Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

Good morning Modulous:The physician is still not free to do as he pleases because there has been a standard of care in place that the non-competent patient was, hopefully, aware of when they were competent. If those standards include hauling one off to the faith healer after an auto wreck It would behoove said patient to make alternative arrangements before hand.If you don’t mind my cutting to the chase: I do not accept that society has the grant to unilaterally mold the social contract as it were. This country was formed in the not do distant past when parental authority was almost absolute. Those entering into this society did so under the terms that the government would not interfere with their religious beliefs. It was taken for granted that the rearing of ones children under ones own religion was part and parcel of the contract. That both sides acted accordingly confirmed the contract.If society wants to alter this contract they must do so up front. The nibbling away at it until it’s a fait accompli is not legitimate. The government needs to stand up, plead the necessity of restricting the stewardship of parents over their children, and ratify the 28^th amendment to our constitution. If they can get it done the problem is solved, and we’re all together again.For Utah to enter into this society in 1896 the Mormon population had to conform their religion to better fit the standards of the nation. They agreed to the terms and became the 45^th state.I would further agree that this very much does seem as if I’m standing on ceremony; but, when there are remedies to be had, I believe the onus is upon society to go the extra mile that they don’t eventually become a dictatorship. The problem I have with this statement is “get to”. I’d be having a real problem with this if there was an established religion that did openly profess such a stance and we had allowed them to enter into our society with that knowledge. As it is, the “Yeah, right.” offensive is more than is needed to over come such a defense. Who determines the religious beliefs of a three year old child?And where I would fully agree with you, if you were to make the objection that the beliefs of the nine year old in the instant case were the result of brain washing, I’d still bet you good money that her beliefs would conform to her parents.So who determines her beliefs then? Again we substantially agree. In the great majority of cases, so great that the other side can almost be ignored, that this will only apply to religion. But that is an artifact of religious folks being kooks. Shall we codify it into law that religious people are kooks?Let me make a clarification here: I do not support the parents expending their child to support their religious beliefs, but using their religious beliefs to ascertain the child's best interests, and then to act in accord with that ascertainment.As an aside to Stile: To your earlier example of a vegan’s child being malnourished as a direct result of the parents beliefs. After it became apparent that the child was malnourished the parents were no longer acting in accordance with their duty to act in the best interest of their child. They were acting in the best interests of their belief.But I do support secular good faith. These parents were protecting their child. They were protecting her ability to get into heaven. It is not mine nor yours to determine that which entails full extent of the protection of the child. Unless, of course, we take the hard road of establishing our right as a society to take over the stewardship of children we believe to be at risk. Establishing does not mean taking by might.

---

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.

Good mornig Stile: If you can show that any of these things are openly expressed tenets of an established religion, and were necessary for the child to get into heaven so that its immortal soul would not forever suffer in fire and brimstone, and that we have been accepting of these practices having allowed them standing in society, then they become pertinent. Until then they are blather. From the vantage of the parents you are attempting to violate the rights of their child. Who makes the call? You can objectively show to the limits of your standards that the parents are breaching the rights of the child. You ignore the standards of the parents which include an after life that is much more significant that this one.Because you don’t like the outcome of their analysis you feel you have some right to substitute your own. I contend that you don’t. In Soudi Arabia (any similarity to an actuall country is unintended) it is the law that a woman can be beheaded for juggling more than two varieties of citrus fruit at a monster truck rally. They are simply following the laws they already have in place.Again, It is the duty of the parents by their stewardship to ascertain and accomplish what is in the best interests of their child. Until such time that religious belief are declared illegitimate by constitutional law* we are stuck with that.*Because we would be changing a long established right.

---

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.

Good morning Son Goku;We in America must delegitimize religion. How that is to be done is another kettle of fish.

---

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.

Yes.

---

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.

And a parent is not free to do as they please because society has placed upon them a standard of care in place that adults (who were once children) have agreed to. Unfortunately there is an exemption clause for not providing this standard of care that is not present in the standards we demand of doctors or any one else. When society does anything, it isn't unilateral, by definition. Yes, we do it all the time. It's happening now. The contract is ever changing. The protection of the right to life for all people is in place, but it can be removed under certain circumstance (running at a police officer with a firearm, mudering a thousand people in a state with the death penalty etc etc).It's all up front, and it's called law. I suggest that the law the US has regarding exemptions from charging parents with neglect because they treated their neglected child spiritually should be changed, up front. Either all sincerely held beliefs should give parents a get out of neglect charges free card, or no sincerely held beliefs should.If I starve my child 'for its own spiritual good' (say I am a Gnostic who believes in purity through potentially lethal levels of starvation), that should be protected? If I starve my child because I believed what I was feeding them was nutritious but it wasn't...should that be protected?Needless to say, the point of the matter is that the state can and does interfere in the welfare of a child and will charge parents even if they hold sincere beliefs that are negligent of the child's welfare. Unless the parent is negligent in the sphere of medical aid by treating the child with prayer. Then it's OK. See the disconnect? You're right - in the US, it should be an obligation for The People to act to defend the welfare and right to life of all people. Unless children aren't people that includes them. Establishment of religion is out of the window when it comes to the states. My newly formed religion has as much rights as yours does when it comes to the spiritual well-being of my children. Are you suggesting that there should be a judge who gets to decide which religions are permissable, and what point they become 'established' enough? Surely that would be a violation of that dear old Constitution?The correct response isn't "Yeah Right", but "Freedoms are necessarily limited". Under these laws the child can be 16 years old (or more in some of them). I'd say the child determines their beliefs, regardless of age. If a 15 year old was not given medical aid but was prayed over, even though he had clearly stated in public that he believes that souls were poisoned forever by prayer...the parents could still get off if the 15 year old died, because of this exemption.In the end, the point I am making is that the beliefs of the child are immaterial. You said that it was "not the religious right of the parent being protected, but that of the child.", hopefully it should be clear that this is not true. OK, so we agree that these laws are clearly discriminative of types of belief, elevating religious beliefs as a viable defence where secular ones are not.Do you believe it is possible to be criminally negligent?I can guarantee that in every case of parental negligence we would find a belief that the parent was acting under that explains why they were negligent. If we are to ever prosecute parents for being negligent...we have to draw a line. People have to accept responsibility for the consequences of putting their beliefs in practice, yes? Assuming there is a heaven and that the way to get there is to not receive medical treatment for trivial but life threatening medical conditions. And yet if I believe I can get my child into adulthood (which definitely does exist) by feeding her milk (which does exist) based on advice from a doctor (who definitely does exist), but I'm wrong - I could still go to prison, just like the woman in the example I gave earlier.Why? Because the law says that I have a responsibility to the preservation of the earthly life of my child until it reaches a certain age when it can make informed decisions about its spiritual fate. The law makes an arbitrary exemption to this responsibility in the case of prayer healing.However, it doesn't make this exemption in the case of punishing the child. I don't get to break my child's bones as punishment for the sake of her soul and entrance into a paradise world. I don't get to starve her to death (whilst feeding her water) in the interests of pleasing a deity who will reward her soul with perfecti status. Your argument about protecting the rights of the parents to safeguard a child's soul are peculiarly contemporary-popular-western-religion-centric. As if you are special pleading that withholding lifesaving medical attention is OK if it is good for the soul, but crushing a child's fingers for the good of soul is not OK.I have a broken finger, it was crushed and is now slightly deformed and it still throbs with pain several years after the accident, and I have lost some sensitivity to it.I have suffered from acidosis for a mere 18 hours and I have no lasting pain or discomfort from it.If you gave me the choice of having the same finger on my other hand crushed or going through acidosis again, I'd choose the finger - it is far more pleasant. And that is knowing that with acidosis, medical attention can quickly alleviate the suffering.And yet, you are suggesting that crushing the finger of a young girl for the good of her soul is more abhorrent than her parents maintaining in her the sickness of acidosis?You might try the 'Yeah right' defence - but pain rituals do exist and indeed are fairly common. Are you suggesting that if the State hears about a family that has crushed their child's fingers between two blocks of metal and have then neglected to get medical assistance shouldn't face a jury because of their religious beliefs?

Thank you MBG.Gotta problem though. In this message 50 I see Mr Jack responding to randman. And through the rest of the page of messages I find no reference to Justice Holmes. I've missed something. More help please?ABE: See, I told you I missed something.Nevermind.Edited by AZPaul3, : better information

Ah... so you don't believe that "good faith child rearing" is the issue.You believe that the issue is "good faith child rearing as long as that faith is in an established religion and the decision prevents the child from spending eternity suffering in fire and brimstone according to doctrine and society accepts their practices."Again, when does the child get to decide for herself if she lives or dies? Only when she's 18? The same people who always make the call. The judges and courts of our society. They can view the case and clearly see that these parents violated their child's right to live. No, I didn't show anything to the limits of my standards at all. My personal standards were not involved in any way. I objectively showed the parents to be negligent of our society's agreed upon standards.You keep saying I have a vested personal interest here. Why do you think I would make the same mistake you are making? I'm arguing against you, I don't think we should take our personal interests into account. I think we should live by the rule we can show to be above all others:That all people (including children) have the right to live.You seem to be against this, why? Why do you think children should not have an individual right to life? Simply because an outdated, previously accepted religion says so? You know that this is the same arguement people used to defend slavery and racism, right? Are you sure that this is the precedent you want to be drawing your moral decisions from?That's okay, though. If that's your defense, I have history on my side with eventually turning over these poor excuses for laws. I will gladly accept that your only defense is "it's tradition". I will await the inevitable day when your tradition is, again, shown to be the horrific abuse of others that it really is. I can only hope that more little girls do not have to die before that happens.Tradition is a horrible reason to kill a little girl. I'll stick with what we can show.

Would it help if I typed slower?

---

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.

Just a short note, here: I'm pretty sure it's a Wisconsin state law, not a US law.From the article, as quoted by Taz in the OP: I don't know enough about law to say that the situation is different in the other states, but I would like to think that at least some states are intelligent enough to not pass laws like this. I'm pretty sure Utah doesn't let people off like this: we Mormons are taught at church to not be stupid.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

Last I checked, which was yesterday, 44 out of 50 states have such a statute.

Yeah, it's state law but I was short-handing it because most states have it. 44 I believe molbiogirl pointed out earlier. I provided a list to all the states that do (I haven't counted them, feel free to ) back in Message 27. Utah Code Ann. 76-5-109 (2007) {Child Abuse} defines physical injury to include "any other condition which imperils the child's health or welfare and which is not a serious physical injury as defined..." with the following exemption:

quote:

---

A parent or legal guardian who provides a child with treatment by spiritual means alone through prayer, in lieu of medical treatment, in accordance with the tenets and practices of an established church or religious denomination of which the parent or legal guardian is a member or adherent shall not, for that reason alone, be considered to have committed an offense under this section.

---

Sorry bluejay

Unilaterally relative to the affected minority community. We have a standing tradition that minority communities be allowed to follow their religion within (nominally as often as not) agreed upon limits established before the fact. If we want to change those rules we need their consent in some fashion. But this piecemeal striping away of their current understanding of their rights is tyranny of the majority in slow motion.We can and should do it properly. That we haven't and aren't is to our shame.Edited by lyx2no, : Mistype.

---

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.

It is a serious pet peeve of mine when people post links, which they have apparently not read, or understood. If I take the time to write a reply, I really do read the links supplied to me (or state up front that I have not).The post I was answering (to which you replied) stated that their actions were willful torture and murder, which he had altered later to say there are other forms of murder. All I said is that I believe all murders involve intention to harm. I took your statement and link seriously, though it would be one of edification on legal terminology regarding murder, rather than substance of this discussion... because of course as we have already seen the LAW states that this is not a crime, hence the thread.But anyway, I looked at your link. The full description would not apply to these people. They did not avoid caring. They supplied what turned out to be inadequate care for the condition. There is a major difference between someone who thinks the only solution is to do X and avoids it, and someone who believes they may also do Y.I would also point out, that the article makes clear it does not carry the same weight as 1st and 2nd degree murder, and is more in keeping with manslaughter... which I would also agree to be a legal equivalent.On your assessment of this case. Have you read the articles? From some I have read, no one even knew she had diabetes. That alone, makes it different than what you have described, but for sake of argument let's say they knew. and yet... Admit it, as an EMT you know the latter statement is the correct one. People do die, even with medical treatment. It happens.These people were also treating something they felt was just as if not more important which is her soul. That goes into quality of life for religious people. I am not one of those, but I can certainly understand that if one holds that view, it would.All medical science can do is prolong quantity of life, and in some small ways improve physical quality of life. There are many other aspects to quality of life which may supersede those. This is as true for religious as secular people. Actually, I administer whatever aid I can while having someone else dial 911... unless a doctor or EMT are present. Some may pray. That is the reality of living in a world with many different belief systems.What I would most fear is having a faith based culture mandate that when I'm injured everyone pray, or dialing 911 results in a prayer squad showing up. I have no sympathy for their ignorance, yet I do feel sorry for their tragedy. What will jail time serve for anyone, especially their remaining children who would likely be forced into foster homes?One thing I find amazing by everyone freaking out on these people, is that they ignore some rather strong evidence in favor of the parents, twisting it to condemn them instead. They do have other children, and have successfully raised them to this point, some of them almost age of majority. Hence, the evidence is that they can raise and care for children. You have taken a singular tragedy in that family and erased the contrary evidence to your position... the message we must take is that other kids are in danger!As it turns out, the other kids are not just fine, but agree with the actions of the parents. Perhaps the little girl also felt this way, even as she was dying. It is a different world view.

---

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

Hello lyx2no:Well, let's see nowI wrote so I assume that you know what's coming next.Who decides if it's "bad faith rearing"?But first, I have to ask what you mean by "faith". Are you using "faith" in a religious sense, or are you using it more in the sense of a reliance or a commitment? That is to say, are you passing judgement on someones religion being bad...and as such you'd consider their child rearing to be based on "bad faith", or do you mean to imply that "bad faith rearing" would be the parents doing something that you deem as inappropriate, without any religious attachments?Nonetheless, I fail to see how you can not consider letting your child die a slow miserable death as "bad faith rearing" unless you are using "faith" in the religious sense...and you feel that Christians should be allowed to kill their children if they feel so inclined. Honestly, I fail to see how your point of view can be taken in any other way...especially when viewed in context with your earlier response to my question..

Hello Flies. Again the admin has stated people should refrain from writing when angry. This is what I requested in my reply, and you have failed to do so. I will not be replying to you, until you can write a cogent, mature argument.I also happen to like the Constitution. I want it. Simply stating that I don't, and you like it better is not adequate. Then again, neither was the rest. Calm down, review my position and arguments without your filter, and then blast away using real arguments. More light, less heat.Goodbye Flies.

---

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