11 year old girl dies due to lack of faith...

[Locknar]

From Foxnews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html)this morning:
The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said.

They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said.

The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.

And what did the 11 year old girl suffer from you ask? A treatable form of diabetes. She needless suffered for about a month from nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness before she died.

How sad....

[TobiasTheCommie]

that just makes me mad....

[Gst]

Kinda strange, I had a friend of my relatives come up to me and offer her services to pray for me when I was diagnosed with diabetes at 10. She told me to stop taking insulin and give in to the power of god. Good thing I wasn't the one headlining this story.

[fuelair]

The girl's death is sad. That the parents are walking around free makes me wish to visit them for about three seconds. Then the other three children would be free of that "no abuse" thing the police person stupidly said.

[Gst]

Yeah, seems there's no abuse, yet no protection either.

[JoeEllison]

But religion is completely harmless, and we should respect it... and if a few kids have to die, at least we can say we aren't judgmental?

I'm pretty pissed off.

[Locknar]

Then the other three children would be free of that "no abuse" thing the police person stupidly said.I don't get the police "no abuse" statement; I'd say refusing to seek medical care while allowing someone to suffer (for a month) and then die sure seems like abuse to me.

Take the religion aspect out of it...you have parents that refuse to seek medical care for their sick child (who later dies due to the parents inaction), not because of any "woo woo" beliefs but rather they just didn't feel like doing it...would that be abuse?

An adult makes a conscious choice about their own health, so be it. But a child? Children are not property, and are entitled to protection from abuse.

The whole “God” thing, “power or prayer” does not justify the parents actions…nor the local authorities in-action.

[wahrheit]

I don't get the police "no abuse" statement; I'd say refusing to seek medical care while allowing someone to suffer (for a month) and then die sure seems like abuse to me.

Exactly.

The girl's death remains under investigation and the findings will be forwarded to the district attorney to review for possible charges, the chief said.

Let's hope the DA will press charges.

[Showmeproof]

The parents should be brutally tortured and die a slow painful death for letting their 11 year old daughter pass away!

[fuelair]

The parents should be brutally tortured and die a slow painful death for letting their 11 year old daughter pass away!

I could live with that!

[Mister Earl]

The mother should've just said, "My faith in a nonexistant magical being is more important to me than the life of my own daughter."

[ExMinister]

Worse is the fact that it taught them nothing - they still think they didn't "pray hard enough" and, unbelievably, that she might be "resurrected," implying they'd do the same thing again.

[Kilgore Trout]

The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.

At first, I thought that would be rather blasphemous, but then I read:

The family does not attend an organized church or participate in an organized religion, Vergin said. "They have a little Bible study of a few people."

And, I guess, they're just making it up as they go along.

I also fail to see how watching their sister die of neglect isn't a sign of abuse towards the remaining children.

[IXP]

This may explain why they won't be prosecuted:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,100175,00.html

"So why does the legal protection derived from so-called individual "freedom of religion" cover these injuries the devout inflict on others — including family members incapable of making informed consent? In all but four states (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nebraska and North Carolina) parents can use their religious ideology as a shield against prosecution for withholding medical treatment from their children. "

Interestingly, from the same article, the Supreme Court has ruled twice that parents cannot withold necessary treatment from children. Someone needs to challenge these state laws.

IXP

[Chimera]

In all but four states (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nebraska and North Carolina) parents can use their religious ideology as a shield against prosecution for withholding medical treatment from their children.
IXP

Sickening.

[MichelQC]

The mother should've just said, "My faith in a nonexistant magical being is more important to me than the life of my own daughter."

Very well put !!

Yeah, seems there's no abuse, yet no protection either.

Now I'm no lawyer, but isn't there such a thing as "reckless indiference" in the law?

[Nursefoxfire]

Absolutely sickening.

What really gets me, and not just about this particular story is the attitude that there's some cosmic tipping point at which the prayers will become answered.

The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said.

They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said.

Was their god so petty and accountant-minded (my apologies to accountants out there) that he kept a tally of just how many people were praying for this girl, and like a timer running out on a game-show, when he didn't hear enough prayers, he yanked her life away?

My brother-in-law was recently diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer. It's really shattered the whole family, as he is much loved by all of us. Most of my family members are deeply religious, and are praying like mad for him. While I can understand my sister is going through hell right now, it floors me how she can say to me, "I wish you believed in God; Danny needs our prayers right now." Like God is going to be mean to Danny to get back at me for not praying for him?

[kerikiwi]

And, I guess, they're just making it up as they go along.


And that is different from other religious groups how?

[Pope130]

Several years ago "Law and Order" addressed this very issue. A wealthy couple had prayed for their child, rather than allowing medical care. The child died. The detectives were interviewing their devoutly religious maid, and asked rhetorically "Well, don't you believe in the power of prayer?"

She answered; "When my children are sick I pray to God, and take them to the Doctor."

I'm OK with a dual track solution.

[erlando]

So... According to the police chief's logic it would not be abuse to starve a child to death and afterwards say "We prayed for God to feed her. Apparently we didn't have enough faith.." and that would make it ok? If not, why not?

This kind of thing makes me so angry. How someone can let their child die without seeking medical help is just beyond comprehension.

[KateHW]

Whenever I have an issue I try to talk to my mother about she tells me to pray about it. What I hear is, "tell it to someone else because I don't want to deal with it." I think praying for a solution is a pretty poor way to go through life if you expect to get anything done.

And it's a criminal way to go through life if you expect to keep your children alive.

[ponderingturtle]

Reading the article it seems that they are not abusing the other older children(seems likely, unless they get sick) it does not seem to be saying that they did not abuse their deceased child.

Also in other states you have a right to withhold medical care from a child, but if the child dies are still liable for the death. California for example

[Fiona]

I do not understand this. In Scottish law it is clear that parental rights must be exercised in the best interests of the child, since that is an overarching principle of the law. The parents have a responsibility to:

"safeguard and promote the child's health, development and welfare" (S1 (1) (a) Children (Scotland) Act 1995

Had the parents been acting in this way, and it was known, it would have been possible to ensure medical treatment through the mechanism of a child protection order. If it was not known till after the child died then the other children could be protected. They could be shown to be in need of compulsory measures of supervision under S52 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 which states:

(1) The question of whether compulsory measures of supervision are necessary in respect of a child arises if at least one of the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below is satisfied with respect to him.

(2) the conditions referred to in subsection (1) above are that the child ---

<snip>

(c) is likely -

(i) to suffer unnecessarily; or
(ii) be impaired seriously in his health or development,
due to a lack of parental care

I find it really difficult to believe that similar provisions do not apply in the US

[erlando]

Reading the article it seems that they are not abusing the other older children(seems likely, unless they get sick) it does not seem to be saying that they did not abuse their deceased child.

Rereading the article I agree and withdraw my earlier comment.

It still makes me angry though :mad:

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

During Katrina, an old man sat on his porch and waited.

A moving van drove by, stopped, and the driver said, "hey! I've just unloaded. C'mon - we'll get you and all your stuff to safety."

The old fellow said, "I am a good Christian and righteous in my ways. God will see that no harm comes to me."

The driver said, "Ok, then," and drove off.

A while later, as water was lapping at the old man's front stoop, a motorcyclist drove up and said, "c'mon and hop on! I can get you to the evacuation center."

The old fellow said, "I am a good Christian and righteous in my ways. God will see that no harm comes to me."

The 'cyclist said, "your choice," and drove off.

A while later, as the fellow was climbing onto the roof of his front porch, a boat came by and the boatman said, "hey, old feller! Looks like you're in a bit of a jam!! Hop aboard and I'll get you to dry land."

The old fellow said, "I am a good Christian and righteous in my ways. God will see that no harm comes to me."

The boatman said, "it's gonna get worse," and drove off.

A while later, as the old fellow sat atop his house in rapidly rising water, a helicopter flew overhead and the man at the door yelled down, "I'll lower a line to you! You have to get out of here!!"

The old man yelled back, "I am a good Christian and righteous in my ways. God will see that no harm comes to me."

The line being ignored, the helicopter flew away.

The waters rose. The old man was swept away and drown.

A moment later, he was in Heaven, and BOY was he PISSED!!

He stormed up to The Judgment Seat and yelled, "I was a good Christian man and righteous in my ways! WHY did You let harm come to me."

The Voice in Thunder responded, "Good ME! What are YOU doing here? I heard of your plight and I specifically sent a moving van, a motorcycle, a boat and a helicopter to get you to safety!!"

....

Heaven helps them what helps themselves. Prayer is a wonderful and powerful thing, but you have to TAKE THE HELP HEAVEN SENDS! It may be a moving van, a motorcycle, a boat, or a helicopter.

In this case, it was insulin. TAKE THE RULE-10-ING INSULIN!!

[Whack01]

The parents should be brutally tortured and die a slow painful death for letting their 11 year old daughter pass away!

The proper purpose of executing somebody is not revenge, it's removing their burden & taint from society. The most effective and only revenge that society should take against these individuals is to put them away and forget about their existence. eta: It sounds like they may need to be committed rather than locked up but I really don't want to worry about them more than they deserve.

I really don't care about the parents in this case, the legal system will handle them and anger is a waste of energy. However, I want to find the person who lied to them and told them to do this. It pisses me off that legally the parents may be responsible for murder but the person who taught them this crap is off scot free and likely made a mint off these people.


eta: this post is not intended to advocate violence if somebody reads this and thinks it is please reread.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
The proper purpose of executing somebody is not revenge, it's removing their burden & taint from society. The most effective and only revenge that society should take against these individuals is to put them away and forget about their existence. eta: It sounds like they may need to be committed rather than locked up but I really don't want to worry about them more than they deserve.

I really don't care about the parents in this case, the legal system will handle them and anger is a waste of energy. However, I want to find the person who lied to them and told them to do this. It pisses me off that legally the parents may be responsible for murder but the person who taught them this crap is off scot free and likely made a mint off these people.

eta: this post is not intended to advocate violence if somebody reads this and thinks it is please reread.


Would you mind if I, as a Christian-leaning Godist, say a heartfelt, "amen?"

[Michelle Lyon]

Doesn't the old saying go something like, "God helps those who help themselves?"

If there is a god, then I'd imagine he/she/it gave us medicine for a reason. And brains.

[Whack01]

Doesn't the old saying go something like, "God helps those who help themselves?"

If there is a god, then I'd imagine he/she/it gave us medicine for a reason. And brains.

The sermon goes thusly:

"The Great Flood

There was a huge flood in a village.

One man said to everyone as they evacuated, "I'll stay! God will save me!"

The flood got higher and a boat came, and the man in it said "Come on mate, get in!"

"No" replied the man. "God will save me!"

The flood got very high now and the man had to stand on the roof of his house.

A helicopter soon came and the man offered him help. "No, God will save me!" he said.

Eventually the man drown.

He got by the gates of heaven and he said to God, "Why didn't you save me?"

God replied, "For goodness sake! I sent a boat and a helicopter. What more do you want!""

/end copypasta

eta:To Gagglegash: not at all, I am a Christian not an athiest, though I was briefly atheistic for about half a decade when I was younger. I come here for the variety of contradictory viewpoints though I don't argue my faith here.

[ponderingturtle]

The proper purpose of executing somebody is not revenge, it's removing their burden & taint from society. The most effective and only revenge that society should take against these individuals is to put them away and forget about their existence. eta: It sounds like they may need to be committed rather than locked up but I really don't want to worry about them more than they deserve.

I really don't care about the parents in this case, the legal system will handle them and anger is a waste of energy. However, I want to find the person who lied to them and told them to do this. It pisses me off that legally the parents may be responsible for murder but the person who taught them this crap is off scot free and likely made a mint off these people.


eta: this post is not intended to advocate violence if somebody reads this and thinks it is please reread.

It sounds like they might have essentialy be self radicalized in this sense. They where not part of any significant religious organization.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Doesn't the old saying go something like, "God helps those who help themselves?"

If there is a god, then I'd imagine he/she/it gave us medicine for a reason. And brains.

Now where... no, don't tell me... where have I heard that before (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3564112&postcount=25)....

[Whack01]

Hi


Now where... no, don't tell me... where have I heard that before (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3564112&postcount=25)....

:P that's what I get for not reading the whole thread

eta: it's copy pasted from somewhere else though 2nd link down if you google for: sermon flood man boat, like I did ;)

[Zep]

Oh well! That's the way the cookie crumbles with God. They still have some other children left over, and doubtless could make more if they wanted to fill the gap.





Seriously, we need a sarcasm smilie...

[Gagglegnash]

Oh well! That's the way the cookie crumbles with God. They still have some other children left over, and doubtless could make more if they wanted to fill the gap.

Seriously, we need a sarcasm smilie...


:-/

[Soapy Sam]

"Evolution in action"?

One could wish they had been better informed, or advised.

[Whack01]

:rolleyes:

[LostAngeles]

The mother should've just said, "My faith in a nonexistant magical being is more important to me than the life of my own daughter."

Seriously. Even God said to Abraham, "OK, wow. Yeah, stop. You love me. You don't need to kill your kid for me. It's cool."

Doesn't the old saying go something like, "God helps those who help themselves?"

...

I'd always wondered what happened to that one. Although that my have been my first step towards my atheisticness.

[vexed]

Sadly this happened in my home town.

[wafonso]

It's hard even to find words to react properly to this kind of story.

But I can't believe there's even a chance of the parents not being charged. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Australia failure to provide veterinary care to a sick pet is an offence; it makes no sense to me that kids would be less protected than pets due to religion.

[LostAngeles]

Because no one has said, I must.

"I find their, 'lack of faith,' disturbing."

[Zep]

"I find their, 'lack of faith,' disturbing."And someone else, with heavy judicial powers, needs to say, "I find their reliance on it criminal."

[Smackety]

Are the parents responsible or the church? These poor people are also victims.

[Zep]

Are the parents responsible or the church? These poor people are also victims.I doubt that excuse would wash in front of a judge and jury: "The church told me to!" ;)

To sustain that argument, you would be saying that the church was directly responsible for all the decisions the parents made. Legally and logically the church is not. Which only goes to emphasise how gullible, nay stupid, these people are when it comes to religion.

To be honest, I suspect any sensible church would recoil from the position of withholding medical attention in favour of prayer alone. I would underline that word "sensible" too, just to make a point clear.

[Smackety]

I doubt that excuse would wash in front of a judge and jury: "The church told me to!" ;)

To sustain that argument, you would be saying that the church was directly responsible for all the decisions the parents made. Legally and logically the church is not. Which only goes to emphasise how gullible, nay stupid, these people are when it comes to religion.

To be honest, I suspect any sensible church would recoil from the position of withholding medical attention in favour of prayer alone. I would underline that word "sensible" too, just to make a point clear.

It might not be comparable, but Manson is in jail for getting people to believe in lies.
These people were not going to some huge catholic church where they would just be $ signs sitting 30 pews back. They had a very small "bible study" group, and whoever is leading that group deserves the blame.

[Zep]

It might not be comparable, but Manson is in jail for getting people to believe in lies.
These people were not going to some huge catholic church where they would just be $ signs sitting 30 pews back. They had a very small "bible study" group, and whoever is leading that group deserves the blame.Not quite the same. Manson was convicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Alas, the worst this case would probably be is "reckless endangerment" or equivalent (see above), committed by the parents, not by the church.

However I also suspect this "prayer group" or whatever it was that encouraged this practice might just be in the process of being voluntarily disbanded... I expect none of the participants would like to be associated with this situation for fear of rocks through windows at night, etc, etc. Hopefully also they might just reassess their views on prayer and medicine too. Hope springs eternal!

[Smackety]

Not quite the same. Manson was convicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Alas, the worst this case would probably be is "reckless endangerment" or equivalent (see above), committed by the parents, not by the church.

However I also suspect this "prayer group" or whatever it was that encouraged this practice might just be in the process of being voluntarily disbanded... I expect none of the participants would like to be associated with this situation for fear of rocks through windows at night, etc, etc. Hopefully also they might just reassess their views on prayer and medicine too. Hope springs eternal!

I hope you are right. I am more pessimistic however. How can the parents admit they killed their child and still live with themselves? Cognitive dissonance suggests that this will strengthen their faith.

[wahrheit]

Jesus Is My Health Insurance (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/jesus_is_my_health_insurance?) (theonion.com)

[ponderingturtle]

Are the parents responsible or the church? These poor people are also victims.

What church? They do not attend a church.

[Smackety]

What church? They do not attend a church.

feel free to substitute "bible study group" for "church" if you are so inclined.

[Tristan Chi]

I pray very hard for God to spare the parents from prosecution, prolonged pain and general suffering.

[Locknar]

Are the parents responsible or the church? These poor people are also victims.Hardly; being stupid does not make people a victim. See this link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html)for an update to the story.

The two best quotes from the story...
"The family believes in the Bible, and it says healing comes from God, but they are not crazy, religious people, she [the mother, Leilani Neumann] said."
I'm certainly glad to hear they do not consider themselves "crazy, religious people"....I was really worried there for a moment.


"Leilani Neumann [the mother] said the family is not worried about a police investigation into her daughter's death because "our lives are in God's hands."

Yep...deny all responsibility and blame it on "God" since their lives are in his/her hands. How pathetic, of course if I had killed my child though inaction I suppose I'd have a hard time accepting responsiblity too.

[rwguinn]

Are the parents responsible or the church? These poor people are also victims.
I disagree. Vehemently.
They are perps. Truth was available to them. Help was available to them. Facts were available to them. They chose to ignore everything

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

All food comes from God, too, but I'll bet they step out of the damn house to go GET it instead of sitting around waiting for it to fall from the sky.

If they're willing to accept God's bounty at the local MacDonald's, why would they reject His healing at the local hospital?

[Graham2001]

So... According to the police chief's logic it would not be abuse to starve a child to death and afterwards say "We prayed for God to feed her. Apparently we didn't have enough faith.." and that would make it ok? If not, why not?

This kind of thing makes me so angry. How someone can let their child die without seeking medical help is just beyond comprehension.

I agree, I once read of a case from the 60's that was somewhat similar to this. Supposedly it occurred in Germany. The family in question had a severely disabled child who could not eat without assistance.

For whatever reason the parents decided to put the food out but not help him to eat...then threw the uneaten food into the bin.

Eventually he starved to death. When the law finally caught up with them it was for ripping off social security by claiming various benefits for 'raising' the deceased.

How anyone could be that cruel is beyond me.

[Blue Mountain]

See this link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html)for an update to the story.

And here's an indictment of the reporting on this story:

Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin has said an autopsy determined Madeline died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body. (bolding mine)

No, diabetic ketoacidosis does not result in too little insulin in the body. It's a complication arising from uncontrolled type 1 diabetes, which is too little insulin in the body. The reporter got cause and effect reversed.

[Nursefoxfire]

The girl's father, Dale Neumann, a former police officer, said he has friends who are doctors. He started CPR "as soon as the breath of life left" his daughter's body, he said.

Does anyone else find that oddly disturbing? Not that police officers can't be fallible, but they do see the results of neglect and abuse as part of their job, and I'd think they'd be more I-don't-know... ENLIGHTENED?

[Locknar]

Does anyone else find that oddly disturbing? Not that police officers can't be fallible, but they do see the results of neglect and abuse as part of their job, and I'd think they'd be more I-don't-know... ENLIGHTENED?Actually I'm suprised he started CPR, since it was lack of prayer that killed their daughter...and I mean really, who can effectively pray and do a physical task like CPR at the same time.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Actually I'm suprised he started CPR, since it was lack of prayer that killed their daughter...and I mean really, who can effectively pray and do a physical task like CPR at the same time.


I used to be one of those, "Army bomb-squad," guys you hear about, and, brother, let me tell you, when I was elbow-deep in an improvised explosive device, there was a WHOLE LOT of prayin' goin' on!

E.O.D. Specialist's Prayer: "Dear God! Don't let me screw THIS one up."

:D

[patnray]

I think the title of this thread is wrong. She died from too much faith, not a lack of faith...

[shadron]

Sadly this happened in my home town.

Truly, I can feel for you. My condolences.

Shadron, Littleton, CO

[Zax63]

I've never been able to wrap my mind around the anti-medicine thing. Do the parents go naked or wear clothing? Do they live outdoors or in a house? Do they buy food or pray for manna from heaven? Do they only go places they can walk to or travel in man made vehicles? So why in the world would anyone pick medical treatment as the one area to leave entirely in God's hands. I just don't get it.

[Cainkane1]

The girl's death is sad. That the parents are walking around free makes me wish to visit them for about three seconds. Then the other three children would be free of that "no abuse" thing the police person stupidly said.


Here in Georgia if a child died of a treatable illness you go to Prison if they aren't treated. Jehovahs Witnesses who must have a transfusion in order to save their life get strapped to a gurney and forced to have one.

[kerikiwi]

No doubt there is a bible verse which tells them to do that.
As for blaming their particular sect, rather than the parents: the sect is simply a collection of people who have common beliefs. If one is a victim, all are victims. If one is responsible, all are responsible.

[CJW]

Here in Georgia if a child died of a treatable illness you go to Prison if they aren't treated. Jehovahs Witnesses who must have a transfusion in order to save their life get strapped to a gurney and forced to have one.

I think it's a great irony that a country that adopted "In God we Trust" as its national motto will arrest you for the consequencces of doing so.

Chris

[dahduh]

The proper purpose of executing somebody is not revenge, it's removing their burden & taint from society. The most effective and only revenge that society should take against these individuals is to put them away and forget about their existence. eta: It sounds like they may need to be committed rather than locked up but I really don't want to worry about them more than they deserve.

I really don't care about the parents in this case, the legal system will handle them and anger is a waste of energy. However, I want to find the person who lied to them and told them to do this. It pisses me off that legally the parents may be responsible for murder but the person who taught them this crap is off scot free and likely made a mint off these people.


eta: this post is not intended to advocate violence if somebody reads this and thinks it is please reread.

I don't know; I can't also help feeling sorry for the parents. They subscribed to a false belief about the world, pursued it, and in consequence their daughter died. The mother is now hoping her daughter will be ressurected - a classic state of cognitive dissonance. The alternative is to recognize she is responsible for her daughter's death.

Left to themselves most person wouldn't believe in something so at variance with reality; in the absense of a genuine psychological problem, craziness can only be sustained when reinforced by the group identified with. All those who supported the Gulf War and now think it was a crazy idea, put your hands up. Are you an evil person or are you a victim of circumstance?

I think the most constructive thing society can do is broadcast the story as widely as possible, discuss it a lot, mitigate the risks (like check up on any other children under the parents' guardianship and pass legislation stipulating penalties for those withdrawing medical care on any grounds whatsoever) - and have a little compassion for those who are certainly not very happy right now.

[Garrette]

I think it's a great irony that a country that adopted "In God we Trust" as its national motto will arrest you for the consequencces of doing so.

ChrisOf the two actions listed, only the first is regrettable.

[ponderingturtle]

No doubt there is a bible verse which tells them to do that.
As for blaming their particular sect, rather than the parents: the sect is simply a collection of people who have common beliefs. If one is a victim, all are victims. If one is responsible, all are responsible.

Why? We have no data on the other members of their bible study group and how they feel about medical care.

They also did not look at the sick child and choose not to get medical care.

There seem to be many stories of altmed people who go against medical practice until they get really sick.

[godless dave]

I think the most constructive thing society can do is broadcast the story as widely as possible, discuss it a lot, mitigate the risks (like check up on any other children under the parents' guardianship and pass legislation stipulating penalties for those withdrawing medical care on any grounds whatsoever) - and have a little compassion for those who are certainly not very happy right now.

I have little compassion for people who are wilfully ignorant.

[skeptigirl]

Reading the article it seems that they are not abusing the other older children(seems likely, unless they get sick) it does not seem to be saying that they did not abuse their deceased child.

Also in other states you have a right to withhold medical care from a child, but if the child dies are still liable for the death. California for exampleImminent danger includes the potential for future danger. If a parent leaves a young child alone to go drinking and comes back the next day, the court doesn't say you can't take the children away because the Mom is back now and sober for the moment.


The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.

"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."This is pure ignorance on the part of the police. If one of those kids gets a serious injury and the parents don't take the child to the hospital, the child could easily die.

[skeptigirl]

Does anyone else find that oddly disturbing? Not that police officers can't be fallible, but they do see the results of neglect and abuse as part of their job, and I'd think they'd be more I-don't-know... ENLIGHTENED?I wonder if his being a cop influenced the police in this case to hear/see no evil in the parents' actions.

[skeptigirl]

I think it's a great irony that a country that adopted "In God we Trust" as its national motto will arrest you for the consequencces of doing so.

ChrisMaybe we live in a country that sometimes learns from its mistakes.

[ExMinister]

I've never been able to wrap my mind around the anti-medicine thing. Do the parents go naked or wear clothing? Do they live outdoors or in a house? Do they buy food or pray for manna from heaven? Do they only go places they can walk to or travel in man made vehicles? So why in the world would anyone pick medical treatment as the one area to leave entirely in God's hands. I just don't get it.


From what I understand, for those who believe in faith healing this is considered a "leap of faith." The idea is supposedly that taking a stand and refusing medication/medical assistance shows God that you are a true believer with absolute faith. I believe they attempt similar risks with regard to money issues (for example, writing a check before the money is in the bank as a "leap of faith" to show they believe God will provide). But with the stakes so high, to completely go against one's common sense and ignore the signs of a child's illness and take a risk like that, I just don't get it either.

[CJW]

Maybe we live in a country that sometimes learns from its mistakes.

I can only hope.. but the cost of that lesson is tragically high.

[EyeOn]

I just nominated this story for the Wall of Harm.

[A Christian Sceptic]

It pisses me off that legally the parents may be responsible for murder but the person who taught them this crap is off scot free and likely made a mint off these people.


Doesn't murder have to do with intent?

[rwguinn]

Oh, great.
According to this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gy_FocuLcPyslOqVeaOFan8yo7eQD8VLUSO01) article, other family members had noticed and were trying to convince them to take her to hospital for a week or so...thanks to Prometheus (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3567969#post3567969)
Please," the woman replied. "I mean, she's refusing. She's going to fight it. ... We've been trying to get her to take her to the hospital for a week, a few days now."

[Prometheus]

Here's another article that mentions the name of their church, The Unleavened Bread Ministries, and it's founder, David Eels:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesResource/Story?id=4536593&page=2

ETA: Oops, I guess they weren't technically members of the church, just "had ties" to it; they posted on its website: http://www.americaslastdays.com/

[EyeOn]

Here's another article that mentions the name of their church, The Unleavened Bread Ministries, and it's founder, David Eels:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesResource/Story?id=4536593&page=2

ETA: Oops, I guess they weren't technically members of the church, just "had ties" to it; they posted on its website: http://www.americaslastdays.com/

I doubt it even matters whether they were actual members or just consulted a member. Nonetheless, the parents were influenced by the BS that this church spouts. I'm quite disturbed from what I read in the notation on that last link you provided. IMO, this church did influence the choices made by the parents, thus an influence to an innocent girl's death.

"In God We Trust" taken way too far.

[Locknar]

Here's another article that mentions the name of their church, The Unleavened Bread Ministries, and it's founder, David Eels:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesResource/Story?id=4536593&page=2

ETA: Oops, I guess they weren't technically members of the church, just "had ties" to it; they posted on its website: http://www.americaslastdays.com/Nice link there Prometheus. The more I read about this story, the sadder it gets. From this new link:

"We are not commanded in scripture to send people to the doctor but to meet their needs through prayer and faith. As anyone here in the ministry will tell you, we are not against doctors for those who have their faith there and never condemn or restrict them in any way," Eells writes. "But we know that the best one to trust in for healing is Jesus Christ. The foundation for receiving this benefit from Him is repentance and faith in His promises."

If this is not the biggest bunch mule muffins I've ever read; these folks should be ashamed of themselves...the girl died because of their misguided and archaic beliefs.

[ponderingturtle]

It is interesting to wonder if she was still inrolled in public school if the teachers there would have done what none of the friends and family of the dead girl did and call the authorities.

[Smackety]

I disagree. Vehemently.
They are perps. Truth was available to them. Help was available to them. Facts were available to them. They chose to ignore everything

What can we do then? Prison doesn't cure stupid. It is pretty Elitist to think that just because you have a good crapometer that everyone else does too.

I think the best way to prevent similar cases in the future is not to give 100% of the blame to these parents. Until we learn how to cure stupidity we need to stop those who prey upon the stupid. In a way, these religious leaders are like Homeopaths, and when their lies end up killing someone, they should be held responsible.

[Skullaxide]

I hope that such a terrible event will arouse a little bit of questioning towards their use of faith over medicine. As much as I'd like them to, they'd probably just say it was God's will for the child to die.

Oh, and God doesn't like medicine? Why does he make them work?

[TheDaver]

Don't forget that this is the United States, where medical care costs an obscene amount of money, money which they probably don't have.

[EyeOn]

Don't forget that this is the United States, where medical care costs an obscene amount of money, money which they probably don't have.

And here in the United States it is illegal for any health care facility to turn away patients in life threatening situations. Low on money or insurance is a cop out excuse for letting a child die.

[Whack01]

Doesn't murder have to do with intent?

No. Legally no and scripturally no. There are differing degrees of murder where intent is taken into consideration, legally we have three

From wikipedia:
"
1. First Degree Murder: A premeditated murder, and (in some states) murders involving certain especially dangerous felonies, such as arson or rape, or committed by an inmate serving a life sentence.
2. Second Degree Murder: Non pre-meditated killing.
3. Third Degree Murder: Any other murder.
"
This is apparently only used in some states. Negligent homicide is what they typically call 3rd degree murder and it is generally described as a death attributable to "Reckless or willful disregard of human life" by another person. I'm not a lawyer so I can't fill you in on all the details. Teaching and leading people to deny their children medication necessary for their survival, definitely fits the description "reckless disregard for human life".

This also touches on an area in philosophy called epistemological duty if you'd prefer a more secular philosophical angle, I don't want to fully articulate it in a forum post but those interested can google it.

As for laws superior to human laws, Christ said that it would be better for a man to have a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the lake of fire than to cause the least of his children to stumble. Gotta hand it to these folks, they've really really outdone themselves. Not enough for the kid to stumble, the kid had to die as well.
Christ also teaches that the one who nullifies the least of the laws and teaches others to do so shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Indicating that those who teach others wrongdoing have committed greater crimes than wrongdoers themselves. Furthermore, in its condemnation of various sins at one point in the scriptures they describe those being condemned as 'giving hearty approval' to those who practice evil. I don't wish to write a dissertation or anything as I like to keep my posts short, so I'll leave it at that. However, there are other instances in scripture where it would indicate that the individual who taught them this bears as much or more responsibility than they do.




/I included the scriptural stuff due to your handle as I imagine you might take it more seriously than the legal code.

[wahrheit]

ETA: Oops, I guess they weren't technically members of the church, just "had ties" to it; they posted on its website: http://www.americaslastdays.com/

Wow, this is a creepy web site. They have a press release (http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org/?page=pressrelease)online regarding the death of the child. It repeats the Jesus will heal you if you have faith mantra. Very frightening.

Please pray for the Neumanns who do not deserve this persecution. Please pray for us that we would better represent our Father. Please pray for America to repent and turn to the Jesus of the Bible.

I hope those prayers work as badly as the "healing" one did.

[ponderingturtle]

What can we do then? Prison doesn't cure stupid. It is pretty Elitist to think that just because you have a good crapometer that everyone else does too.

I think the best way to prevent similar cases in the future is not to give 100% of the blame to these parents. Until we learn how to cure stupidity we need to stop those who prey upon the stupid. In a way, these religious leaders are like Homeopaths, and when their lies end up killing someone, they should be held responsible.

And your evidence that anyone preyed on them? That would seem to be someone advocating a position that they do not believe.

[Smackety]

And your evidence that anyone preyed on them? That would seem to be someone advocating a position that they do not believe.

Are you saying the parents of this girl invented the idea of faith healing on their own?

[wahrheit]

I hope those prayers work as bad as the "healing" one did.

Stoopid error corrected, too late for editing. :mgbanghead

[Locknar]

What can we do then? Prison doesn't cure stupid. It is pretty Elitist to think that just because you have a good crapometer that everyone else does too.

I think the best way to prevent similar cases in the future is not to give 100% of the blame to these parents. Until we learn how to cure stupidity we need to stop those who prey upon the stupid. In a way, these religious leaders are like Homeopaths, and when their lies end up killing someone, they should be held responsible.While prison does not cure stupid...there is a long forgotten concept known as "personal responsibility.”

The parents, in this situation, are 100% responsible for the death of their daughter and should be held accountable. Denying/refusing medical care is just as negligent as any other form of abuse.

I understand, and agree, that religious zealots, Homeopaths, etc. that “prey upon the stupid” should be held accountable as well…but that should not deflect any of the blame from the parents in this case.

Talk about hypocritical…the denied/refused medical treatment for their daughter up until she died, and then turned to “medicine” to save their daughter (ie. starting CPR, etc.).

[ponderingturtle]

Are you saying the parents of this girl invented the idea of faith healing on their own?

Lots of ideas have precidence, that does not mean anyone told them to believe in it. Also to really be preying on someone you need to not believe it yourself. If people advocate their beliefs it is different.

[ponderingturtle]

Talk about hypocritical…the denied/refused medical treatment for their daughter up until she died, and then turned to “medicine” to save their daughter (ie. starting CPR, etc.).

That depends on what CPR they did. Critical Prayer Repetition would not be medicine.

[ksbluesfan]

In states that allow parents to follow their religious beliefs to the point of the death of their children, are there limits to their religious freedom? For example, if a child was thought to be possessed, and according to their religion, the sacrifice of the child to god was the only way to address the situation, would that be legal? Has that been changed in court? How about Shia law that calls for the public stoning of an adultress? Has that been challenged?

[ponderingturtle]

In states that allow parents to follow their religious beliefs to the point of the death of their children, are there limits to their religious freedom? For example, if a child was thought to be possessed, and according to their religion, the sacrifice of the child to god was the only way to address the situation, would that be legal? Has that been changed in court? How about Shia law that calls for the public stoning of an adultress? Has that been challenged?

Likely this is legaly based around the idea of action vs inaction. I would generaly not be responcible for not saving someones life if I had the chance while I would be a criminal if it was my action that caused their loss of life.

So as they have the right to choose the medical care for the child and in general people have the right to refuse medical care even it will clearly result in their death. It is not at all as simple as you are trying to make it seem.

The only reason that it is potentialy a crime at all is that the child was a minor, it was an 18 year old living with parents, it could likely be no crime at all.

[ksbluesfan]

Likely this is legaly based around the idea of action vs inaction. I would generaly not be responcible for not saving someones life if I had the chance while I would be a criminal if it was my action that caused their loss of life.

So as they have the right to choose the medical care for the child and in general people have the right to refuse medical care even it will clearly result in their death. It is not at all as simple as you are trying to make it seem.

The only reason that it is potentialy a crime at all is that the child was a minor, it was an 18 year old living with parents, it could likely be no crime at all.

I'm not trying to make it seem like anything. I was just asking a simple question.

The wording of the state laws allow parents to use spiritual healing for their children without threat of prosecution. Human sacrifice would still be illegal, as would public stoning.

[bignickel]

Somehow I had the impression that only 4 states allowed the religious from being prosecuted after letting someone in their family die for religious reasons.

I am chagrined to find that I have that number backwards. How does this survive Separation of church and State?

[godless dave]

It doesn't establish a religion and, it could be argued, it furthers religious freedom.

However, it violates the right to life provision of whatever amendment that is.

[ponderingturtle]

Somehow I had the impression that only 4 states allowed the religious from being prosecuted after letting someone in their family die for religious reasons.

I am chagrined to find that I have that number backwards. How does this survive Separation of church and State?

HOw does the criminality of spoucal rape survive the seperation of church and state?

THe answer is that it totaly ignores religion, and goes to actions, and not if the motive is religious or some other reason(say listening to a homeopath)

[rwguinn]

What can we do then? Prison doesn't cure stupid. It is pretty Elitist to think that just because you have a good crapometer that everyone else does too.

I think the best way to prevent similar cases in the future is not to give 100% of the blame to these parents. Until we learn how to cure stupidity we need to stop those who prey upon the stupid. In a way, these religious leaders are like Homeopaths, and when their lies end up killing someone, they should be held responsible.

Wrong.
The ONLY way this will be cured is to assign 100% responsibility for the consequences to the party doing the refusal.
Allowing -- or assigning--blame to a 3rd party promotes "victim" status, and is the way these bizarre religions get their strangleholds on people--"The Devil Made Me do it", or "It's God's Will" sort of fertilizer...

[fls]

What can we do then? Prison doesn't cure stupid. It is pretty Elitist to think that just because you have a good crapometer that everyone else does too.

I think the best way to prevent similar cases in the future is not to give 100% of the blame to these parents. Until we learn how to cure stupidity we need to stop those who prey upon the stupid. In a way, these religious leaders are like Homeopaths, and when their lies end up killing someone, they should be held responsible.

Wrong.
The ONLY way this will be cured is to assign 100% responsibility for the consequences to the party doing the refusal.
Allowing -- or assigning--blame to a 3rd party promotes "victim" status, and is the way these bizarre religions get their strangleholds on people--"The Devil Made Me do it", or "It's God's Will" sort of fertilizer...

I agree with Smakety (and with what she/he said earlier about cognitive dissonance). These parents are now even more dangerous than before, as their belief in faith healing will have been reinforced by this incident. Since they see themselves as kind, loving parents, it could not have been their fault that their child died. To blame them will only strengthen their need to take refuge in self-justification. What needs to happen is to remove or weaken that source of relief from cognitive dissonance - authority figures that lend credence to Faith Healing. Otherwise, the more you assign responsibility to the party doing the refusal, the more you increase the stranglehold.

Linda

[LosingMyReligion]

The day after I first spoke with the Neumanns they called me again from their car, very concerned as they followed an emergency vehicle with Kara in it. They told me that she had stopped breathing and asked if I would pray that The Lord would spare her and raise her up, which I did. I called on our prayer ministers and elders to pray for her, too. The next thing I heard from them was that they were being investigated, which is sad since authorities don’t investigate the people who put their trust in doctors whose family members die by the hundreds of thousands from medical mistakes every year, according the AMA's own admission. We know that the doctors do the best they can with what they have and we do not condemn them. We would like the same consideration.

This is also from the press release from the americaslastdays website.

So they are equating the parents 'faith in God' with each person who puts their 'faith in a doctor'. If we are not to be found culpable when we go to the doctor and the doctor screws up, we should not hold them accountable since they went to God who screwed up? Oh wait... God didn't screw up...

[quote]Those who do not know Jesus through being born of His Word think it is a terrible thing to die, and it is for them. Jesus called dying "entering into life" for those who know Him. Real life is in the Kingdom of Heaven and in the presence of our Lord and He can't wait for that. Psalms 116:15 Precious in the sight of Jehovah is the death of his saints. A few of God's people have temporarily stepped into that realm and did not want to come back but had more work to do. We are sure Kara does not want to come back but we have asked God to send her for her parents' sake and as a testimony of His love for us.[\quote]

Now we see. It was Kara's fault.

[LosingMyReligion]

Sorry about the formatting - I tried several times to fix it. Oh well - you get the idea.

[rwguinn]

Sorry about the formatting - I tried several times to fix it. Oh well - you get the idea.
the {quote} and {/quote} have to be lower case...

[SezMe]

From the quote in #101:

We are sure Kara does not want to come back but we have asked God to send her for her parents' sake and as a testimony of His love for us.
So Kara is happy in heaven but these sickos want god to send her back so the they, themselves, can be happy. They should be jailed for criminal selfishness.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

the {quote} and {/quote} have to be lower case...


The {/quote} has to be {/quote} and not {\quote}. (I don't think case is important.)

[Smackety]

Wrong.
The ONLY way this will be cured is to assign 100% responsibility for the consequences to the party doing the refusal.
Allowing -- or assigning--blame to a 3rd party promotes "victim" status, and is the way these bizarre religions get their strangleholds on people--"The Devil Made Me do it", or "It's God's Will" sort of fertilizer...

There will always be some people who require protection from the swindlers, liars, and scam artists. That is one reason why we have this educational foundation - it is to go after the snake-oil salespeople, not to slam the fools who buy it. We also cannot conceivably punish them more than killing one of their children. (killing two of their children?) You have to give people an 'out' psychologically, or they will just dig themselves in deeper. They made a horrible choice (faith over science) that killed their kid.
Faith healing is practicing medicine without a license, so is homeopathy, and injuries caused by these lies should result in criminal charges.

[Prometheus]

There will always be some people who require protection from the swindlers, liars, and scam artists. That is one reason why we have this educational foundation - it is to go after the snake-oil salespeople, not to slam the fools who buy it. We also cannot conceivably punish them more than killing one of their children. (killing two of their children?) You have to give people an 'out' psychologically, or they will just dig themselves in deeper. They made a horrible choice (faith over science) that killed their kid.
Faith healing is practicing medicine without a license, so is homeopathy, and injuries caused by these lies should result in criminal charges.

I was with you up until the last sentence. Who was practicing faith-healing other than the parents? The parents contacted the church and requested prayers. The church did not advertise, "buy our prayers and your kid will be healed," did they? The First Amendment gives me the right to shout any kind of dumb idea to anyone who will listen; it does not make me responsible to ensure that those who do listen know whether or not I'm speaking the truth. The parents are victims, and they are stupid, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for their daughter's well-being. Unless you can show that the parents were otherwise good, responsible parents who provided adequately for their daughter, and the snake oil salesmen somehow rendered them incapable of continuing to do so, the responsibility is 100% theirs. That just doesn't make them any less pitiable.

[Smackety]

Lots of ideas have precidence, that does not mean anyone told them to believe in it. Also to really be preying on someone you need to not believe it yourself. If people advocate their beliefs it is different.

how is it different?

[Smackety]

I was with you up until the last sentence. Who was practicing faith-healing other than the parents? The parents contacted the church and requested prayers. The church did not advertise, "buy our prayers and your kid will be healed," did they? The First Amendment gives me the right to shout any kind of dumb idea to anyone who will listen; it does not make me responsible to ensure that those who do listen know whether or not I'm speaking the truth. The parents are victims, and they are stupid, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for their daughter's well-being. Unless you can show that the parents were otherwise good, responsible parents who provided adequately for their daughter, and the snake oil salesmen somehow rendered them incapable of continuing to do so, the responsibility is 100% theirs. That just doesn't make them any less pitiable.

They were otherwise good responsible parents who provided adequately for their daughter - have there been any reports otherwise?

[Smackety]

I think the parents are responsible, but that their failure - stupidity - can only be cured through education, not through revenge/punishment. I do not feel safe leaving the other children in their care at this time, as I do not believe that their faith was shaken by killing their daughter. However, I see this whole situation as a symptom of a deeper problem that we cannot fix without addressing the source - those inventing and promoting the lies in first place.

[Prometheus]

They were otherwise good responsible parents who provided adequately for their daughter - have there been any reports otherwise?

One of the articles mentioned that, except for a few vaccines given when she was an infant, the girl had never been taken to a doctor. This is why her diabetes was never diagnosed until after she was dead. So, yes, there are reports otherwise. Further, even if this were not true, I've not seen any evidence that anyone else rendered them incapable, so the responsibility has to remain entirely with them.

I think the parents are responsible, but that their failure - stupidity - can only be cured through education, not through revenge/punishment. I do not feel safe leaving the other children in their care at this time, as I do not believe that their faith was shaken by killing their daughter. However, I see this whole situation as a symptom of a deeper problem that we cannot fix without addressing the source - those inventing and promoting the lies in first place.

I would agree that education is necessary, however, it cannot simply replace punishment. I do not advocate revenge. My choice would be to punish the parents, attempt to educate them during their punishment, save their other children by removing them from an obviously dangerous environment, and then use the whole situation as an example for educating others.

Those inventing and promoting lies should be debunked and publicly humiliated. But they cannot be held responsible for the girl's death.

[scratchy]

They were otherwise good responsible parents who provided adequately for their daughter - have there been any reports otherwise?
I havent seen any reports either way - except maybe (from the first article posted):
1. She stopped attending school a whole semester
2. A relative felt there was reason enough to call the police

Anyway, by definition, parents are allways good and provides adequately, if looked at apart from neglect and/or abuse. So that point doesnt hold much water.

[SezMe]

The First Amendment gives me the right to shout any kind of dumb idea to anyone who will listen; it does not make me responsible to ensure that those who do listen know whether or not I'm speaking the truth.
Not true. To cite the old bromide, "You cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater"

In short, the First Amendment does not absolve you from the responsibility for the actions that might reasonably arise from the exercise of your free speech rights.

In this case, if it can be shown that the church or group or preacher or whoever played a significant role in establishing or reinforcing the beliefs of these ignorant parents, then there is blame to share.

[Skullaxide]

I do not feel safe leaving the other children in their care at this time, as I do not believe that their faith was shaken by killing their daughter.

The other three children are now in the care of extended family.
Apparently they weren't all that sad when their daughter died either. I think they're extremely deluded.

I was talking to a Christian friend today about the case and she said, "They should have gotten medical help and prayed, not just prayer." :eye-poppi

[Prometheus]

Not true. To cite the old bromide, "You cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater"

This is true, but it's also a straw man. I specifically said that my right extends to shouting an idea those who will listen. Implying that I'd be trying to argue a point to someone who had the choice to listen to me or not. Shouting "fire" in a theatre is not the same thing for two reasons: 1) the theatre audience is somewhat captive. If I stand up and shout in the middle of the movie, everyone is going to hear me whether the wanted to or not; 2) I would not be trying to argue a point, since my utterance would have been calculated to make people physically panic rather than to try to convince them intellectually that I was right about something.


In short, the First Amendment does not absolve you from the responsibility for the actions that might reasonably arise from the exercise of your free speech rights."

Of course not. Nor does it say that I must share in the responsibility for any and all actions that arise subsequent to the exercise of my free speech rights. In order for my speech to be at all responsible for the actions of others, it must be a cause of that action, and not merely a correlation. This is encapsulated in the phrase "might reasonably arise from".


In this case, if it can be shown that the church or group or preacher or whoever played a significant role in establishing or reinforcing the beliefs of these ignorant parents, then there is blame to share.

If and only if, by establishing/reinforcing said beliefs, they somehow rendered the parents unable to act correctly, or actually caused them to act incorrectly. This is encapsulated in the phrase, "played a significant role in". If my speech does not rise to the standard of actually being causative/preventative, then it's role is not significant.

Proving such an effect for speech is not bloody likely, even with a pretty low standard of evidence.

[sgf8]

f there is a god, then I'd imagine he/she/it gave us medicine for a reason. And brains.


I have used this question to Christians in the past. If God is so wonderful and loving, then why has he just given us good medicine? What about all the millions who have suffered and died before we invented anti-bio and insulin? Didn't God love them too?

The only reasonable answer is that WE as humans invented modern medicine using science. It isn't perfect, but improving all along, thats because medical science is evolving.

God does not exist, it is just something we made up to help answer the questions that science hadn't answered yet.

Susan

[SezMe]

This is true, but it's also a straw man.
I just used the fire/theater saying as an extreme example so I don't think it is a strawman. That aside, I think we are pretty much in agreement.

[skeptigirl]

The police and/or CPS have come to their senses.

Praying parents' other 3 kids removed (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_us/daughter_s_death_prayer_10)

I'm sure with some kind of intervention they can eventually try to put the kids back but an intervention is needed.

...removed from the home during an investigation, police said Friday.

The parents and social services experts agreed the move would be best for everyone, Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said. The children are staying with other relatives, though they were not in danger, he said.

[sgf8]

The police and/or CPS have come to their senses.

Praying parents' other 3 kids removed (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_us/daughter_s_death_prayer_10)

I'm sure with some kind of intervention they can eventually try to put the kids back but an intervention is needed.


This is one case where I hope the public will get behind and put a stop to. No abuse to the other children? Whatever! They just watched their child die when all it took was a 911 call for help. How do they know the next time the kitchen is on fire that they won't just try to pray for help.

This story just makes me sick!

Susan

[Locknar]

This is one case where I hope the public will get behind and put a stop to. No abuse to the other children? Whatever! They just watched their child die when all it took was a 911 call for help. How do they know the next time the kitchen is on fire that they won't just try to pray for help.

This story just makes me sick!

My thoughts exactly.

[skeptigirl]

Somehow I had the impression that only 4 states allowed the religious from being prosecuted after letting someone in their family die for religious reasons.

I am chagrined to find that I have that number backwards. How does this survive Separation of church and State?Which 4 states allow medical negligence for religious beliefs and is it complete freedom or just freedom for specific things like refusing a blood transfusion?

[skeptigirl]

Sorry about the formatting - I tried several times to fix it. Oh well - you get the idea.
Your backslash in the end quote faces forward. Try the lower row on the keyboard, not the upper row.

[quote][\quote] That \ should be / .


BTW, welcome to the forum. :D

[skeptigirl]

the {quote} and {/quote} have to be lower case...No, none of the code is case sensitive.

[skeptigirl]

Hi




The {/quote} has to be {/quote} and not {\quote}. (I don't think case is important.)Right, it is the backslash that he got wrong, easy mistake.

[ponderingturtle]

I think the parents are responsible, but that their failure - stupidity - can only be cured through education, not through revenge/punishment. I do not feel safe leaving the other children in their care at this time, as I do not believe that their faith was shaken by killing their daughter. However, I see this whole situation as a symptom of a deeper problem that we cannot fix without addressing the source - those inventing and promoting the lies in first place.

So we let parents deny medical care for the child and when they die it is now to late to do anything to punish them?

SO basicly denying your child medical care should be a legal method of killing your kids. View it as modern day exposure.

[Locknar]

I think the parents are responsible, but that their failure - stupidity - can only be cured through education, not through revenge/punishment.
Being uneducated is not a defense. If it was, or is allowed to be used as a defense, it could apply to virtually any crime/criminal...after all, if someone really understood what they did was wrong they would not have done it right?

Where does accountability begin?

[LosingMyReligion]

Right, it is the backslash that he got wrong, easy mistake.


Thanks - too late to edit now..

I have learned that the 'Preview Post' button works nicely...
;)

[bignickel]

Which 4 states allow medical negligence for religious beliefs and is it complete freedom or just freedom for specific things like refusing a blood transfusion?
As I mentioned in my post, I had it backwards. Only four states DO NOT allow the religious beliefs defense for medical negligence. Just four. All the rest of them evidently allow the parents to get away with it.

[articulett]

I'm always confused about what to do in cases like this... these people have been told that with faith all things are possible... they believed it. Lots of people do. The problem is that damn meme... and the punishment of losing a child will surely teach them and others more than punishment. What would be accomplished by punishing them.

The problem is this weird hands off attitude we have in America where we don't question religion... where we respect faith... I think that is the problem all of us need to address... the message we must spread is that faith is not a means of knowledge... it never has been... it's a lie when people tell you it is... It is manipulative when people blame tragedies on "not enough faith".

I think talking about this story and about faith will do more to raise consciousness and prevent these things in the future than punishing the parents. They truly did what they believed is best... part of some "higher law"... they probably believed that their eternity and their daughters eternity depended on doing so...

Faith never gets the blame... but this is a place where it should get the blame. This is what happens when people believe that "faith" is the key to salvation... that faith is good or way to solve problems or know truths or please the invisible creator of the universe-- that faith=morality.

If your goal is to keep stuff like this from happening, then I think talking about faith and the harms that can come from it is more fruitful than punishing the parents. I know a lot of people disagree with this. They want to punish the parents... but what worse punishment could there be than losing your child? And how else is one to prove they really have "faith" and please the invisible guy unless they do something they wouldn't do unless they truly had faith? I feel disgust for whomever put these lies in those parents head... Preachers never think of the consequences of those who take their sermons or the bible as some literal word of god. The faithful will do everything to make this look like it had everything to do with bad parents and nothing to do with faith. I disagree. I think those who indoctrinated those parents are as much to blame as they are. I think those who promote the notion that faith is noble also share in the blame.

The real bad guy is superstitious thinking inculcated by religion. To ignore this, from my perspective, is to ignore the elephant in the room. If you think faith is a way to know something or please a god--then who are you to say that these folks aren't following the will of god? Who are you to say that these parents didn't just ensure their daughters "happily ever after" by starting it early... before she could sin big time? I can say they didn't, because there is no evidence that there is a next life or a god that cares whether you have "faith" in his invisible self or not.

[Olowkow]

A child must rely on his parents or guardian (the state) for his welfare and has no choice in the matter. As Dawkins points out, there are no "Christian, Muslim or Jewish" children, only parents holding those religious beliefs, since the child is not mature enough to do so.

My view is that it is one thing for an adult to believe in divine healing, but a totally different matter to impose this belief on a child in their care, and it is pure abuse of the child to do so. When this abuse results in death, it is the worst form of child abuse. What if?... the inane belief is not part of an "organized" religion, but a whacky notion that the correct alignment of stars will cure the child? What then?

I see no claim of legal insanity, so...

I cannot agree with those who defend the parental legal rights to withhold suitable medical care because of religious belief in this case by positing that the death of the child is enough punishment. What about other children in their care?

I also would hold that those who put the beliefs in the heads of the parents are accomplices, much like Charlie Manson. There would be no logical end to this insanity if the law were not able to prevent such events.

[articulett]

I understand. I just don't know. Is it best for the other kids for their parents to be taken away? Do you think they would allow this to happen to another child? I wonder if you just make them think their faith is being tested, and then they get more "faithful" as a response. I don't know. I just notice that people who promote faith always seem to distance themselves from faith inspired tragedies. This IS what we can expect when people have faith... this IS faith taken to it's logical conclusion. Human laws don't matter when you are talking about ETERNITY and "god's nebulous rubric" and faith. Religious people tend to demonize the parents... but never faith itself. It's faith that is the problem... it's a problem when people think that faith is ennobling... healing... the key to salvation. It's a notion nursed by society and all those who aim to shut up those who point out that FAITH is the problem. We are not allowed to question some brands of woo.

I agree they should be prosecuted the way you would when a kid dies from an exorcism or rebirthing or some other belief... I don't find it different... I just find that people avoid discussing the underlying issue so they can tell themselves that their faith would never lead them or their loved ones so horribly astray. It's just that there is a big difference in my head from parents who really think they are doing their best to ensure their child's blissful eternity and fulfill god's will and those who are neglecting their kids because of drug abuse or laziness or mental incapacity. This was a preventable tragedy. It wasn't just the lack of insulin that was the problem. It was the parents faith in faith.

Recently, there was 14 year kid who refused a blood transfusion because he wanted to go to heaven if he died -- he was a Jehovah Witness... Does he have that right? His parents were not Jehovah Witness... but his guardian was. I just think that the real problem is this notion that "faith" is good or salvation worthy... and it's the thing we will have to discuss to lessen incidences such as these. Our judgements and punishments mean nothing to someone who believes that life is really about winning eternal glory.

[Olowkow]

I understand. I just don't know. Is it best for the other kids for their parents to be taken away? Do you think they would allow this to happen to another child? I wonder if you just make them think their faith is being tested, and then they get more "faithful" as a response.
I see your point also, and I don't know either, but why take the chance? One strike, you're out as a parent in my view. What about Munchhausen's syndrome? Society can't afford to take a chance.

I agree they should be prosecuted the way you would when a kid dies from an exorcism or rebirthing or some other belief... I don't find it different...
I agree, same thing.

Recently, there was 14 year kid who refused a blood transfusion because he wanted to go to heaven if he died -- he was a Jehovah Witness... Does he have that right?
Wow, 14? Well, somehow I would draw a line when someone makes this decision on his own, but 14 years old...kind of young. The J.W. guardian was not a proper guardian nevertheless.

Our judgements and punishments mean nothing to someone who believes that life is really about winning eternal glory.
This, and ignorance of the medical facts, is exactly why the guardian or parents can no longer be trusted with the care of their children. The child cannot be a religious being until he can understand what it means.

[articulett]

Yeah, here's that case...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004041765_transfusion29m.html

This is why I think it's important to point out that faith is the real problem... I think people want to vilify the parents to avoid acknowledging this. I don't know what is best for the kids or the family or what the kids think... I'm sure they all think that "god needed another angel" and that the girl is living happily ever after...

I tried to discuss the above case with teens at school and their opinion was that the teen was stupid and deserved to die... but I don't see it that way at all. They thought the kid should have the right to make the choice even if it's a stupid choice. But it isn't a stupid choice if he really believes that he's risking eternal salvation by getting a blood transfusion and hastening his happily ever after in refusing it. The belief is the problem. People make really poor choices when they have faith in the wrong things. But there is no way to determine a "true faith" from a false one.

I don't believe there are divine truths. That might hurt peoples' feelings, but treating it as just a wacky belief is a step towards lessening these crazy actions in the name of faith.

[LosingMyReligion]

The problem is this weird hands off attitude we have in America where we don't question religion... where we respect faith... I think that is the problem all of us need to address...

I couldn't resist quoting H.L. Mencken here - quoted by Dawkins at the end of Ch. 1 in The God Delusion:

We must repect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

I agree with Articulett - the problem we need to address is how respect got all tangled up in freedom of religion and freedom from persecution. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from criticism, nor does it mean that we cannot ask and expect in a civil way that people defend what they believe, particularly in the light of contradictory evidence.

Political correctness, multi-culturalism and moral relativism are no longer responsible positions to hold.

[Fiona]

I also see no point in punishing these parents. The chances are high that the other children would suffer more from losing their remaining family than from not losing them. Do we have good alternative care to offer? Seldom, in my experience. Does the fact that children are apt to love their parents no matter what count for nothing? These situations are not simple and you would have to know the full facts of the case before you could really make a judgement. However, as I said, we do have what I think of as a reasonable way of dealing with this kind of problem in Scotland. It is possible that the adults would be prosecuted but even if convicted it is also possible that they would not be subject to a jail term: one consequence, whether they are convicted or not, is that the children would be made subject to compulsory supervision so that their welfare would be actively monitored. Since on the face of it failure to seek medical treatment is the only physical risk to these children the family can be kept together. Supervision will include regular visits by a social worker and will also entail school staff reporting any illness or absence from school, for example. It is not foolproof but this seems to me to be a lot better than locking up parents who may in every other way be fine. I do not speak to their influence on the children's belief system, but we do mostly allow that parents can bring their children up in their own faith and I do not see that changing any time soon.

[JoeEllison]

I also see no point in punishing these parents.
They murdered their child, based on arrogance and ego. Why should they not be punished?

[sgf8]

In most ways I agree with Fiona. With supervised visits it is possible these children will be better off together with their parents than in "the system". Now if an intelligent family member stepped in and fought for the children, assuring everyone that they did not subscribe to the parents belief system, and would also have all kinds of checks then maybe that is the best place for the children, as long as they remain together and possibly have visits from their parents, I would support that.

Personally I want to see major public outcry over this, I ain't hearing it except here on this forum. The parents and whomever taught them this nonsense should be brought to the front of the city and made to account for their actions (or inaction). No one should be left thinking that this kind of behavior can be allowed, not ever. Lessons should be learned, discussions ect...not sure that prison is going to solve anything. But it might make me feel better.

I heard that family members were begging the parents to take her to a doctor. What kept them from calling 911 themselves? Maybe they didn't think she was that sick? I want to hear what they have to say for themselves also.

Someone call Anderson Cooper....I want answers.

Susan

[skeptigirl]

So we let parents deny medical care for the child and when they die it is now to late to do anything to punish them?

SO basicly denying your child medical care should be a legal method of killing your kids. View it as modern day exposure.I think there is a time for punishment and a time for other actions. I don't think any one situation is automatic and I especially don't think I can make such a judgment from a typical news report which I know isn't likely to even have all the facts right.

[skeptigirl]

Thanks - too late to edit now..

I have learned that the 'Preview Post' button works nicely...
;)It's also good to use right away because if you accidentally go back to a previous screen you can sometimes return and your post will still be there. You will lose what you've written if you are just in the first "quick reply" window and accidentally change screens.

[skeptigirl]

As I mentioned in my post, I had it backwards. Only four states DO NOT allow the religious beliefs defense for medical negligence. Just four. All the rest of them evidently allow the parents to get away with it.Could you please cite your source? That is what I really wanted.

I have found stuff that was all over the map on this and I was hoping you had a current reference. There was a federal law passed in 1996 which required states not allow parents to refuse care. But due to lobbying by religious groups the states have passed individual laws allowing exemptions. What I couldn't find without a few more hours of research was a source that noted the current situation.

Apologetics Religion News Report; November 8, 2000 (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news/an201108b.html)
n response to Christian Science church lobbying, the federal government began requiring states to pass religious exemptions from child abuse and neglect charges in 1974. My husband and I lobbied for several years against this regulation. The federal government rescinded it in 1983.

In 1996, however, Congress enacted a law stating that the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) has no ''Federal requirement that a parent or legal guardian provide a child any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian.'' Furthermore, Senator Dan Coats (Republican- Indiana) and Representative Bill Goodling (Republican-Pennsylvania) claimed during debate that parents have a First Amendment right to withhold medical care from children. Therefore, Congress is again encouraging states to pass laws allowing parents to withhold medical care on religious grounds although the exemption laws aren't a federal requirement for grant money as they were between 1974 and 1983.

In 1997 the Christian Science church used the CAPTA religious exemption to promote a bill in Maryland exempting believers in spiritual healing from all civil and criminal charges regardless of the harm to the child. Although the bill was defeated, this action makes it clear that the Christian Science church remains the primary political and legal force behind the agenda of securing special legal privileges for believers in faith healing.

These efforts need to be stopped and the mischief that has already been done to our laws needs to be undone. Enormous challenges lie ahead. In 2001, Congress will reauthorize the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. CAPTA requires that states receiving federal money for child abuse programs have laws requiring parents to provide necessary medical care, but CAPTA also allows these states to enact statutory exemptions for parents with religious objections. I believe that this federal law discriminates against children in faith- healing sects by depriving them of the protections it offers to other children. CHILD will be urging members of Congress to remove the religious exemption.

Why, in the twenty-first century, is this situation allowed to continue? I think it's because the United States remains reluctant to fully acknowledge children as rights-bearing persons. The public and its lawmakers aren't ready to give children a constitutional right to health care. While states do require parents to provide their children with the necessities of life, they don't always require that children receive adequate health care. And every state, at one time or another, has passed laws allowing parents to withhold on religious grounds some forms of medical treatment.

There are examples in that paper as well as the following of numerous child deaths because of this. I thought it had been dealt with in the law, but it has not been and that is disturbing. These creeps want Teri Schaivo fed but don't care if children are prayed for until they die from lack of a simple antibiotic or shot of insulin.

I. Religious Exemption Laws Lead to Cruel Deaths, Mislead Parents (http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_1.html)
Religious Exemption Laws Lead to the Cruel and Unnecessary Deaths of Helpless Children; These Laws also Falsely Mislead Parents Regarding their Legal Duty to Provide Necessary Medical Care for their Seriously Ill Children

The deadly consequences of religious exemption laws are apparent nationwide: over the past 25 years there have been over 150 reported deaths of children whose parents chose to rely on faith healing rather than medicine.

There are at least 20 different sects and religious groups in the U.S. whose teachings deny the use of medical care. These groups include: Faith Assembly, Christian Science, The Believer's Fellowship, Faith Tabernacle, Church of the First Born, Church of God of the Union Assembly, Church of God Chapel, Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God, Jesus through John and Judy, Christ Miracle Healing Center, NE Kingdom Community Church, Christ Assembly, The Source, True Followers of Christ, "No Name" Fellowship, End Time Ministries, Faith Cathedral Fellowship, Living Word Assembly of God, Traveling Ministries Everyday Church.

Christian Science is the largest and most prominent of these groupings. Church membership is estimated at 100,000 - 200,000 persons. The church estimates it has 1,800 churches and societies active in all parts of the United States. Since the 1970's there have been at least 18 deaths of Christian Science children; these deaths occurred when the parents denied their children medical care in favor of purely "spiritual healing." Of these deaths: three were from juvenile onset diabetes, an illness which can be controlled by insulin but which is otherwise invariably fatal; four from bacterial meningitis, a deadly illness which, with proper administration of antibiotics, is 90 percent curable; one from a ruptured appendix; one from pneumonia, and one from diphtheria (due to lack of vaccination).

Forty-four states have had religious exemption laws in force since the mid-1970's. (In 1990 South Dakota became the first state to repeal its religious exemptions from health care requirements for sick children.) Furthermore, the above deaths are only those that have come to public attention. Certainly there are other known and unknown cases of death, injury, prolonged suffering, and permanent disability of children whose parents have refused effective medical treatment.


BTW, it appears Canada and Australia have similar problems. It looked like you could pray your kid to death in Australia and I didn't read the Canadian references but from the Google bylines it looked like it might be the same.

[ponderingturtle]

It's also good to use right away because if you accidentally go back to a previous screen you can sometimes return and your post will still be there. You will lose what you've written if you are just in the first "quick reply" window and accidentally change screens.

So the time to punish them would be before their daughter died when they where just abusing her with neglect, once the child dies that is all the punishment needed?

So basicly the results of their crime are its own punishment?

[ponderingturtle]

Could you please cite your source? That is what I really wanted.

I have found stuff that was all over the map on this and I was hoping you had a current reference. There was a federal law passed in 1996 which required states not allow parents to refuse care. But due to lobbying by religious groups the states have passed individual laws allowing exemptions. What I couldn't find without a few more hours of research was a source that noted the current situation.

Apologetics Religion News Report; November 8, 2000 (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news/an201108b.html)


I am not sure that is quite what we are talking about. I do remember the last time I looked into these laws it seemed to me that there are a number of states that sheild the parents from child abuse laws do to religion beliefs about medical practice, but not manslaughter charges.

[pr0k]

This kind of **** makes me furious.

[Fiona]

They murdered their child, based on arrogance and ego. Why should they not be punished?

Because punishment doesn't do any good? What is the point of it?

[Madalch]

Because punishment doesn't do any good? What is the point of it?
Because if the expletives are in jail for the next five years, then that's five years in which their other kids will be able to grow up safely and sanely. Five years that these kids might not have otherwise.

Heck- the kids might even get vaccinated!

[skeptigirl]

So the time to punish them would be before their daughter died when they where just abusing her with neglect, once the child dies that is all the punishment needed?

So basicly the results of their crime are its own punishment?Your assumption my answer only had to do with when to punish is an indication you didn't understand my post.

1) We don't know the details here, only the news report which is not a reliable source of information.

2) The best outcome is to prevent these cases.

3) There is no guarantee that punishing the parents will have any impact on preventing it occurring again.

4) We don't punish all parental mistakes even when the outcome is the death of a child.

5) Most parents who lose a child due to the parent's mistake suffer the severe punishment of the loss of the child. You might like to see them punished more, but that doesn't mean they have not been sufficiently punished.

[skeptigirl]

Because if the expletives are in jail for the next five years, then that's five years in which their other kids will be able to grow up safely and sanely. Five years that these kids might not have otherwise.

Heck- the kids might even get vaccinated!This assumes nothing will change in this family unless the parents are jailed. Child Protective Services and the courts might determine that this family will change after this incident. The story implies the parents are upset their prayers were not answered. Even if they remain fundies, they could change their beliefs about medical intervention. Many Christian Scientists who lose children to no medical care actually change their beliefs. It is an extreme event after all.

One of the links I posted had an anecdote of a family so upset that praying did not save their child they have been actively seeking a change in the law that would have prevented them from following their Christian Science beliefs.

From the Apologetics link above:Our baby was diagnosed with h-flu meningitis, which has been routinely treated with antibiotics since the 194(?s and is vaccine- preventable today. The doctors explained to us how the disease had caused the symptoms we had seen. That's when we realized that the very things the Christian Science practitioners had insisted were signs the religious treatments were working were, in fact, signs of impending disaster. (For example, one practitioner, who observed Matthew's convulsions, said he might be ''gritting his teeth'' because he was ''planning some great achievement.'')

Matthew lived a week longer in intensive care on a respirator and then died. Immediately afterwards, my husband and I left the Christian Science church.

Sadly, our experience isn't unique. There have been far too many other children who have suffered and died under similar circumstances. This is why my husband and I founded Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc. (CHILD), a national membersip organization that promotes the rights of children to medical care and opposes religion-related abuse and neglect of children. And this is why we think it is important to share not only our own story but those of other parents and their children.

[Fiona]

Because if the expletives are in jail for the next five years, then that's five years in which their other kids will be able to grow up safely and sanely. Five years that these kids might not have otherwise.

Heck- the kids might even get vaccinated!

As I said, most children do not want to be parted from their parents. At least in the uk the outcomes for children brought up in care are not particularly impressive. There are other ways to ensure that the children are safe and I do not see that punishment is useful as a way of changing beliefs. It may work sometimes but it is perhaps as likely to make martyrs.

[ponderingturtle]

Because punishment doesn't do any good? What is the point of it?

Define good?

It should make parents think that denying killing their kids with their religious belief will be punished.

This would largely decriminalize manslaughter for example.

[rwguinn]

As I said, most children do not want to be parted from their parents. At least in the uk the outcomes for children brought up in care are not particularly impressive. There are other ways to ensure that the children are safe and I do not see that punishment is useful as a way of changing beliefs. It may work sometimes but it is perhaps as likely to make martyrs.

So, consensus is that punishment is never (or seldom) a deterrent--that taking away the kids will not keep anyone else from doing the same thing?

Or is it that punishment is useless because people who do this sort of thing as we know it have already been punished enough, and the rest of the world will take note and, thus, not do the same thing lest they receive the same punishment?

Why establish rules/laws in the first place?

[skeptigirl]

I am all for having the laws on the books MAKING this kind of thing is illegal, ponder. I just think your sense of how to manage the parents who break the law a bit unrealistic. Looks like getting the laws changed needs to be the first priority so we can even say to parents your religious beliefs do not extend to killing your kids over it. That makes me a lot angrier than the fact these parents were sucked into such a horrible conviction that magic works to cure deadly illnesses.



Edited for clarity and to ease Olo's brain pain. ;)

[Olowkow]

I am all for having the laws on the books this kind of thing is illegal, ponder.

:confused::)

My brain hurts.

[Fiona]

Define good?

In this context I meant that it does not improve the situation for anyone

It should make parents think that denying killing their kids with their religious belief will be punished.

This would largely decriminalize manslaughter for example.

I did not say it should be decriminalised. I said they should not be punished. What is the purpose of criminal law and sanction? Well there are several

1. To express society's disapproval? Well the fact that the action is dealt with in the court is enough for that ( though I gather from Skeptigirl this may not be true in at least some parts of the US. So maybe the concensus disapproval is not established there)

2. To deter, as you say. Either the folk who did it or "pour encourager les autres" Well I think most people would agree they want to stop these people doing it again. Punishing might work, but as I said, I think it sometimes serves to entrench people rather than persuading them to another view. and for those with a religious outlook I tend to think martyrdom appeals to them and makes any chance of a rethink less likely. I could be wrong of course

3. To make restitution to the victim? Too late to do that directly

4. For revenge? I do not specially think we should encourage that because it is not very civilised. Though it is a thread in criminal justice, I accept

5. To re-educate/rehabilitate? Yes but again we can take other action to achieve that and I think it is likely to be more effective


As I said I do not think these things are simple. I can see little to say in favour of destroying this family since the children will bear the consequences, perhaps even more than the parents.

[rwguinn]

In this context I meant that it does not improve the situation for anyone



....Snip.....
As I said I do not think these things are simple. I can see little to say in favour of destroying this family since the children will bear the consequences, perhaps even more than the parents.

That is where we disagree.
I would contend that the harm to the family has already occurred. The best we can hope for is the education and emancipation of the remaining kids. Part of that education process is to address the reason we have laws in the first place: Actions MUST have consequences.

The remaining