Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

Some of it is due to stress. My life has been a lot more busy lately. Also, I've been going for a career change, which means I've had to put my application to adopt on hold, something I've been looking forward for years now. Have I mentioned this topic hit a nerve in me? It may surprise you to know, but some of us actually care enough for the kids out there that we'd rather not have our own biological kids so we could adopt all the way. As soon as my new career is set and our lives completely settled, we will take in at least 5 kids. Hell, if riverrat can breed out 5 kids, I don't see any reason why I can't adopt at least 5 kids.Anyway, that's probably the primary source of my frustration. I can't describe to you how much my spouse and I care for the children out there. It just ticks me off to see parents using religion as an excuse to their inhumane treatment of the most helpless members of our society. Like I said, I swear my head will explode if people begin to offer prayers for this girl's soul. She was literally prayed to death, for god's sake.

You said willful torture and murder, not me. That is different than criminal negligence which is what you appear to be setting out here. I believe all murders do involve intention to harm, which is obviously not the case here.On the point of negligence, they thought they were doing right (aka helping) according to their own way of thinking. I believe that is really all that should be asked of anyone. So if you have a child with advanced cancer, and your choice is between letting the child die without the suffering involved with chemo treatments, and doing so with the unguaranteed possibility the cancer might be put into remission, society has the right to force your child to go through the chemo? To say you are stupid?How about if your kid is on life support for a number of years and it doesn't look like there is much hope on recovery? Society gets to make that decision for your child? I agree that this is a huge point of disagreement between us. If the same concepts of child and live were shared by all, and all healing treatments of known risk, then I would agree with you. However, none of these are true. This is why these are decisions for someone to make, and in keeping with the concept of freedom, it is not the State's right to be that decision maker.Where your arguments fail to convince another regarding the right way to live, your vote should not either. I think you are arguing this from a point where you currently hold with the majority on these matters. I would point out that quantity of life is not the only valid worldview. For those that are religious (and some secularists) quality is also an issue. The value of a free society is that people are free to practice their own belief systems.To accept your position is to fully embrace the arguments against abortion. I think you misunderstood my point. I am saddened when the new majority attempts to impose its opinions on others. It is not true that that is what "we" do every day, nor what courts and legislature are for. Many of the founding fathers made this explicit. They warned that it is likely majorities would try, but that they are to be fought. The gov't that governs best, governs least. One does not have to choose between anarchy or imposition of majority opinion. That is in fact why the Bill of Rights was created, to create a limited gov't.AbE: By the way, if you haven't figured it out already, molbio was referring to me when she said Holmes. Feel free to read through the thread she linked to and let me know where I said anything close to what she claimed. Though I would advise not wasting your time. She was just jerking my chain, using you. It makes for great ad hominem and guilt by association though.Edited by Silent H, : moldio

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I think your personal efforts are admirable. I don't wish to come off as saying you are uncaring, or that I disagree with the way you care for kids. Heck, I don't even want to come off as agreeing with the methods of the parents we are discussing.I agree that even more prayer just heightens the ridiculousness. Then again, my guess is that's just what they'll do.I will disagree however that all such parents are using religion as an excuse for inhumane treatment. Maybe some are. But I've known people like this that have abstained from medicine themselves (some died, some not). It is a real outlook on the world. As strange and odious as it may seem, I cannot agree with any claim that it is not genuine. I also disagree with people thinking too much about children in other families. That is only a recipe for anger and frustration. And as I said, I really do worry that they are becoming a tool to pry back freedom in general.I may happen to agree with what you would do with such power, I simply do not agree with how it has been used in the past and might be used in the future by others... particularly ideologues (secular or religious).Where we are in disagreement, I hope that it is without rancor.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Sorry to burst you bubble, but that’s called “asserting that you have some stewardship over their children.” One: You wrongly assume it’s for this one instance.Two: I have stated plainly I think we shouldn’t.Three: I have answered the question several times.Four: The answer was not , "I don't think it's my place."I wrote, “I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.”And yes, I’m sure I think this. That’s kind of why I wrote it.And no, you’ve provided examples of what you think should give you “some stewardship over their children”.I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.And I don’t develop the right because I don’t like what they’re doing.And I don’t develop the right because I really don’t like what they’re doing.And I don’t develop the right because I really, really don’t like what they’re doing.And I don’t develop the right because I really, really, really don’t like what they’re doing. See #1 above. My augment is, “I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.”I agree with the parents at no point. They are wrong. Horribly, terribly wrong. However, I don’t develop the right because I really, really, really, really don’t like what they’re doing.I understand completely. No part of my position states that any person does not have the right to live. It states, “I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.”

---

KindlyWhen I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

Thanks. I am too busy to post much at this time.....your comments, however, express my views on this as well, maybe better than I would.

Don't get me wrong. I fully understand that some of them are genuine. That said, people ought not to use children as guinea pigs for alternative meds, miracle cures, or any of that bullshit. We know that modern medicine works. We know that modern medical science is an ever improving field whereas miracle cures and all that crap have shown virtually no progress whatsoever. I simply don't understand why you are arguing to allow these people to continue to use their children as guinea pigs for bullshit beliefs.I'm sure suicide bombers in the middle east genuinely believe in their faith and cause. That doesn't excuse them from murdering innocent people. Your entire argument seems to rest completely on their belief in their bullshit faith healing crap therefore they ought to be allowed to put their children through slow and painful deaths. I'm sorry, H, but this argument is bullshit. At this point, I don't really care how much philosophical mumble jumble you throw at me, this argument of yours is bullshit. Here is something that has been bothering me from the beginning of this conversation. You have repeatedly accused us of using these children as a tool to take away religious freedom, or at least you've been implying it. Let me just tell you right now. I am not using these children as an excuse to vent my frustration on religion. I genuinely care for these children. Thousands of children are being maimed and killed by their parents' neglect, and all you seem to be worried about is trying to protect people's "right" to torture their children. Let me make this clear once and for all. I am not in favor of banning religion. I am not in favor of banning prayers. Hell, even though I consider teaching your kids religion a form of child abuse, I am not in favor of taking that away.What I am in favor of, however, is getting rid of this stupid law that protects negligent and torturous parents simply because they are religious.If say I have a 5 year old son and one day he collapses. For whatever reason, I believe that just letting him lie there will somehow make him better. He dies a day later. For whatever reason, I truly believe that just letting his body lie there will bring him back to life. You can be sure that I will be prosecuted for half a dozen charges including manslaughter and child negligence.But wait. If, on the other hand, I claim that jesus told me to not do anything to get my kid better, I get a free ticket out of jail? Do you not see the ridiculousness of this law?Nobody is suggesting we infringe on people's freedom of religion. What we want is to see these irresponsible parents brought to justice. You can have all the faith you want. But making your kids go through very slow and painful death is just too far.Do you have any idea the kind of suffering people with type one diabetes go through without medical treatment?PS You kinda remind me of christians' attempts at rationalizing genocide. I don't know why, but it just popped into my mind. May be it's because in both cases you can use philosophical mumble jumble to justify clear acts of evil. Unlike you, however, I can't talk or write that way. Edited by True Believer, : No reason given.

Negligent homicide is defined as "a charge brought against people, who by inaction, allow others under their care to die." (Wikipedia article)What the parents of this particular child committed was indeed negligent homicide. I don't consider praying to be a form of action. This was not a case of simply letting a terminally ill child die. I'm an EMT. I treat people in diabetic comas regularly. I have a number of friends who have juvenile diabetes. Had this child's mother done something other than pray for help, this child would not be dead. What they did is tantamount to me coming on a scene, seeing someone who has just been ejected from a car lying on the pavement, and simply standing there hoping they'll stand up and be ok. There is no excuse for inaction.For someone who is arguing about the quality of life, you seem to be forgetting that this girl has no quality of life anymore. Had she been treated, even given a damn glucose tab, she would probably not be dead. Instead, her mother decided that she didn't need doctors in order to treat her child, and was grossly wrong. In my book, that is obviously negligent homicide.If someone has a seizure in front of you, you don't just stand there and pray for their health, you call 911. If someone falls off their roof and can't move, you don't pray that God will make them walk, you call 911. If your mom won't wake up for reason, you don't just stand their willing her to awaken, you call 911.I have absolutely no sympathy for these parents, and I hope they get jail time. I'm sorry to see that these people have already procreated because it would seem to me that they have relinquished their right to raise a child.

---

And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54

Under those circumstances where the patient volunteers. Since children don't volunteer to have the parents they do, we must be talking about those times when a patient has not volunteered - such as in an emergency. If a family member of yours was killed through the neglect of the emergency services - you'd expect the paramedics/surgeons to be penalized for it. Society does get to make that call, and you are part of it. You know that if I raped by daughter every day, and then killed her by putting her in a microwave - and I did so claiming that it was the only way to save her soul - I would be hung drawn and quartered. The 'I'm doing it for the good of her soul' should not be a defence for criminal neglect nor should 'I'm doing for the good of her gredilfarb'. The government (and thus the people) do get to interfere when a family neglects its child to death, for whatever reason. Unless they claim prayer? If the child believes something completely different to its parents (ie, that prayer poisons the soul for example), its the parents beliefs that have priority according to the law. The defence is for the parents (or other family members), and is based on their stated beliefs and actions - it is nothing to do with the child's beliefs or actions.So no, it is exactly as I said. The child's right to life is undermined by the parent's right to neglect them. Maybe. And yet the law doesn't state this, and that is the problem. The law says that you have a responsibility towards your child to get medical assistance if they are sick, to get food if they are hungry, to educate them when they are ignorant...but if you neglect to get medical care when they are sick - you get a free pass if you are acting in 'religious or spiritual faith'. Secular good faith, at least in some states, is not an adequate defence.You see the problem?And no, the government is not a better owner. NOBODY OWNS A CHILD, child slavery is abhorrent. However, children do deserve protection, more than adults given their vulnerable position, and yet this law protects adults against their responsibility over the child.

I don't see the point. I don't get to withhold medical care from my children on the grounds that the healthcare system is, according to a paper you produced, dangerous. I do get to withhold medical care from my children if I close my eyes and thing and hope really hard about them getting better or dangle pink crystals over their heads, or shake salt over them or telepathically communicate with a deity to intercede or whatever No, you brought up the motivations of drug companies. I was talking about practising doctors in hospitals. Remember that the defence being used is not the healthcare system is dangerous. It's the I didn't need to get another human being to a practitioner of medical healing because I providing prayer healing defence.I have a wonderful idea - let's look at a country with a crappier healthcare system than the US, but a more religious one. Angola for instance where infant mortality is 30 times higher than the US and just about everybody is religious. Should we invest in an increase in prayer and spiritual healing or should we invest in the healthcare system? You're the president of Angola for this hypothetical, it's your call. (you may replace it with Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Liberia, or somewhere Christian like Ethiopia if you like).The point remains and it needs underlining, secular reasons for neglect don't seem to be good enough - I have provide a link for you Buz where it was the case that the medical system did fail a mother and she was still held responsible for her child's welfare - the failings of the healthcare system are not a viable defence, they have been tried and failed in front of a jury! However, you can escape even going in front of a jury if the police feel that you had a religious belief which meant you didn't get assistance for the human being that God has given to you for your care.

---

ABE
As for the health care risks in these kinds of cases?

quote:

---

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate deaths of children from families in which faith healing was practiced in lieu of medical care and to determine if such deaths were preventable. DESIGN: Cases of child fatality in faith-healing sects were reviewed. Probability of survival for each was then estimated based on expected survival rates for children with similar disorders who receive medical care. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-two children who died between 1975 and 1995 and were identified by referral or record search. Criteria for inclusion were evidence that parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals and documentation sufficient to determine the cause of death. RESULTS: One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. Eighteen more had expected survival rates of >50%. All but 3 of the remainder would likely have had some benefit from clinical help. CONCLUSIONS: When faith healing is used to the exclusion of medical treatment, the number of preventable child fatalities and the associated suffering are substantial and warrant public concern. Existing laws may be inadequate to protect children from this form of medical neglect.

---

140 children who (with medical care) had a over 90% chance of surviving - at least 125 of those kids would likely have survived with medical attention. The healthcare system is more dangerous than abstaining from medical care falls flat here, no?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And I've asked you severaly times, where do you draw the line?I suppose now is a good a time as any to assume that you agree with the following:Parents should be allowed to neglect caring for their children to the point of death during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to break their child's arm during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to drop their child off in the middle of a forest so that God can save their immortal soul during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to behead their children at any time during their "good faith rearing".So, those are all included in “I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.”When does this right stop? When the child turns 18?Are you saying you want it to be legal for a parent to break the arm of their child every year up until they turn 18? After all, they only want to break their arm during their "good faith rearing".When does someone stand up for the rights of the child?I think someone should stand up for the rights of the child as soon as those rights are breached.Apparently you think we should wait until the child turns 18.Of course, a family could just kill their child during their "good faith rearing" at the age of 17. Then they can have another child, to repeat the process. Do you seriously advocate this position? I don't think you understand. I don't think I should interfere because I "really, really, really don't like what they're doing". I agree that this is a pitiful excuse. I think I should interfere because we can objectively show that the parents are breaching the rights of the child. We can show that this is wrong as much as we can show that murder is wrong.Why would you even consider that "liking what they're doing" has anything to do with the problem?It's trivial to show that these parents are hurting their child as much as any murderer hurts any other victim. I'll do so right here for you:1. Every person has the right to life.
2.a A murderer removes another person's right to life when they kill their victim. Therefore the murderer should be punished.
2.b These parents removed their child's right to life when they refused to give her the simple medical care that would allow her to live. Therefore, the parents should be punished.You see? No where does it say "I really, really, really think the parents were wrong". I'm simply following the laws we already have in place.Note that the parents intentions are non-existent in showing their error.
Note that the knowledge of this girl having diabetes is non-existent in showing the parents' error.

Let me first explain the legal context from which I am coming. In Irish law, welfare of the child in cases like this easily outranks religious freedom. The state would have moved in before the newspapers even heard of it.First of all, under what situations in American law would social workers/"the state" be allowed to move in?
Secondly and I will be blunt, how stupid is the religious faith allowed to get before the state can intervene?
Now although these people genuinely believed what they were saying and as such it is a genuinely held world view, I think we can all agree that it is a ridiculous one.Silent H is concerned that the state intervening in these type of situations would be the crowbar* that could later be used to pry away our freedom. Now since this does occur in Ireland and causes nobody concerns for their freedom, I was wondering what is different in American law that could make this a genuine concern.*Warning terrible metaphor

Wow...I go to bed a bit early, and look at all the stuff I have missed. The rant does not depart from anything you said, clearly or otherwise. They are all valid "Worldviews" that you seem to think each person is not only entitled to have, but to live by as well Which is exactly what I said above...so why did you imply that it was a non-related "rant"? Make up your mind, Silent H. Can I beat the crap out of my wife (without fear of any criminal prosecution) for burning my dinner or not? But you are wrong. We do not have Constitution which is suppose to keep people from imposing their "Worldviews" on others, per say. We have a Constitution designed to protect our freedoms...but it has restrictions..."We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."...does not mean each individual can live by their Worldview at the expense of others.And even though you say you are arguing against this position, in reality you seem to be arguing for this position. That is, it seems to me, at least, that you do think that a person should be able to live by their own Worldview, at the expense of others. How else can a parent directly kill their child, and not be held responsible"You need to remember that this is NOT a case of religious freedoms. It is NOT a 1st Amendment issue. The Wisconsin legislature has passed a law exempting Christians from prosecution for killing their kids. That is what's at issue here. You do realize that the 1st Amendment does not give Christians the right to kill their children...right? Where do you get this paranoid crap? Honestly Silent H, I don't now what you're talking about here.What if these parents were babysitting a neighbors child. Would it have been OK to let that child? According to you..."yes".Does this family pray for everything? Do they live in a house? Do they use electricity? Do they consume food? Do they have jobs? Do they drive a car? If they do, then their "faith" defense falls apart. It does not matter one iota if they "knew" their child was diabetic or not. Unless they use (and are successful with) the power of prayer and faith to provide every need in their lives, then they are well aware that God does not provide for their every need. They have no leg to stand on. It was negligent homicide (at best), pure and simple. I did not say it secured anything, Silent H...where did you get that idea?Here's what you did say, in total:So your position, then, is that in sacrificing (ie. giving up) the freedom to kill your child on a religious whim, you give up your security (ie. protection) from the evil empire (The State). A bit paranoid, are we Silent H? I mean, seriously, to go from:
"it should be legal to kill your kids"
to:
"making it illegal to kill your kids means that I am no longer free from the control of The State",
is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think? Well, luckily you are wrong...as others have already pointed out to you. Wha? Sure it is. These parents killed their child in the name of their God. If they had done the EXCACT SAME THING, except that they claimed to have done it in the name of Thor, they would have been arrested and charged. Do you not agree? "Your honor...I did not kill my child...the bullet killed my child. Sure, I pulled the trigger...but I had total faith in Zeus that the bullet would not harm my child...Oops". Come on Silent H, get real.Their choice TO DO NOTHING killed their child. Like I said earlier, Silent H...unless they prayed for everything they needed and unless every prayer was answered, their defense is meaningless. Are you for real? Nobody can be this ignorant and still function normally in society. You're such a big protector of our Constitutional freedoms, but yet, according to you...we really shouldn't have one. Everyone should just be able to do whatever the hell they want. You are an enigma, wrapped in riddle, surrounded by a dilemma. You make no sense whatsoever. So in addition to being brilliant Constitutional scholar, you're a lawyer too? Again, others have addressed this, so I will simply say that you are wrong, and let it go at that. Really...wow...thanks for the insight...I never knew this. What's your point though?However, it is a means by which the family can collect compensatory damages. Sure, their child is still dead...but they can collect damages. I want the Constitution.
I like the Constitution.You, Silent H, are the one arguing against it.You, Silent H, are the one who wants to have the right of everybody to live by their own personal "Worldview".I, Silent H, am the one arguing against such a stupid idea.That, Silent H, is why we have the Constitution.And I'm sorry Silent H, but this is NOT a 1st Amendment issue. If it were, then the Wisconsin Legislature would not have needed to write a law protecting Christians from the legal consequences of killing their children.Edited by FliesOnly, : To clarify my position on a couple of points. I re-read what I wrote, and it seemed a bit unclear in a couple of places.

A more interesting question is this: let's say a doctor advised you to feed Formula X to your child and neglected to say that if you feed the child Formula X and you live in a hardwater area, your child has a 99% chance of dying. Your child dies because you live in a hardwater area.The law as it stands now, could prosecute you for criminally negligent homicide.However, if a doctor advises you that without some life-saving surgery there is a greater than 99% chance your child will die, that your child has a 98% chance of surviving the surgery and making a full recovery...but the parent demurs and treats their child with prayer and then their child dies they can escape being charged for criminally negligent homicide by virtue of having sought spiritual treatment.I can only assume that given what you have said in this thread, you would be appalled at the state's intervention in the first case and glad of the state's non-intervention in the second.This is the way of things in most US states today. If you earnestly believe you are giving the child what it needs but it turns out you are not, you can be charged if your earnest belief is secular but not charged if your belief is religious or spiritual.I'm all for the beliefs of the potential defendant to have mitigative powers. If you really earnestly believe someone is about to kill you, that should mitigate your killing them - even if they weren't going to kill you.But if the state holds that a parent has a responsibility towards ensuring their beliefs about how to care for their child are accurate unless those beliefs are regarding treating biological faults with voodoo or whatever...something is wrong. Why are family members obligated to confirm the accuracy of their beliefs (presumably by consulting with a wide variety of experts) when it comes to breast milk or baby formula - but they aren't when it comes to dancing a-widdershins around them to drive out the acidosis spirits?

This is nothing more than a cheap and total avoidance of what is really a cut and dry issue. And it's total BS. Your position does imply that some people do not have a right to life. You can't have it both ways. If you feel that killing your child is a part of "good faith rearing", then by default, you must also feel that that child did not, as it turns out, have a right to life.Maybe in your make believe, philosophical World, killing a child does not take away their right to life...but here in the real World, it most certainly does.And while we're at it, define "good faith rearing"?Can there be "bad faith rearing"?Would you feel the right to interfere if you deemed something to be "bad faith rearing"?Your position seems quite similar to the argument Silent H is putting forth, which, as far as I can tell, seems to suggest that people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want...that nobody has the right to tell anyone else how they should live their lives. Do you seriously believe this?We, as a society, have every right to decide what we will determine to be right and wrong. And we long ago decided that killing someone is wrong.
And while there certainly may be instances with extenuating circumstances...this particular example most certainly does not fall into that category. These parents stood by and did nothing while their child's health worsened and worsened over time...right before their very eyes. Did they fail to "see" that God was not answering their prayers?Or, here's a thought...maybe God answered that prayer a long fucking time ago when doctors found ways to treat diabetes.Either way, to let you're child die a slow miserable death is not what I would consider "good faith rearing" It's sad that you think it is.

I'd again like to request that members refrain from posting while feeling particularly impassioned.