9 MONTH OLD dies due to ignorance

[firecoins]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-babys-parents-ignored-advice-qc-20090504-asmt.html?page=1

[fuelair]

I am fully up for hanging these pieces of crap - and I do mean the (parents?).

[shadron]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-babys-parents-ignored-advice-qc-20090504-asmt.html?page=1

According to the story it wasn't ignorance, it was stubborn belief in homeopathy and other new age practices.

[LarianLeQuella]

According to the story it wasn't ignorance, it was stubborn belief in homeopathy and other new age practices.


Semantics really. They were ignorant of reality.

[rjh01]

This is a duplicated thread. See Death by homeopathy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4684128#post4684128)

[ImaginalDisc]

Semantics really. They were ignorant of reality.

No, if they had been raised in a simulation they'd be ignorant of reality. These people were stupid.

[pgwenthold]

According to the story it wasn't ignorance, it was stubborn belief in homeopathy and other new age practices.

I prefer the word NEGLIGENCE

[Fireshadow]

I prefer the word NEGLIGENCE

Yes, negligence is a very good word for it. Ignorance is lack of knowledge of the subject, and they clearly knew there were alternatives. At best, it could be considered willful ignorance, but that is more alarming than simple ignorance.

I never realized how severe eczema could be in a child that small--and I should, since I spent the first two years of my life in and out of the hospital for just that condition (as well as the double whammy of also being inflicted with severe asthma). Of course, since I was an infant and unable to make any educated decision on how to take care of myself, it was left up to my parents. I'm glad that they were intelligent and rational enough to make the right decisions regarding my treatment...although 30 years ago there wasn't such a huge push for "alternative" medicines. Modern medicine saved my life...and I'm grateful that my parents cared enough to listen to the advice of medical professionals.

[firecoins]

negligance is fine.

I didn't know there was another thread about it. I saw it and posted it.

[LarianLeQuella]

I prefer the word NEGLIGENCE


Better than my summation. :) And also something that can have legal reprocussions.

[MarekM]

I prefer the word NEGLIGENCE

I prefer RECKLESSNESS.

I find it hard to believe that these parents had no idea that their choices were putting their child in risk of further complications - especially after hearing from several individuals that they should take conventional steps to help her.

[Delscottio]

I prefer RECKLESSNESS.

I find it hard to believe that these parents had no idea that their choices were putting their child in risk of further complications - especially after hearing from several individuals that they should take conventional steps to help her.


I prefer innocent until proven otherwise........... Wait for the verdict then go to town

[MarekM]

I prefer innocent until proven otherwise........... Wait for the verdict then go to town

Of course, but they have to be charged with something before their guilt can be proven. I'm saying, based on the little information that we have, that they should at least be charged with reckless homicide.

[Delscottio]

Of course, but they have to be charged with something before their guilt can be proven. I'm saying, based on the little information that we have, that they should at least be charged with reckless homicide.



But those with all the information have chosen to charge them with something else, lets see what the outcome and their motives behind the actions, then put the boot in.

[thaiboxerken]

I think the blame should be on the government a-holes who decided to legitimize alt-meds and homeopathy even though there is no science to support such methods.

[Foster Zygote]

I agree with the assessment of negligence. Ignorance may have led them to try homeopathic treatments, but negligence led them to continue these obviously useless treatments while their baby daughter suffered in agony from a condition that is easily treatable by modern medicine.

[MarekM]

But those with all the information have chosen to charge them with something else, lets see what the outcome and their motives behind the actions, then put the boot in.

Are they being charged with something else? It appears they are being charged with manslaughter, which could imply reckless homicide.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the blame should be on the government a-holes who decided to legitimize alt-meds and homeopathy even though there is no science to support such methods.And because we allow massive misinformation spreading via the mass media without adequate rebuttal of the bad information.

The parents, who each had university degrees and postgraduate qualifications, instead sought help from other homeopaths and natural medicine practitioners, Mr Tedeschi said.

On the few occasions that they did follow conventional medical advice, Gloria would improve, but they would soon revert to homeopathic remedies and she would continue to deteriorate.

Maybe this couple were predisposed to the dogma they couldn't recognize was wrong. The complexity of forming a belief system and maintaining it in spite of such overwhelming evidence cannot be adequately described as negligence or ignorance alone. Negligence implies they didn't care, and ignorance implies they were incapable of assessing facts.

These parents were blinded to the facts and the basis for creating and maintaining that blindness is extremely complex.

[shadron]

Semantics really. They were ignorant of reality.

No, I'll bet they weren't ignorant in any sense; according to the article they'd have had o be deaf to be ignorant. They ignored (an act of will) reality rather than been ignorant (blissfully unaware). The difference is, IMHO, one of moral culpability.

[pgwenthold]

I agree with the assessment of negligence. Ignorance may have led them to try homeopathic treatments, but negligence led them to continue these obviously useless treatments while their baby daughter suffered in agony from a condition that is easily treatable by modern medicine.

In one of the scienceblogs, I made the comment that I can sort of understand how people can resort to woo-woo treatments when conventional treatments fail. I don't agree or condone it, but I can understand the concept of desperation, and a willingness to try anything, in an attempt to cure something bad. Particularly, as a parent, I can see how someone would be willing to do the craziest things if there was any hope, regardless how silly, that it might work.

That is what makes this case so infuriating. It is clear that the homeocrap wasn't helping this child. Given that, how could they NOT be trying something else, even if it was traditional medicine? Weren't they getting desperate? I mean, skin breaking when she is dried off after a bath is definately NOT normal. Actually, I've heard claims that they did go to the doctor a couple of times, and when they did, she showed improvement, at which point they quit going. Man, that is some seriously scary parenting. Don't go continue to use a treatment that is working? Heck, we give woo-woo parents a hard time for misinterpreting an outcome, but sheez, even the wooiest of woos will continue something that seems to be working (regardless of whether it really does). Seriously, if I knew someone who had cancer that didn't respond to chemo, and started getting better with chinese herbs, I don't think that even I would tell them to stop doing what they are doing (doing EVERYTHING they are doing, of course - don't quit the chemo and go ONLY chinese herbs, for example, if that is what they are doing).

But these idiots actually quit doing treatment that was working. How could they do that with a baby? I look at my 5 mo old and I feel bad because he has teething pain. They let their baby girl die?

[fuelair]

Much of the above is why I wrote and fully believe what I said. I really don't care about why they did it - whether they were ignorant, negligent, malicious, whatever. To me that is simply sociology. Study it, fine, learn from it, fine. But kill them or jail them (I prefer the former - see no reason to supposrt them with tax money) permanently. My concern is the child and the pain and horror they put her through with no reason for it at all.

[ponderingturtle]

But those with all the information have chosen to charge them with something else, lets see what the outcome and their motives behind the actions, then put the boot in.

Letting your child die because of your woo beliefs is legal. There are all kinds of exemptions in negligence laws for such things, mostly religious. In many states there is no crime commited no matter how much suffering the child goes through as long as they live. Then it is manslaughter.

[Rolfe]

I've come across a case before where conventional treatment for skin disease (in a dog) was used when the condition was very bad, but was immediately abandoned as soon as the patient was a little better. The rationale was, "oh good, he's a little better, we can stop using these terribly toxic and harmful drugs now."

The really sad bit was that all these decisions were being taken by a veterinary surgeon.

Rolfe.

[Beth]

Maybe this couple were predisposed to the dogma they couldn't recognize was wrong. The complexity of forming a belief system and maintaining it in spite of such overwhelming evidence cannot be adequately described as negligence or ignorance alone. Negligence implies they didn't care, and ignorance implies they were incapable of assessing facts.
We're in agreement for a change. The parents were neither ignorant (they each had college degrees) nor negligent.

No, I'll bet they weren't ignorant in any sense; according to the article they'd have had o be deaf to be ignorant. They ignored (an act of will) reality rather than been ignorant (blissfully unaware). The difference is, IMHO, one of moral culpability. I agree with this as well. The parents are morally responsible for the outcome they allowed to occur.

kill them or jail them (I prefer the former - see no reason to supposrt them with tax money) permanently. My concern is the child and the pain and horror they put her through with no reason for it at all. Now, this I don't agree with. To me, the only reason to execute someone is to protect the rest of us from future repetitions of the actions they have been found guity of committing. I don't see these people as being a danger to society at large, just a danger to any children they might have.

[Eos of the Eons]

Does the kid get a Darwin award for having stupid parents, or do the parents get a Darwin award for being too stupid to allow any kid of theirs to survive?

[Cayvmann]

Actually, I've heard claims that they did go to the doctor a couple of times, and when they did, she showed improvement, at which point they quit going. Man, that is some seriously scary parenting. Don't go continue to use a treatment that is working?

When people have a tremendous ideological investment in being right about something, then they will ignore any evidence of the contrary. Sure the baby got better when she went to the doctor, but it was because the naturopathic medicine started working, so they put her back on it. If she had continued to improve, they could have crowed to the world about how wonderful the woo-woo was. I'm sure the baby, in their minds, didn't die because of the treatments that they wanted.

Reminds me of a certain political party and it's adherents. Sure stuff sucks when they are in office, but it's all the fault of the other guys while they were in. They reelect their guys and stuff starts sucking again, but it's still the other guys fault.

[fuelair]

We're in agreement for a change. The parents were neither ignorant (they each had college degrees) nor negligent.

I agree with this as well. The parents are morally responsible for the outcome they allowed to occur.

Now, this I don't agree with. To me, the only reason to execute someone is to protect the rest of us from future repetitions of the actions they have been found guity of committing. I don't see these people as being a danger to society at large, just a danger to any children they might have.

To me, the reason to do it is to discourage any other slime ridden stacks of fecal material that no matter what they believe they had better not inflict it on any child. But then I am not friendly to things like that and do not wish to share air with them.

[Myriad]

The good news is, it appears the treatment of eczema has greatly improved in the past few decades. That's nice to know, in case it ever comes back. I had nasty (as in painful, but not life-threatening) eczema as a kid (and my father had it even worse when he was young, once being essentially disabled for a year). At that time, the conventional treatments worked about as well as I imagine the homeopathic treatments work today. On doctors' orders I used an endless succession of creams, tinctures, pills, diet restrictions, all of which did nothing or made it worse.

The ongoing frustration is difficult to describe. One "side effect" is suspicion of everything, and I mean everything, that comes in contact with your skin. Another is the conclusion that the doctors who confidently prescribe each new tube of useless smelly glop are groping blindly and pretending to have answers they don't. Such impressions might linger long after the advance of medical science made it no longer true.

In trying to explain the inexplicable, I wonder if either parent had an experience similar to mine in their background. Eczema is hereditary.

Sigh. Is this another case where trying to explain the inexplicable ends up as trying to defend the indefensible?

Sorry, but yes.

Respectfully,
Myriad