Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

I've tried to read through this and respond several times, but I've had to go away and come back several times, because I'm just so upset and angry, both about this story and your reaction to it randman.I find it shocking and appalling beyond belief that you or anyone should defend the terrible actions of these idiot "parents". You can talk about religious freedom all you like, but the truth is that there are restrictions on freedom in modern society. Freedom of speech famously does not include the right to shout fire in a crowded room. The value of such a freedom is judged as not being worth the awful consequences it brings. The same principle rather obviously applies here.The consequence of the expression of this staggeringly trivial element of religious freedom is the death of Madeline Neumann. If you think that her slow and torturous death, protracted over several days, is an acceptable price to pay for this wretched scrap of religious dogma, then shame on you. How many children must die in agony before you would say "too much, the freedom is not worth the cost"? I do not ask that even one single child should die to defend my beliefs. That you do is fucking sick and monstrous. Shame on you. So the freedom that we are arguing must be sacrificed is a very minor one, affecting only a tiny handful of people. If the reward for such an enforced sacrifice is that a single child is saved, then it will be worth it. Your talk of freedom is sickening. Where was Madeline Neumann's freedom to live? That you do not possess the basic moral capacity to see this is shocking and frightening. I worry for those around you if you really have such difficulty telling right from wrong.The Constitution is no defence in a case like this, for the very same reason that I mentioned before; we do not enjoy the freedom to deprive others of their freedoms. That is why we do not have the freedom to shout fire in a crowded room and that is why we do not have the freedom to stand idly by and watch as a child dies of an easily preventable disease. It is the Wisconsin law that is unconstitutional, since it allows those of religious conviction to commit a terrible crime, for which any other person would rightly be prosecuted. So it is somehow acceptable to allow another person to die through one's inaction? Pathetic. If this is so acceptable, why do you think there are negligence laws at all? The decision of those scumbag "parents" directly led to their daughter's death. They had the option of saving her life at any time, but they chose not to bother, for fear of compromising their beliefs in a very trivial way. That's just wrong. It might be slightly less evil than actively murdering Madeline but such equivocation is of minor importance when discussing the avoidable death of an innocent little girl. So the religious should just be allowed to opt out of the law as it suits them? I wonder how that sits with your precious constitution. I agree. But that isn't actually the issue under discussion here. What we are talking here is whether parents have the right to impose death upon their children. If some fruitcake wants to refuse medical treatment on religious grounds, then let them. What no sane society could ever accept, is that parents should be able to impose death upon their own children, for any reason, religious or not.From your earlier post; Damn right I am. You have it in a fucking nutshell. I wish to impose my belief that it is wrong to stand by and watch a child die a needless death upon society. I also wish to impose my opinion that it is wrong to batter a child to death with a hammer upon society. Murder, rape, assault, these are all things that I consider wrong, and I wish to impose my view on this upon others. Fortunately, quite a lot of other people agree with me on these points and our mutual will is imposed upon others, thank god.I expect that when they finally get their useless asses into gear, the Wisconsin legislature will strike this piece of crap exception from the records. I believe this because I have family in Wisconsin, so I know for a fact that not all of its citizens have as little regard for the sanctity of human life as you do. Not all of them think that their beliefs are so damn important that innocent children must die to preserve them. Shame on you randman, shame.

---

Mutate and Survive

H, I'm surprised and disappointed that you are choosing to take this position. Nonetheless, I'm a little bit calmer now, so I'll try to reign in the less-than-civil tone of my reply to randman. Nice way to mangle the quote. Here's what Franklin actually said. Bolding mine of course. Just how essential do you believe the freedom to treat seriously ill children with prayer to be exactly? Also, as FliesOnly has pointed out, this exemption in law offers no-one outside of the lunatic fringe of religious belief any freedom or security at all. If an atheist treated a seriously ill child using homoeopathy and that child died, they would be subject to prosecution.Freedoms are balanced in any society. We all trade off some of our freedom to do as we please, in the name of the common good. This particular facet of religious freedom is, in my opinion, a small price to pay in order to safeguard children against the delusions of their parents. There is no comparison between the accidental deaths of those receiving medical treatment and the completely avoidable death of Madeline Neumann. Perhaps I should be more precise. I do not ask that even one single child should needlessly die to defend my beliefs. That some people should die as a result of medical intervention is a sad inevitability, but one that is unavoidable if many, many more are to be saved by medicine. The children who die as a result of treatment must be weighed against the successes of modern medicine. All we have to way Madeline Neumann and others lives against is the free expression of a delusional belief in the fictitious power of prayer. Directly causing the death of a person by omission of action is illegal in Wisconsin I believe. This would be illegal for an atheist, but legal in a case like this. If you believe that causing harm to others by negligence is somehow acceptable, are you opposed to anyone being prosecuted for neglect? What if the parents withheld food from a child? They would not be actively killing the child, they would be causing its death by omission of action. That is why neglect is usually illegal; unless you are religious and completely mad to boot. Indeed, this exemption seems to be squarely aimed at one of the loopiest sections of society, hardly a good idea for child protection. OK, let's agree that we all find it shocking. I am just very surprised that some of still see fit to support the disastrous actions of such "parents". Of course this is a case of right and wrong. That people may disagree about it does not mean that it is not a moral issue. If we are honest, we all believe that we are right and that anyone who disagrees with us is wrong. It's called having an opinion. If I voiced mine a little to stridently earlier, that is because I tried to calm down before posting several times, but found myself unable to.It ought to be obvious that the state does take part in turning morality into law. That is right and proper. Of course I don't want to be the final arbiter of what laws should be passed; the US is a democracy and I am a democrat. If the will of the people should fail to coincide with my own view, that is just too bad for me. In this case however, I do think that the majority view is that sick children should receive medical aid, even if their parents are fucking crazy. Converse belief? What are you talking about? They were choosing to treat their child with nothing more than their own private convictions. That is unethical, since sensible people do not rely on their convictions in such cases, preferring instead to rely on the collective efforts of rigorous evidence based medicine.Of course the parents actions can be understood by bearing in mind the fact that they are deluded. Peter Sutcliffe, AKA the Yorkshire Ripper was deluded too. He claimed that God told him to murder prostitutes. Should we defend his world-view on religious grounds? Perhaps it is only criminal negligence that can be excused in this fashion. My way would mean that no clearly avoidable deaths need be tolerated. I am only asking that all citizens of Wisconsin, and other states that have similar exemptions, be extended the same privilege, whether they be the children of believers or atheists; the right to life. You seeming suggestion that this be trumped by the parent's right to religious freedom is absurd. Children are simply to young to make such decisions for themselves, and in choosing to deny Madeline treatment, the Neumanns robbed her of the opportunity to grow up and potentially disagree with them. I think it's sad that you want such cases to go unpunished.Edited by Granny Magda, : Typo and minor language change.

---

Mutate and Survive

What? Not even the freedom to kill anyone who annoys me, defecate wherever I please, shout fire in crowded rooms... Don't be silly. That some freedoms are restricted is a central part of any society which enjoys the rule of law. I find it hard too believe that Franklin was unaware of this obvious truism. So essentially, you are defending the right of parents to neglect their children, even if the consequences are fatal. You say you disagree with the homoeopathy example, but it seems pretty clear that without the protection of the specific exemption, anyone neglecting to provide medical treatment for a sick child in Wisconsin would be charged with negligent homicide. Please demonstrate how this is not the case. Clinical trials. That is how real medicine determines what works and what is just wishful thinking. Prayer tends to perform quite badly at clinical trial. As for your enjoying protection from having your own delusions challenged; you don't. This is a very specific exemption, which excuses the actions of religious fruitcakes, whilst offering no protection to anyone else. What would that even look like? It should be perfectly obvious that no child is deliberately sacrificed, and that every child undergoing treatment gets the best possible chance of a positive result. That's what this thread is about, not the occasional failings of medicine. I decide for myself. You decide for yourself. Parents decide for their children. But when the parents in question wish to pursue a course of action that is clearly going to lead to the death of the child, the state is forced to step in. The child's right to life trumps the parents "right" to force their child to go along with their wacky religious beliefs. Oh, so now we are bartering rights? I thought that none were up for barter. Right and wrong are not religious concepts, plenty of people with no religion still manage to maintain a system of moral values. It is not the place of science to make such judgements. It is up to the individual, and an eleven year old child is not old enough to make such judgements. Apart from being human beings with a right to life. But OK, let's assume that the parents of a child decide to directly kill a child, for its own good and because God told them to. Would that be wrong? Is it only causing death by omission of action which you excuse? This is not a case of sacrificing kids upon the altar of science, if it were I would reject it. No child is made to undergo treatment unless there is reason to believe said treatment is in their best interest. No. Well tough, because it already does.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

Mutate and Survive