9 MONTH OLD dies due to ignorance

firecoins · 5th May 2009, 07:08 PM

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-...mt.html?page=1

fuelair · 5th May 2009, 07:13 PM

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

shadron · 5th May 2009, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by firecoins

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-...mt.html?page=1

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

LarianLeQuella · 6th May 2009, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by shadron

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 · 6th May 2009, 12:45 AM

This is a duplicated thread. See Death by homeopathy

ImaginalDisc · 6th May 2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

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 · 6th May 2009, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by shadron

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 · 6th May 2009, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

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 · 6th May 2009, 12:04 PM

negligance is fine.

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

LarianLeQuella · 6th May 2009, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I prefer the word NEGLIGENCE

Better than my summation.

And also something that can have legal reprocussions.

MarekM · 6th May 2009, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

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 · 6th May 2009, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by MarekM

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 · 6th May 2009, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Delscottio

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 · 6th May 2009, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by MarekM

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 · 6th May 2009, 03:21 PM

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 · 6th May 2009, 03:24 PM

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 · 6th May 2009, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Delscottio

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 · 6th May 2009, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

And because we allow massive misinformation spreading via the mass media without adequate rebuttal of the bad information.

Quote:

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 · 6th May 2009, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

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 · 7th May 2009, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 7th May 2009, 08:02 AM

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 · 7th May 2009, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Delscottio

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 · 7th May 2009, 09:35 AM

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 · 7th May 2009, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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.

Originally Posted by shadron

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.

Originally Posted by fuelair

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 · 7th May 2009, 11:29 AM

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 · 7th May 2009, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

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 · 7th May 2009, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Beth

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 · 7th May 2009, 07:38 PM

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

5th May 2009, 07:08 PM	#1
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nyack, NY Posts: 3,191	9 MONTH OLD dies due to ignorance http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-...mt.html?page=1
	__________________ NY Paramedic, skeptic, 9/11/01 Reality-ist. I am both right wing nut and left wing lunatic. Deal with it.

5th May 2009, 07:13 PM	#2
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,947	I am fully up for hanging these pieces of crap - and I do mean the (parents?).
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,947	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

5th May 2009, 07:16 PM	#3
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Originally Posted by firecoins http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-...mt.html?page=1 According to the story it wasn't ignorance, it was stubborn belief in homeopathy and other new age practices.
	Last edited by Tricky; 5th May 2009 at 07:22 PM. Reason: fix misspelling

6th May 2009, 12:38 AM	#4
LarianLeQuella Elf Wino Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun Posts: 1,995	Originally Posted by shadron 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.
	__________________ My crappy blog that no one should be forced to read. Ever... But I like traffic and comments, so have at it if you please. Larian LeQuella Armyn ab Treanid

6th May 2009, 09:19 AM	#6
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella 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.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

6th May 2009, 12:45 AM	#5
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,187	This is a duplicated thread. See Death by homeopathy

6th May 2009, 11:27 AM	#7
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,069	Originally Posted by shadron According to the story it wasn't ignorance, it was stubborn belief in homeopathy and other new age practices. I prefer the word NEGLIGENCE
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

6th May 2009, 11:39 AM	#8
Fireshadow Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Englewood, CO Posts: 1,174	Originally Posted by pgwenthold 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.

6th May 2009, 12:04 PM	#9
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nyack, NY Posts: 3,191	negligance is fine. I didn't know there was another thread about it. I saw it and posted it.
	__________________ NY Paramedic, skeptic, 9/11/01 Reality-ist. I am both right wing nut and left wing lunatic. Deal with it.

6th May 2009, 02:40 PM	#10
LarianLeQuella Elf Wino Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun Posts: 1,995	Originally Posted by pgwenthold I prefer the word NEGLIGENCE Better than my summation. And also something that can have legal reprocussions.
	__________________ My crappy blog that no one should be forced to read. Ever... But I like traffic and comments, so have at it if you please. Larian LeQuella Armyn ab Treanid

6th May 2009, 03:03 PM	#11
MarekM Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Boston Posts: 205	Originally Posted by pgwenthold 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.

6th May 2009, 03:11 PM	#12
Delscottio Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 808	Originally Posted by MarekM 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
Delscottio Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 808

6th May 2009, 03:14 PM	#13
MarekM Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Boston Posts: 205	Originally Posted by Delscottio 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.

6th May 2009, 03:19 PM	#14
Delscottio Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 808	Originally Posted by MarekM 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.
Delscottio Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 808

6th May 2009, 03:21 PM	#15
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,965	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.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

6th May 2009, 03:24 PM	#16
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,396	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.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

6th May 2009, 03:43 PM	#17
MarekM Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Boston Posts: 205	Originally Posted by Delscottio 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.
	Last edited by MarekM; 6th May 2009 at 03:44 PM.

6th May 2009, 04:18 PM	#18
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,581	Originally Posted by 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. And because we allow massive misinformation spreading via the mass media without adequate rebuttal of the bad information. Quote: 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.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

6th May 2009, 05:30 PM	#19
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella 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.
	Last edited by shadron; 6th May 2009 at 05:32 PM.

7th May 2009, 07:33 AM	#20
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,069	Originally Posted by 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. 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?
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

7th May 2009, 08:02 AM	#21
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,947	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.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,947	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

7th May 2009, 09:17 AM	#22
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,425	Originally Posted by Delscottio 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.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th May 2009, 09:35 AM	#23
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,328	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.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

7th May 2009, 10:41 AM	#24
Beth Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Flatland Posts: 5,307	Originally Posted by skeptigirl 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. Originally Posted by shadron 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. Originally Posted by fuelair 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.
	__________________ Beth "You are not the stuff of which you are made." Richard Dawkins, July 2005, 10:45 http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_daw..._universe.html

7th May 2009, 11:29 AM	#25
Eos of the Eons Mad Scientist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta Posts: 13,894	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?
	__________________ Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!

7th May 2009, 11:38 AM	#26
Cayvmann Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 578	Originally Posted by pgwenthold 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.
Cayvmann Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 578

7th May 2009, 07:04 PM	#27
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,947	Originally Posted by Beth 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.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,947	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

7th May 2009, 07:38 PM	#28
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,199	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
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.