."

I'll give away my guns if everyone else gives away their religion. :)

[Rt&Dzine]

So the parents are responsible if a child dies from lack of health care?

Let's say the parents can't afford to have the child diagnosed, let alone treated. Should they be jailed if the child dies?

What about parents who 'kill' their child with junk food or poor nutrition? Is ignorance an excuse? I think of the faith healing as a type of ignorance.

I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

[.Andy]

This is a sad story, but I can't help but think about the Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't allow blood transfusions in their church, and I'm sure that there have been instances where a needed blood transfusion could have saved the life of a child. Why do Jehovah's Witnesses get a pass on this and this couple doesn't? Seems a bit unfair to me.
Jehovah's witnesses don't get a free pass to kill their kids by refusing transfusions. Here in Aus (I'm not sure about elsewhere) if a kid needs a transfusion (or any type of care that the parents disagree with that would save the kids life with a good prognostic outcome) the doctors can take the parents to a tribunal. The kid gets made a ward of the state, kid gets life-saving treatment, and the kid gets returned to parents afterward if safe to do so. Q.E.D. Religious craziness plays no part in killing more people.

Glad these people were gaoled. Hopefully they'll also receive adequate counselling and rehabilitation. What they did is absolutely 100% indefensible.

[JLatte]

This sadly reminds me of a joke.


"A man's town is flooded, and everyone is climbing on to the rooftops to avoid drowning. The life rafts come round to rescue everyone, and they come to one man's house, and tell him to climb in. He replies, "No, the Lord will save me!".

A few hours later, the man is now oin the top of his chimney. A life boat arrives and tells him to climb in. The man says, "No, the Lord will save me!".

A few more hours later and the man is now up to his neck in water. A helicopter hovers over, drops a ladder and tells him to grab on to it and climb up. "No, no, the Lord will save me!", he replies.

The man drowns. In Heaven, he says to God, "Why didn't you save me?!"

God replies, "Well I sent a two lifeboats and a helicopter, what more do you expect?!"

Anyways, these parents were completely irresponsible to the life of their child. I consider it negligence or straight up murder.

[No1451]

So the parents are responsible if a child dies from lack of health care?

Let's say the parents can't afford to have the child diagnosed, let alone treated. Should they be jailed if the child dies?

What about parents who 'kill' their child with junk food or poor nutrition? Is ignorance an excuse? I think of the faith healing as a type of ignorance.

I don't know. That's why I'm asking.


It's a good question, skepticism is always good, it fosters more thought. It's tricky because a parent SHOULD be dutybound to do the best to ensure their child's wellbeing to the best of their financial/physical abilities.

I really don't know what the answer is, but your point about nutrition is a very good one, the problem with doing anything about it is that it can be a lot harder to prove that it was their actions that killed/harmed the child. In this case it is incredibly cut and dried, they prayed to God for healing rather than using the brain/abilities that they believe he gave them to actually DO something.

[Mousse]

As a person of faith, I think what they did was wrong. They should have taken Kara to the doctors. If they wanted to pray (which in my opinion is a great thing) they should have prayed for healing, wisdom of the doctors to figure out what was wrong with their daughter, that the treatment would work, etc.

I agree completely. I guess their God and our God are two different gods. Like the old say goes, "If God had meant for us to... " Well, he gave us Doctors. I'm pretty sure he'd want use to make use of medical treatments when possible.

God tells us to work hard and pray for the best, not to sit on our lazy behinds and just wish for thinks to happen.

Exactly. In the Bible, when Jesus cured the blind/sick/deaf, he wanted us to do our part.

[Zombie Acorn]

So the parents are responsible if a child dies from lack of health care?

Let's say the parents can't afford to have the child diagnosed, let alone treated. Should they be jailed if the child dies?

What about parents who 'kill' their child with junk food or poor nutrition? Is ignorance an excuse? I think of the faith healing as a type of ignorance.

I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

If they don't have the means for treatment it isn't their fault.

On the second note about obese children, I am still on the fence. I do consider it child abuse when I see parents loading up the grocery cart with crap food when their kid is obviously obese.

These people had the means and chose hocus pocus instead.

[abijnk]

Let's say the parents can't afford to have the child diagnosed, let alone treated. Should they be jailed if the child dies?


There are many many social programs for children, even more than there are for adults. For example, Wisconsin has an SCHIP program...

[FrankieTDouglas]

This sadly reminds me of a joke.



Anyways, these parents were completely irresponsible to the life of their child. I consider it negligence or straight up murder.

Yes! I was scrolling through the thread just making sure no one had posted that joke/story, just so I could add it to here. It's true and very applicable.

[PcBgone]

Let me be clear: I am entirely opposed to murdering children through the application of b******t. I do not care in the least what your particular b******t of choice happens to be. Don't murder your kids with it. Just don't.


Glad to see we have another Pro-Lifer on Board! More are needed to stop the BS!

[.Andy]

Glad to see we have another Pro-Lifer on Board! More are needed to stop the BS!
I think you'll find pretty much everyone here is pro-life.

[PcBgone]

I think you'll find pretty much everyone here is pro-life.

From what I have seen, most are pro-choice on this board...they wish to have the choice to kill their children.

[.Andy]

From what I have seen, most are pro-choice on this board...they wish to have the choice to kill their children.
When has anyone expressed their wish to have the choice to kill their children :confused:.

[Rt&Dzine]

From what I have seen, most are pro-choice on this board...they wish to have the choice to kill their children.

Some support wars and are for the death penalty among other things. That isn't pro-life.

[Zombie Acorn]

From what I have seen, most are pro-choice on this board...they wish to have the choice to kill their children.

If every potential for life is sacred and has to be brought to fruitation you should have more than one mate and never masturbate. You are wasting babies.

[XNine]

This SAME thing happened in a church my parents used to attend to. I'm not sure of the total outcome as it was years ago, but it was a big deal.

It was at "Disciple Fellowship" in Denver Colorado. The church was your usual run of the mill christian church, until people started dancing in the isles, convulsing, talking in tongues, burning albums from the Pink Floyd and any other secular band... My parents left the church.

Well, there was a young boy who was a diabetic, and Pastor Paul Shell told his parents "God is healing your son! Don't give him medication! God will take his sickness." Well, guess what happens. The poor kid died.

I have no sympathy for any of these faith healing psychos. Killers, murderers is what they are. It's one thing to believe in science and not religion. It's another thing to believe in religion and not stock faith in evolution. It's quite simply another thing when you believe in religion and completely ignore what science has taught us.

It's the same **** Scientology pulls. Laws should be put into place that provide the death penalty to these obtuse morons when they end up killing innocent people for simply ignoring FACT.

[Zombie Acorn]

This SAME thing happened in a church my parents used to attend to. I'm not sure of the total outcome as it was years ago, but it was a big deal.

It was at "Disciple Fellowship" in Denver Colorado. The church was your usual run of the mill christian church, until people started dancing in the isles, convulsing, talking in tongues, burning albums from the Pink Floyd and any other secular band... My parents left the church.

Well, there was a young boy who was a diabetic, and Pastor Paul Shell told his parents "God is healing your son! Don't give him medication! God will take his sickness." Well, guess what happens. The poor kid died.

I have no sympathy for any of these faith healing psychos. Killers, murderers is what they are. It's one thing to believe in science and not religion. It's another thing to believe in religion and not stock faith in evolution. It's quite simply another thing when you believe in religion and completely ignore what science has taught us.

It's the same **** Scientology pulls. Laws should be put into place that provide the death penalty to these obtuse morons when they end up killing innocent people for simply ignoring FACT.

There should at least be put heavy restrictions on their reproduction or ability to keep/have kids. This is abysmal to say the least, people live past 30 for a reason these days and it sure isn't God.

[The Californian]

If an adult decides to forego medical treatment in favor of some form of religious ceremony then so be it, there's nothing illegal about stupidity ( sadly ). But for a parent to willfully deny their child proper medical treatment in favor of prayer is absolutely despicable. And six months! I don't even think 25 years is enough ... but who am I?

[iBlue]

So the parents are responsible if a child dies from lack of health care?

Let's say the parents can't afford to have the child diagnosed, let alone treated. Should they be jailed if the child dies?

What about parents who 'kill' their child with junk food or poor nutrition? Is ignorance an excuse? I think of the faith healing as a type of ignorance.

I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

Well that is more of a matter of _couldn't_, unlike this case where they just plain _wouldn't_.

With 46 million or so uninsured men, women and children in america, surely some ARE being left unhealthy and undiagnosed.

As for parents who give their increasingly obese children junk food, yeah, maybe they do need evaluation as parents.


This sadly reminds me of a joke...
I thought of that joke when I first read this, but as a staunch atheist I thought it wouldn't make much sense coming from me. :p

[Queso]

As a person of faith, I think what they did was wrong. They should have taken Kara to the doctors. If they wanted to pray (which in my opinion is a great thing) they should have prayed for healing, wisdom of the doctors to figure out what was wrong with their daughter, that the treatment would work, etc.

It is sad, this girl is now dead.
Agreed. The place for their prayers was in the waiting room at the hospital, whilst their daughter was receiving treatment. Six months is too light IMO. People in this country get longer for mistreating horses.

If every potential for life is sacred and has to be brought to fruitation you should have more than one mate and never masturbate. You are wasting babies.
Worse than that. Every time an adult human male ejaculates they release on average 80 million sperm. That's at least 79,999,999 murdered possible babies every time that man has sex, even if he and his lawfully married in the eyes of the lord wife only ever do it to procreate as according to scripture ;)

[yg17]

I thought of that joke when I first read this, but as a staunch atheist I thought it wouldn't make much sense coming from me. :p

No, I think it makes more sense coming from an Atheist because it parodies prayer ;)

[Don't panic]

They should have gotten the max.
And then some.

and their other kids should be removed from their custody as they are clearly unfit to be parents.

[Rt&Dzine]

It's the same **** Scientology pulls. Laws should be put into place that provide the death penalty to these obtuse morons when they end up killing innocent people for simply ignoring FACT.

Some people think that John Travolta and his wife should be tried for killing their son. (Autism isn't accepted in Scientology.)

[No1451]

Some support wars and are for the death penalty among other things. That isn't pro-life.

We should discuss this in another thread, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this point.

[XNine]

Some people think that John Travolta and his wife should be tried for killing their son. (Autism isn't accepted in Scientology.)

I completely agree. John Travolta caused his sons death by not providing essential medications. It wasn't the autism that killed him, it was caused by seizures that they claim couldn't be controlled by medication any longer, which is complete BS. There are SO many medications to help control seizures that they could have provided him others.

[ntrigue]

"Ignorance is...DEATH?"

[nbs2]

This is a sad story, but I can't help but think about the Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't allow blood transfusions in their church, and I'm sure that there have been instances where a needed blood transfusion could have saved the life of a child. Why do Jehovah's Witnesses get a pass on this and this couple doesn't? Seems a bit unfair to me.

The JW's get a pass because they use an acceptable alternative - blood expanders. The issue for them is the tansfusion of another person's blood. While they could put their own blood in some sort of blood safety deposit box, most utilize expanders that increase volume and ensure better flow of whatever remains within their system. For heavy bleed-outs - I guess that I don't know.

A better questionis the rejection of immunizations. Some reject them because of religion, some because they think they are toxic, and I'm sure there are others that reject them whatever other reason. Should they be punished if their kid dies of a immunizable disease (lets say measles)?

[P-Worm]

The JW's get a pass because they use an acceptable alternative - blood expanders. The issue for them is the tansfusion of another person's blood. While they could put their own blood in some sort of blood safety deposit box, most utilize expanders that increase volume and ensure better flow of whatever remains within their system. For heavy bleed-outs - I guess that I don't know.

Thanks for the clarification. I had heard this before, but completely forgot about it.

A better questionis the rejection of immunizations. Some reject them because of religion, some because they think they are toxic, and I'm sure there are others that reject them whatever other reason. Should they be punished if their kid dies of a immunizable disease (lets say measles)?

I can definitely see what you are saying. I have been thinking about this case since it first came up here and I'm still not sure what I think about it. On the one hand, I think that parents should have the right to raise their children in the most safe way that they think is possible. To the people that went the faith healing route, they believed that it would be the best method for curing their child. To me, that is not neglect at all - they deeply and honestly wanted the child to get better. Neglect would be not caring at all and letting the child fend for himself. These people took action, though it was misguided action.

On the other hand, not persecuting these parents is almost like saying 'Your kid is your property and you can do what you like with him.' If a child was born into some religion where they honestly believed that bodily mutilation was a path to righteousness, I would say that the parents have no right to inflict that on their kids, but that kids should be old enough to make that decision for themselves.

To me, this case has a very fine line between protecting children and protecting religious freedom. I just don't know which way I swing.

P-Worm

[nbs2]

I can definitely see what you are saying. I have been thinking about this case since it first came up here and I'm still not sure what I think about it. On the one hand, I think that parents should have the right to raise their children in the most safe way that they think is possible. To the people that went the faith healing route, they believed that it would be the best method for curing their child. To me, that is not neglect at all - they deeply and honestly wanted the child to get better. Neglect would be not caring at all and letting the child fend for himself. These people took action, though it was misguided action.

I only glanced at a few articles and may have missed the issue, but had the girl been diagnosed as diabetic? That is, were the parents trying to heal her from a then unknown malady or were they trying to cure/manage diabetes?

On the other hand, not persecuting these parents is almost like saying 'Your kid is your property and you can do what you like with him.' If a child was born into some religion where they honestly believed that bodily mutilation was a path to righteousness, I would say that the parents have no right to inflict that on their kids, but that kids should be old enough to make that decision for themselves.

To me, this case has a very fine line between protecting children and protecting religious freedom. I just don't know which way I swing.

You're right, there is more nuance to this than most of are willing to consider. I wonder, though, how to apply this in the future.

What if the doctor had tried a treatment that didn't display improvement (perhaps there was underlying improvement in condition, but nothing or nearly nothing was visible)? Would it have been appropriate for the parents to take her home and do what they thought best? If so, how much improvement would she need to have shown before they should have remained with the doctor?

Also, while religious freedom holds a special place in the Constitution, how does this affect parental rights in novel approaches? At what point does novel become standard and accepted? Even with established approaches, how do we handle new concerns? The anti-immunization crowd has done a wonderful job of scaring people out of getting shots that have been shown to be safe for decades by linking them to autism, and we have seen some caving on that front to parental choice...

[Gelfin]

You're right, there is more nuance to this than most of are willing to consider.
…
Also, while religious freedom holds a special place in the Constitution, how does this affect parental rights in novel approaches? At what point does novel become standard and accepted? Even with established approaches, how do we handle new concerns?

Much of the nuance is fairly easily resolved in my mind by understanding religion as a red herring. In no case do we permit religious belief to supersede criminal law. In evaluating the actions of zealous parents we need only ask ourselves whether their actions would be criminal absent a religious justification.

If I as an atheist refused to seek medical attention for an obviously ailing child, I would likely be jailed for neglect. If we do not hold religious parents to the same standard, then we unconstitutionally privilege certain religious viewpoints by placing them above the common law of the land.

On that basis, and without any animus toward religious belief in general, I think we should take a harder line against these people. If you want to gamble that you're so special that the Creator of the Universe will personally step in and pull your child off his deathbed, and you believe that so hard that you cannot be dissuaded, then go for it. I don't like it, but I could possibly be persuaded to agree that we have to let you. But on the off chance you're wrong, in the unlikely event that your belief in your own superior righteousness turns out to be some sort of hubris, and your child dies as a result you go to jail, just like anyone else who neglects his child would.

At least some religious parents who understand that their beliefs are not an affirmative defense might be a bit more hesitant to take that gamble.

[P-Worm]

If I as an atheist refused to seek medical attention for an obviously ailing child, I would likely be jailed for neglect. If we do not hold religious parents to the same standard, then we unconstitutionally privilege certain religious viewpoints by placing them above the common law of the land.

I don't think this is analogous to the situation. This family didn't just ignore the child's disease, they thought about what would be the best way to cure him and chose prayer. They didn't just forget about the child, they had an honest desire to help.

Your hypothetical situation would be more like this case if you had decided that using alternative medicines was best for your child.

On that basis, and without any animus toward religious belief in general, I think we should take a harder line against these people. If you want to gamble that you're so special that the Creator of the Universe will personally step in and pull your child off his deathbed, and you believe that so hard that you cannot be dissuaded, then go for it. I don't like it, but I could possibly be persuaded to agree that we have to let you. But on the off chance you're wrong, in the unlikely event that your belief in your own superior righteousness turns out to be some sort of hubris, and your child dies as a result you go to jail, just like anyone else who neglects his child would.

I disagree with this to a degree. If the child miraculously got better, there would have been no case at all. But just because of the outcome they are in jail now? Shouldn't the crime extend to whether the child died or not if it is to be law? Maybe the problem is we don't have attempted child neglect.

P-Worm

[P-Worm]

Sorry, double post.

[Gelfin]

I don't think this is analogous to the situation. This family didn't just ignore the child's disease, they thought about what would be the best way to cure him and chose prayer. They didn't just forget about the child, they had an honest desire to help.

Your hypothetical situation would be more like this case if you had decided that using alternative medicines was best for your child.

Which should also be prosecuted as neglect. There is a recognized standard of care. That isn't it.

I could never sit in front of a jury and say that I wished my child better as hard as I could, but refused to do anything else, and watched him die. Religious belief is not a valid defense.

We see a few cases every year in which this behavior is fatal. We know it kills children. The only way we can discourage that from happening is to call it what it is and prosecute it as such.

I disagree with this to a degree. If the child miraculously got better, there would have been no case at all. But just because of the outcome they are in jail now? Shouldn't the crime extend to whether the child died or not if it is to be law? Maybe the problem is we don't have attempted child neglect.

Lots of crimes end up being contingent on the outcome. Do you have any idea the number of people who get lucky driving drunk? When your criminally bad decisions have disastrous consequences, you are caught and punished.

Incidentally, many states do have separate laws for "child neglect" and "child neglect resulting in death," which might fill your need for an "attempted" child neglect case. It isn't clear what an attempt would be in that for child neglect the attempt is identical with the crime.

[Ugg]

They didn't just forget about the child, they had an honest desire to help.

Did they really?

I have serious doubts about that.

In cases like this, all too often it seems to be more about parental omnipotence than it does about the child. In other words, the parents want the attention drawn towards themselves and their powers to attract the attention of their god.

[Gelfin]

Did they really?

I have serious doubts about that.

In cases like this, all too often it seems to be more about parental omnipotence than it does about the child. In other words, the parents want the attention drawn towards themselves and their powers to attract the attention of their god.

Indeed. In all these cases, I cannot help but imagine that if their God does exist, He is waiting to have a few choice words with them about the sin of pride.

[P-Worm]

Did they really?

I have serious doubts about that.

In cases like this, all too often it seems to be more about parental omnipotence than it does about the child. In other words, the parents want the attention drawn towards themselves and their powers to attract the attention of their god.

What leads you to think this about this particular case? Because you know some religious people you think are prideful, so this must be the same?

P-Worm

[.Andy]

The JW's get a pass because they use an acceptable alternative - blood expanders. The issue for them is the tansfusion of another person's blood. While they could put their own blood in some sort of blood safety deposit box, most utilize expanders that increase volume and ensure better flow of whatever remains within their system
This isn't entirely true. Blood transfusions are given when the concentration of haemoglobin in the blood (carried in red blood cells) falls. When the haemoglobin falls the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood falls which can quiclkly lead to extreme shortness of breath, respiratory distress, and death. Thus transfusions are given to augment the haemoglobin carring capacity of the blood.

The "volume expanders" you speak of are just fluids like saline or colloid. Their job is to restore the fluid volume if someone is dehydrated or has lost a lot of blood. In this circumstance it is given to ensure that their *blood pressure* remains stable. If the BP is too low the blood won't circulate oxygen adequately to the tissues which again is life-threatening.

Irrespective of the individual's beliefs giving a transfusion isn't something that is taken lightly. It has its own associated morbidity. Fluids will always be given if appropriate ahead of a blood transfusion. But if their haemoglobin is so low that they are symptomatic you can't just substitute with "volume expanders". This will dilute their remaining haemoglobin making their condition worse. Unfortunately at this stage their are no blood substitutes that carry oxygen that can be used instead of blood transfusions.

[Ugg]

What leads you to think this about this particular case? Because you know some religious people you think are prideful, so this must be the same?

P-Worm

Back in HS (in the late 70s) a guy who worked at the same place I did was a former Hells Angel, born again xian. He was in his late 50s, his wife was mid 40s. They had three children, one of whom had leukemia. They and their church believed in pumping out as many kids as possible. They tried to adopt but were turned down because:

1. They were too old.
2. They had a child with Leukemia.
3. They wanted a white infant. Not a toddler, not a black one, not a brown one, not a yellow one.

So, they went ahead and decided to make one despite the very obvious risks. They succeeded and the child was born with a defective heart and a host of other physical problems. It lived less than a year and never left the hospital. It cost over a million dollars to bring that child into the world, treat it and watch it die. Remember, that was in 1978-79.

Not long after its death, I remember him saying, "Oh, God taught us so much through our baby's suffering." and that is an exact quote.

Even at that age I was repulsed by the greed of these two people.

A few years later, a friend's father was dying of cancer. He was crying for painkillers but his wife and the other daughter kept refusing to allow him any. I can't remember all the details but I think the painkillers were highly addictive. Anyway, the wife and daughter's reasons were that "God will save you". My friend couldn't bear to see her father suffer so she didn't even attend his funeral and was estranged from her mother and sister for years.

Those two events have had a profound impact on my thoughts about life and death. The biggest impact was that religion encourages suffering because in the end you get the pearly gates as long as you believe. And, that holy writings have been twisted and contorted to the point where they mean whatever an individual wants them to.

Admittedly, even atheists come up with some pretty bizarre justifications for their actions, but it seems to me that people who use god as an excuse, are seen as socially acceptable.

How would Manson have been viewed if he was a religious killer instead of just a crazed whacko?

What about the woman in Texas who drowned her kids and said that god told her to do it?



P-Worm, I respect your progressive approach to religion and your reasonableness, but religion is used as justification for too many sins and crimes. God should never, ever be allowed as an excuse for inaction.

[imac/cheese]

...On the second note about obese children, I am still on the fence. I do consider it child abuse when I see parents loading up the grocery cart with crap food when their kid is obviously obese.


It looks like the state of Florida might also consider it abuse:

http://www.clickorlando.com/health/21289128/detail.html

[Zombie Acorn]

It looks like the state of Florida might also consider it abuse:

http://www.clickorlando.com/health/21289128/detail.html

His mom sounds like an idiot. "How am I supposed to stop him? Hes 13." Stop buying the ****ing food for one, and if he gets lippy whoop his ass once or twice. Jesus...

[imac/cheese]

His mom sounds like an idiot. "How am I supposed to stop him? Hes 13." Stop buying the ****ing food for one, and if he gets lippy whoop his ass once or twice. Jesus...

Well he didn't come with a manuscript...

[nbs2]

His mom sounds like an idiot. "How am I supposed to stop him? Hes 13." Stop buying the ****ing food for one, and if he gets lippy whoop his ass once or twice. Jesus...

Fatty McGee may need to be split off into his own thread, but I'd like to address your points, all of which I have to disagree with:

1) She doesn't sound stupid - just frustrated. There is a touch of uneducated in there as well ("gained diabetes"), but more than anything else, she sounds like a mother who has been trying to get her kid to do the right thing and can't get him to see beyond the next five minutes.

2) She stops buying food for him, and wait and see how long it takes for child services to take the kid away.

3) Whoopin' him is only going to lead to the same result as #2 - child services walks away with this kid.

Now, I'd argue that based on the tone of the article, she may not be thikning this through all the way. It sounds like if the state takes him, it will be to ensure that he obtains and complies with needed medical care only. After he has completed whatever he needs to complete, he would be returned to her. That is, it isn't that she is unfit, just unable to force him to do what he needs to do. So, by letting this happen she could get him the care he needs without losing him permanently. Yes, she would endure whispers that she is a bad mother, but I doubt those would be anything new if people had seen Fatty before.

Finally, I wish I didn't have to disagree wth you. I think the kid needs some serious tough love. I think that means making him "starve." Purchase healthy lower-calorie foods, and he can either eat those or nothing. Don't give him the option of eating otherwise. If he won't take his medicine, find out if you can get an injection and stick him - who cares how much he complains. If he wants to act like an infant, treat him like an infant - make the right decisions for him and act accordingly.

[Zombie Acorn]

Fatty McGee may need to be split off into his own thread, but I'd like to address your points, all of which I have to disagree with:

1) She doesn't sound stupid - just frustrated. There is a touch of uneducated in there as well ("gained diabetes"), but more than anything else, she sounds like a mother who has been trying to get her kid to do the right thing and can't get him to see beyond the next five minutes.

2) She stops buying food for him, and wait and see how long it takes for child services to take the kid away.

3) Whoopin' him is only going to lead to the same result as #2 - child services walks away with this kid.

Now, I'd argue that based on the tone of the article, she may not be thikning this through all the way. It sounds like if the state takes him, it will be to ensure that he obtains and complies with needed medical care only. After he has completed whatever he needs to complete, he would be returned to her. That is, it isn't that she is unfit, just unable to force him to do what he needs to do. So, by letting this happen she could get him the care he needs without losing him permanently. Yes, she would endure whispers that she is a bad mother, but I doubt those would be anything new if people had seen Fatty before.

Finally, I wish I didn't have to disagree wth you. I think the kid needs some serious tough love. I think that means making him "starve." Purchase healthy lower-calorie foods, and he can either eat those or nothing. Don't give him the option of eating otherwise. If he won't take his medicine, find out if you can get an injection and stick him - who cares how much he complains. If he wants to act like an infant, treat him like an infant - make the right decisions for him and act accordingly.

I didn't mean not feed him at all, just stop buying the crap that got him to that size, you don't get to 400 lbs eating well balanced meals. As for the whooping I am not sure these days, but I know when I was 13 12 years ago I was still afraid to get a whooping from my dad.

[abijnk]

2) She stops buying food for him, and wait and see how long it takes for child services to take the kid away.

3) Whoopin' him is only going to lead to the same result as #2 - child services walks away with this kid.


As ZA said, you don't stop feeding him altogether to get him to lose weight. Secondly, there is a huge difference between beating a child and spanking (or 'whoopin').

[nbs2]

I didn't mean not feed him at all, just stop buying the crap that got him to that size, you don't get to 400 lbs eating well balanced meals. As for the whooping I am not sure these days, but I know when I was 13 12 years ago I was still afraid to get a whooping from my dad.

I remember being worried about the same thing. I never thought I would consider the 80s and 90s the Good Old Days.

You bring up a question that I am curious about - what is she feeding that boy? Even too much of a good thing will make you a Tub o' Goo. I can imagine a scenario where everything is out of control for her - she's a single mother working two or three jobs and the boy is alone a home a lot. While she buys healthy food, he not only eats that but sneaks out to buy snacks of all sorts. She tries to get him to be do the right thing, but can't be home to make him do it. There is lots of crying and and eventually there is a meaningful resolution at the end that earns Whitney Houston an Acadamy Award. I'd like to see where the truth lies.