…and this is a 
None so blind as those who will not see
Category: Religion
Posted on: March 26, 2008 11:58 AM, by PZ Myers
This is a tragic story of the malign effects of religious ignorance.
An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday.
Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said Madeline Neumann died Sunday.
"She got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said.
Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.
The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said.
They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said. The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.
But wait! That isn't the punchline. Read this and weep.
The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.
"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."
Their sister is dead of stupidity and neglect; she died painfully with their dumb-as-rocks parents hovering over her, chanting to their sky fairy. And this brain dead cop sees no sign of abuse? What is it, does calling it religion make it invisible?
Comments
I wish I could be as incredulous about it as you are, but in this ridiculous American society, religion always seems to get a free pass. So many things that would otherwise be criminal are okay so long as they are done in the name of religion. It really makes you doubt the existence of that whole separation of church and state thing.
Posted by: Cyde Weys | March 26, 2008 12:00 PM
No signs of abuse huh?
Well in America this has about become par for the course. It really should be actionable to not take a minor for medical treatment.
I suspect these people are probably fervent anti choice people as well. So you can't abort them but if them get sick post birth they won't treat them.
Family first, they support the 'traditional' family!
Posted by: Uber | March 26, 2008 12:06 PM
Resurrected? wtf
Other than the Zombie son I didn't think that us mere peons could be resurrected? Is there some other denomination's version of weirdness that says that Christians can be resurrected?
Is she just referring to the "afterlife"?
Either way I can't see how
could possibly be. Is neglect no longer considered abuse?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 26, 2008 12:11 PM
I am from New Bedford MA. the site of the Robidoux trial:
http://www.neirr.org/attcompro.htm
Posted by: Lago | March 26, 2008 12:12 PM
wwww wait a minute. Wasn't it YOU who defended the "right" of parents to kill their children by preventing doctors to rescue them ?
Jehowah witnesses, blood, transfusion, do you rememer ?
.
And now. Suddenly it is abuse.
So. Make up your mind. Either parents can make any decisions about their children, included ones that kill them, or they can not.
( prediction : blizzard of insults )
Posted by: T_U_T | March 26, 2008 12:12 PM
Yet Scottish Social Services will take kids away just because they're overweight.
Boggles the mind, all of it.
Posted by: Carlie | March 26, 2008 12:13 PM
The Religion Exemption:
Stupidity perpetrated in the name of [insert name of sky fairy here] is to be respected and, what the heck, admired. All individuals tempted to mockery should contact Matt Nisbet for important lessons in framing.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 26, 2008 12:13 PM
I had a 'WTF' moment reading that story this morning. I got to that line and wanted to scream at the cop who thought the remaining siblings were probably ok.
I mean, what the heck? They don't have diabetes yet. They must be perfectly safe, right?
Posted by: Schmeer | March 26, 2008 12:14 PM
This breaks my heart :(...truly makes me so sad :(.
wow Im an emo atheist...
Posted by: Andrew | March 26, 2008 12:14 PM
No abuse? This is the definition of abuse! Religion kills.
Posted by: Ric | March 26, 2008 12:14 PM
I wonder why these people who refuse medical attention for their dying children even bother with houses, electricity, cars, books, prepared foods, clothing, or any other manifestation of mankind's ingenuity at all. I mean, WTF? Just throw them all out in the snow to fight it out with the bears and wolves as God (apparently) intended!
Sickening. They should be up for negligent homicide, and they're not even being cited for neglect?
Ok, not yet anyways, but it could happen:
I'm doing my best to avoid saying something uncharacteristically inhumane.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 26, 2008 12:17 PM
# 5 -- No insults, but I think you overlooked the language of the JW post that distinguishes it from this case:
"And until the child has enough self-awareness to actually want to live, I think that is a decision parents have to be allowed to make. If they want that particular baby, they should be allowed to elect to have major surgery, but if they don't, they should be permitted to allow its condition to run its course, unless the outcome is likely to be survival with serious damage."
You may quarrel with the distinction, but I don't see inconsistency.
Posted by: Brad Hudson | March 26, 2008 12:20 PM
coincidentally I'm having some diabetic ketoacidosis as I read this ... that being said it should be noted that this kid probably starved to death above other things which makes it even harder to see how this is not child neglect
Posted by: X. Wolp | March 26, 2008 12:20 PM
"So. Make up your mind. Either parents can make any decisions about their children, included ones that kill them, or they can not."
I think that this parents indeed have the right to do what they did - what they lacked was sanity, and the capacity of parenting.
This only underscores how deeply damaging the religious mindset is. And how blind people can be when it comes to the "popular" religions. If these people were members of a less popular cult, the response would have been much stronger.
Posted by: Ale | March 26, 2008 12:21 PM
Remember that diabetic ketoacidosis is not covered under King Jesus' medical miracle plan. Just snake bites and drinking poison. The only people with a worse plan are grad students.
IIRC, PZ's statement about parental decisions expired after the child was one year old, after which society should intervene. This case surely qualifies as brutal neglect.
Posted by: ennui | March 26, 2008 12:24 PM
After reading a bit on diabetic ketoacidosis, I retract - this people did not have the right to do this. The child could have chosen to be cured before the parents would have to decide on its place.
Posted by: Ale | March 26, 2008 12:25 PM
I suppose the cops just want to avoid the time and money-wasting lawsuit that would surely ensue if they had the other kids taken away when they were not directly being abused. Doubtlessly they're just going to have to wait until one of them gets sick.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 26, 2008 12:25 PM
You know, sometimes a sign from god is a burning bush. Other times it's a doctor saying, "take this pill, you will get better."
Posted by: Rob | March 26, 2008 12:26 PM
Faith healers killing their kids happens a lot. Few get reported and fewer prosecuted. Under California law it is considered child abuse to deny medical care to minors. Looks like Oregon may start prosecuting them as well.
About time.
Last Update: 3/22 5:54 pm
OREGON CITY, Ore. (AP) - Prosecutors are reviewing the death of a 15-month-old girl a medical examiner says could have lived if she had been treated with antibiotics, but was not because of family religious beliefs.
The Oregonian newspaper quoted Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner, as saying that Ava Worthington died March 2 at home from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and infection.
the newspaper said that if prosecuted, Ava Worthington's parents would be the first members of Oregon City's Followers of Christ, a fundamentalist Christian denomination, to face charges for failing to seek medical treatment for a gravely ill child as required by a 1999 law.
When The Associated Press called the number listed for the church today the person who answered hung up.
The church came to Oregon early in the 20th century. When members become ill, fellow worshippers pray and anoint them with oil. Former members say those who seek modern medical remedies are ostracized.
Oregon prosecutors review girl's death, faith-healing law
Last Update: 3/22 5:54 pm
Posted by: raven | March 26, 2008 12:26 PM
OT
The General writes a letter.
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-2-fingering.html
Posted by: L | March 26, 2008 12:27 PM
If you did this activity with an animal, you'd be looking at real jail time. This is a horrible way to die. In years past, when people were told they were diabetic, they suicided to prevent such an outcome. Ask MTM about it or Wiki the subject. Faith, my @ass. These are child abusers and should have no unsupervised contact with any minor.
Posted by: Mold | March 26, 2008 12:27 PM
I think it's admirable. All those fundamentalists who don't believe in science and education? Here's a set who don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk. No hypocrisy here, these are people who really are taking a stand for a man who died on a cross.
Too bad evolution isn't quite as impressed as I am.
Excuse me while I go punch something.
Posted by: aiabx | March 26, 2008 12:28 PM
I can see religious nuttiness prevailing over the short term, say a JW parent refusing blood transfusion for a child immediately after a car accident, but to (emphasis) *watch your child die over a period of a month* and simply to repeat actions which do not work over and over, prolonging and expanding the agony of your child . . . . words fail me.
I hope the other kids either 1) run away from home or 2) apply for empancipation. They certainly have grounds for the latter.
Posted by: Hairhead | March 26, 2008 12:28 PM
Why is it that when we see an obviously crazy person railing against the CIA whoa are listening to his thoughts and complaining about the infiltration of society by reptiloids from planet Zox we call it like it is - He is a nut. Yet when some horror is visited on us by a nice suburban housewife who talks to her invisible friend "god", believes that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that 2 of EVERY species of animal plus their food fit on a single water craft we call it "NORMAL"?!?! Question that and YOU are the crazy one.
In America we have one and only one approved delusion and that is religion.
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | March 26, 2008 12:28 PM
Testing.
Posted by: Tim Murtaugh | March 26, 2008 12:30 PM
Why, you... you... you blithering snowman!!
:-p
(The entry to which T_U_T refers is here.)
Posted by: Kseniya | March 26, 2008 12:30 PM
"What is it, does calling it religion make it invisible?"
PZ, don't be disingenuous. You know that the answer is, quite literally, yes.
Posted by: Will E. | March 26, 2008 12:32 PM
Wow what a load of creationist tactics (not that I know if you're one, but sure as hell seem to behave like one). Dishonesty aplenty. Care to (mis)quote where PZ did that? You know what? I'll do it for you. From the post you're referring to (emphasis mine):
He even explicitly stated the difference between these two cases before this last one ever happened, and your dishonest post.
Also,
But of course, predict something obvious will happen, and you're right. That's exactly how the religious types I know (catholics) work. Maybe it's a christian thing. "They will tell you that we're lying to you, but you have to keep the faith" and that sort of crap that surprisingly, and sadly, works for a lot of people.
Posted by: andyo | March 26, 2008 12:33 PM
Needless to say, the girl was murdered by religious fanaticism and stupidity.
She was a diabetic of which there are millions in the USA.
Easily treatable, if she were put on insulin like all the others, she would have had a long and relatively normal life.
Posted by: raven | March 26, 2008 12:34 PM
I grew up in this city, and when I heard the parents owned a coffee shop, I knew exactly which one.
The first and last time I went to their coffee shop, I was waiting for my drink and decided to peruse the bookshelf. It was full of creationist literature. I almost said something to the person working, but instead, decided never to come back.
It's funny how these things go hand-in-hand.
Posted by: elik | March 26, 2008 12:36 PM
I wonder what the police reaction would have been if the parents had said, "Well we just really didn't want to do anything about it." Surely, children's services would intervene and remove the other kids from the home. This is precisely what they did. Nothing. Yet they get a pass because of prayer? The apathy excuse would not only net them the loss of their kids, but possible prosecution as well.
Indeed, this is religion being given the benefit of the doubt where it deserves none.
Posted by: CB | March 26, 2008 12:39 PM
re: Rob #18
That reminds me of a joke I tend to remember in these situations:
A couple is in their house as a flood begins to ravage their town. A rescue crew in a firetruck comes to them and offers to take them to safety. "No, no", the couple says, "the Lord will help us."
A while later as the waters rise, another rescue crew comes along in a boat and offers to take them to safety. "No, no," insists the couple, "God will save us."
As the waters rise higher, a rescue crew in a helicopter comes along and begs the couple to let them be taken to safety. "No, no," protests the couple, "we know that God will save us."
Eventually the waters overtake the couple and they drown. Upon reaching Heaven, the couple wails to God, "Oh God, we prayed for rescue, why did you not save us?"
And God says, "I sent you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter! What the hell else did you want??"
Posted by: Tony | March 26, 2008 12:41 PM
Well, the only possible positive outcome of this is that the older children see and understand what happened and when their children get sick, they will go to the doctor. I hope they are able to see that the parents asked god to save her and she died. If they had asked a local doctor it would have been a trivial matter to save her.
Posted by: ddr | March 26, 2008 12:42 PM
Sadly, we see yet more naive and pointlessly-inflammatory religion bashing. Your shrill abuse will merely alienate moderates and other potential allies. You need to step aside, and give the floor to people capable of framing the issue in more constructive terms.
A properly framed criticism would be as follows:
Religion is good. This story is very sad. Religion is wonderful. Poor parents. Religion is beautiful and sublime. Perhaps the parents could have done something differently? Religion is truly awesome.
Posted by: hyperdeath | March 26, 2008 12:45 PM
ddr said: Well, the only possible positive outcome of this is that the older children see and understand what happened and when their children get sick, they will go to the doctor. I hope they are able to see that the parents asked god to save her and she died. If they had asked a local doctor it would have been a trivial matter to save her.
You have a much greater faith in humanity then I do, I hope it plays out that way. However, due to my cynical side, I fear that 'faith' has already blinded them and they will grow up believing their parents simply didn't have enough faith, 'it was God's greater plan', or it was a test of faith.
The christian meme has a thousand defensive mechanisms against failed pray.
Posted by: locksmyth | March 26, 2008 12:48 PM
I see this is a privacy issue. Parents and guardians of minors have the right to make medical decisions or indecisions regardless of the consequences - good or bad.
The police have no business being involved.
Posted by: dh | March 26, 2008 12:49 PM
Hideous and nauseating, and legal.
Wisconsin is one of 39 some states that has a disallows neglect or abuse charges when medical care is denied for religious reasons. It is also one of 19 that allows a religious defense against charges of felony crimes against children.
Such state laws have their origin in the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, which specifically states "...a parent or guardian who does not provide medical treatment to a child because of the parent's religious beliefs is not considered, for that reason alone, to be a negligent parent or guardian."
While the the original CAPTA exmpetion language was rescinded in 1983, it was re-authorized in a modified form in 1996.
All due to extensive lobbying by the First Church of Christ, Scientist. Whose practices are (as famously noted) neither Christian, nor scientific.
Please folks -- talk to your state government, talk to your federal representatives, and lets get these laws changed.
Because what happened here may be legal, but it isn't right.
Posted by: PennyBright | March 26, 2008 12:50 PM
No. I defended the right of parents to refuse extraordinary treatment to salvage a fetus. This was an 11 year old girl. One of my major objections to so-called "pro-life" idjits is that they are unable to distinguish the difference between a walking, talking, thinking, caring human being and a blastocyst. I think they're the ones who devalue human life.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 26, 2008 12:54 PM
I see this is a privacy issue. Parents and guardians of minors have the right to make medical decisions or indecisions regardless of the consequences - good or bad.
The police have no business being involved.
FAIL.
And please, don't procreate.
Posted by: Bruce | March 26, 2008 12:54 PM
#35 : the parents have the right to let their children die of starvation and dehydration ? I must have missed that memo
Posted by: X. Wolp | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM
I understand GOP legislators in Florida are pushing a new law that prohibits parents from being discriminated against for allowing their children to die as a result of medical neglect if they prayed to the baby jesus to heal their child and, for reasons known only to god, the baby jesus chose not to do this.
Apparently, this has something to do with religion (well, fundy christianity, anyway) trumping the laws of the state and with medicine being held to be "just a theory".
Posted by: Larry | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM
Tony (comment#31):
I used to think that joke was a fairly funny joke when I was a christian. Now I think it just reveals how stunningly stupid the idea of prayer is. Prayer, in that joke, reveals just how much of a nothing it is. One might get a direct response (a.k.a. miracle) or one might just get an indirect response, or no response at all as is the case in this poor 13 year old's death.
Posted by: severalspeciesof | March 26, 2008 12:57 PM
Oopps, meant 11 year old, not 13.
sorry.
Posted by: severalspeciesof | March 26, 2008 12:59 PM
Is it more acceptable when doctors allow a child to die because the parents have no insurance? For insurers to refuse to cover treatment (so doctors turn their backs)? How many of the fundamentalist rank and file have insurance? Are they represented among the ~40 million uninsured? The 200 million underinsured? What about insurers who refuse policies altogether because a child may have a "pre-existing condition?"
Sometimes praying is the only treatment available. Sometimes it's stubborn stupidity. But eradicating religion is never going to eradicate either stupidity or death. At least, not in this civilization where rationing is a matter of caste. Seems like there are very real issues of people - even very young people - dying every day in this country for want of basic medical care. It might be more inspiring for the so-concerned scientists and their geek fan clubs to tackle some of those rather than parrot right-wing talking points blaming the victims.
But that might be real work. It's much easier to sit smug in your jammies and pontificate about isolated incidents while Rome burns all around.
Posted by: jb | March 26, 2008 1:01 PM
I would not even want an animal to be left to die this girl was, and anyone who did treat an animal like that should never be allowed to keep an animal again.
These parents have shown themselves to be totally unsuitable to be allowed to raise children. The idea that the only parents have a right to say how their children are treated is so misguided as to be bordering on the insane. We do not allow parents to inflict physical damage on their children as a punishment for example, and any parent who did so would deserve a visit from the authorities. Why should they be allowed to let a child die from an easily treatable disease ? This was not a case of a child who has long be suffering from a disease for which there now little prospect of a cure, we are talking a child for whom regular injections of insulin would have allowed her to live he life almost as normally as a non-diabetic.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 26, 2008 1:03 PM
#33
Actually, I thought framing was about how the question was approached, not about conceding the question.
So, my take on "framing" the argument would be to have some respected religious leader who believes that children should recieve medical treatment first argue that from a Biblical perspective using techniques that most Christians veiw as Sound Doctrine.
It probably will also not convince them, but it has a better chance than an atheist simply calling them crazy would...because it uses a frame they understand to propose a more realistic approach.
If your goal is to convince them to abandon religion entierly, then neither "frame" is going to acheive that goal. If your goal is to convince them to stop killing their children with inaction, one has a better chance than the other.
Personally, I can see why just calling them stupid and crazy is more appealing, though...'cause they are. They are crazy, and they express it in religious language.
What little rationality there is in religious thought, no matter how skillfully applied, is likely to convince them any more than rationality or just plain outraged insults from the non-religious.
Posted by: Teresa | March 26, 2008 1:04 PM
And yet we are expected to respect this religion even when it leads to the murder of people through medical neglect. Damn, I wish I had the morals that only religion can provide so I can excuse such behavior.
Posted by: Doug | March 26, 2008 1:08 PM
Teresa,
How about just having a sensible law that would mean when parents totally abdicate their responsibilities, as happened here, then the state steps in to prevent the abuse continuing ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM
jb, that is some grade A concern.
Thank you!
Posted by: s1mplex | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM
These parents are stupid and evil. I suppose it is OK to pray real hard for their kid to get well.
When that didn't work, they should have just said, god is busy or we aren't praying hard enough. Better luck next time and let's go see a doctor now.
Prosecute them. Under any states laws, anyone over 18 is free to refuse medical treatment. Let the kids grow up and make their own decisions.
I'm not aware of any biblical rational for killing your kids through stupidity and neglect anyway. When the 10 commandments were actually 10 in number, there was one about not killing people. The fundies threw that one out.
Posted by: raven | March 26, 2008 1:11 PM
It might be more inspiring for the so-concerned scientists and their geek fan clubs to tackle some of those rather than parrot right-wing talking points blaming the victims. - jb
Or maybe, just maybe, some of us have the capability to do both? You know - on the one hand I can call you an ignorant empty-headed lack wit and ask you to never add to the conversation again then I write to my elected representative urging them to protect free speech and support net neutrality. See what I did there? I criticized you but supported your rights to be an idiot!
It's how I roll.
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM
JB,
It may have escaped your notice but PZ has been vocal in the past in criticising the US healthcare system, and has spoken out in favour of some form of universal healthcare as found in the civilised world.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 26, 2008 1:14 PM
If these were truely fundie parents, they might recall Leviticus 13, which says that you are suppose to bring sick people to the priest. If they had done that, the priest might have been smart enough to get the girl to a real doctor.
It's the incredibly stupid story about parents who believed in God and messed up their own religion.
Posted by: James C. | March 26, 2008 1:16 PM
I thought death through inaction was still murder...
If I find a man bleeding in the street and do nothing to help him (call 911, apply first aid, or at least do anything aside from simply ignoring his injuries) and he dies, am I not guilty of a crime?
Check the law books there coper. I'm pretty sure that the parents are quilty of murder by neglect.
At least the article states:
"The girl's death remains under investigation and the findings will be forwarded to the district attorney to review for possible charges, the chief said."
Let's hope that Wausau has a good district attorney.
Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2008 1:21 PM
Nobody blamed the child. The parents are not victims, but perpetrators. Try to keep up.
Posted by: MartinM | March 26, 2008 1:22 PM
I defended the right of parents to refuse extraordinary treatment to salvage a fetus. This was an 11 year old girl.
An 11 year old girl who, if she had gotten simple treatment that has been routine for the past 50 years or so, might have lived another 60-70 years, in reasonably good health. Diabetes is a nasty disease, we can't cure it, and a number of the complications are difficult to treat. But DKA is NOT one of them. There is a better than 99% chance that, if this girl had been taken to the ER even a day before she died, she would have lived. I just hope that her siblings realize what is going on and get out before the parents kill them too.
Posted by: Dianne | March 26, 2008 1:24 PM
You'd think, but conceding the question (or just chickening out on addressing it) is exactly what its proponents keep demanding we do.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 26, 2008 1:26 PM
[blockquote]Is it more acceptable when doctors allow a child to die because the parents have no insurance?[/blockquote]
Yeah... I'm pretty sure this never happens. Most, if not all, hospitals will treat an individual regardless of whether or not they have insurance. I remember when I was at the ER there were signs all over the place that said just that.
Posted by: anon | March 26, 2008 1:28 PM
@ #52
Unfortunately this type of behavior is often encouraged by the priest.
Posted by: locksmyth | March 26, 2008 1:30 PM
Is it more acceptable when doctors allow a child to die because the parents have no insurance?
JB, I'm not sure what country you're talking about where this happens, but in the US it is illegal for a physician to refuse to treat a patient with an emergency situation--and DKA is always an emergency--because of their ability to pay or perceived ability to pay. I agree that it is a national disgrace that many children (and adults) do not have proper coverage, but this isn't a situation in which it is relevant. Refusing to treat DKA is malpractice and any doctor or hospital which turned this child away would be clearly liable.
Posted by: Dianne | March 26, 2008 1:31 PM
"I see this is a privacy issue. Parents and guardians of minors have the right to make medical decisions or indecisions regardless of the consequences - good or bad.
The police have no business being involved."
I give your libertarian troll a 7/10.
Oh hey my kid fell from the shed and broke his skull. Oh well, no biggie!
"Neglect" is a farce made up by the Social Services cabal!
Posted by: Niobe | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM
"Call more people to help pray."
You're all missing the point. This death is YOUR fault because NONE of you prayed for her.
For shame! Start praying!
People are dying while you futz around on this blog!
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM
Posted by: gort | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM
In Barstow, California, in 1973, Larry and Lucky Parker had a diabetic son, Wesley. They left their church and went shopping around for one more to their liking, finally finding an Assemblies of God preacher who would advocate prayer -- and stopping all medical treatment.
The Parkers waited until the kid went into a coma, then they called their preacher. After he saw the result, he advised them to call the paramedics. The kid soon died.
There was a trial, but the parents never went to prison. They had to pay some fines, and that was it. (There was a TV movie made, based on this, but reworked as a Hollywood story.)
Nobody in their right mind would believe the Parkers were on the level. They used religious nuttery as an excuse to kill their kid. If Wesley's ailment wouldn't have killed him if left untreated, we all know what the parents would do: find an exorcist to torture the kid to death.
Most Americans are religious, which is to say most of the people around us are batshit crazy.
Posted by: Bill the Cat | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM
If the faith of the parents requires either passive withholding of necessities from their children or more actively killing them, then there is an appropriate place for them to practice their religion - in jail. Perhaps they will have some time to ponder the meaning of what love for their children actually means.
My right to practice my religion using my fist stops where your face begins.
Posted by: Hap | March 26, 2008 1:57 PM
"I understand GOP legislators in Florida are pushing a new law that prohibits parents from being discriminated against for allowing their children to die as a result of medical neglect if they prayed to the baby jesus to heal their child and, for reasons known only to god, the baby jesus chose not to do this."
They SHOULDNT be discriminated against. They should be prosecuted no more harshly (and no less harshly) than anyone else who kills their kid.
Posted by: craig | March 26, 2008 1:57 PM
Actually I can see why the other kids weren't removed. If they don't have diseases that will kill them without medical intervention, then their parents aren't neglecting them. The kid they neglected is already dead. Once the parents are arrested for killing that child, as I fervently hope they will be, then a new home will have to be found for the other children.
Posted by: ndt | March 26, 2008 1:59 PM
NO SIGN OF FUCKING ABUSE???????
Posted by: Liam | March 26, 2008 2:02 PM
See, a simple test of faith could have taken care of this before the kid died.
If you're a parent thinking of relying on prayer instead of medicine to treat a sick child, you must test yourself to make sure your faith is strong enough beforehand.
Take a loaded handgun, put the muzzle in your mouth, and question whether your faith is strong enough to persuade God to stop the bullet from splattering your brains on the wall behind you. If you can't pull that trigger, your faith isn't strong enough to save your kid, either.
If you pull the trigger and note the presence of skull and brain fragments nearby, you were simply arrogant. Your faith wasn't strong enough after all, and you've just saved your kid from your own bad decision-making.
If God stops the bullet, then by all means withhold treatment.
If you think this all sounds pretty damned stupid, as I do, TAKE YOUR KID TO THE DOCTOR, YOU MORON.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | March 26, 2008 2:04 PM
Poor kid, what a horrible way to die. These people are obviously incapable of looking after their remaining kids, I hope they lock the parents away for a long, long time.
As as for the chief of police:
"There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."
Other than lack of breathing?!?
What a lump head, he should be removed from his position, ASAP.
Posted by: Pete | March 26, 2008 2:06 PM
Actually I think that the police chief was saying that this stupidity (even though it should be a side note in the Darwin Awards) was isolated and that since the other kids don't have diabetes, they are safe from this happening again (technically).
It probably isn't worth it in the long run to separate the family actually. For anyone concerned. I agree with the police chief...Sorry but this is one of those things where there is no quick solution or punishment and then everyone's happy. In fact if you think about it...this is just alternative medicine taken to the extreme.
Posted by: Richard Eis | March 26, 2008 2:07 PM
Gort,
Thanks for the clarification.
So if the "man" were, oh say under 18, and I were, oh let's say his father, then I would be guilty of a crime?
Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2008 2:09 PM
This story is not about access to healthcare. The little girl would not have been turned away by an emergency room for critical care. And Wisconsin has BadgerCare Plus, a state-sponsored health insurance program for children whose parents do not have access to private insurance.
This is a story about religious lunatics, and the legal system that lets them off the hook for letting their child die.
Posted by: ennui | March 26, 2008 2:12 PM
since the other kids don't have diabetes, they are safe from this happening again (technically).
Unless they develop diabetes. Or get appendicitis. Or Hodgkin's disease. Or any number of other common or uncommon illnesses that can strike previously healthy children without warning. Then they will die too unless the parents actually managed to learn something from this episode. Which, given that they were talking about how they failed to pray hard enough, I doubt.
Posted by: Dianne | March 26, 2008 2:15 PM
Some of the comments here have been unbelievable. "... just alternative medicine taken to the extreme..."? "I see this is a privacy issue. Parents and guardians of minors have the right to make medical decisions or indecisions regardless of the consequences - good or bad.
The police have no business being involved." WTF??? The parents also have the responsibility for to not allow their child to die from a perfectly treatable illness!!!!! Since when is prayer a recognized life-saving medical procedure? What about killing the child as a result of disciplinary action? Does that rate as a privacy issue? I can tell you that up here in the Great White North the parents would be charged under the Criminal Code for failing to provide the necessities of life. May you not be blessed with children since you are indeed an irresponsible ass, dh! You make me SICK!
Posted by: Randy | March 26, 2008 2:17 PM
@Tony (#33)
I thought of exactly that same joke! We hate to joke about a child's death, but it NAILS these parents.
Posted by: Leigh | March 26, 2008 2:17 PM
Richard Eis said:
Well, that will be a comfort if one of them gets appendicitis in the near future!
Mike O'Risal said:
Surely such a parent can be held legally incapable of giving informed medical consent on behalf of their child, given that their convictions about what will happen as a result of their actions are so flagrantly at odds with the predicted medical consequences?
Given this inability to perform one of the major duties of parenthood, couldn't the law intervene on the grounds that they are incompetent to look after their children, in the same way they would if they had gone insane (which arguably they have)?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 26, 2008 2:19 PM
I wonder if these 'tards were among those up in arms whining about the sanctity of life when Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed?
Posted by: ShavenYak | March 26, 2008 2:21 PM
Funny, there have been a couple of news stories just this year about wacky woo families who starved their babies to death attempting to raise them on exclusively raw food/vegan diets. In one case the baby died at 6 weeks, in the other at 6 months. In both cases, the parents faced charges and convictions. Not surprisingly, conservative talk shows and news channels had field days with these stories. One wonders if they'll publicly excoriate this family's prayerful inaction just as vigorously.
Posted by: DanioPhD | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM
I do have to object to PZ's characterization of the police chief. I'm certain that the police are supposed to evaluate if the (still living) children are in imminent danger when deciding whether to take them. The chief likely meant physical abuse that would put the remaining children's lives at risk if left in their home until the social workers get on the case. I should hope that action is taken to protect the remaining children by the authorities.
Incidentally, there was a similar case in the news just yesterday Medical examiner: Toddler died after failed 'faith healing'
I wonder what it would take to get parents to understand that their right to their religious or other beliefs does not trump their children's right to be alive and healthy.
Posted by: Flaky | March 26, 2008 2:35 PM
But the children are alive!!! That is a miracle! God exists!
Posted by: Maria | March 26, 2008 2:38 PM
"So if the "man" were, oh say under 18, and I were, oh let's say his father, then I would be guilty of a crime?" Yup, so long as the man (under 18) is not emancipated.
The main issue here is "duty to act" as a stranger on the street you do not have a duty to act. You have made no indication that you are responsible for the person. Making you legally responsible for the person without consent can be considered slavery. In the case of custodial parents (one or two) you have an implied duty to act. Thus having said duty to act and refusing to do so makes you negligent.
Posted by: vlad | March 26, 2008 2:43 PM
If I find a man bleeding in the street and do nothing to help him (call 911, apply first aid, or at least do anything aside from simply ignoring his injuries) and he dies, am I not guilty of a crime?
I hope I remember this correctly... No you are not obligated to help, and in fact it used to be that you could make yourself liable for damages if you did try to help and things didn't turn out perfect. This resulted in many states enacting "good samaritan" laws protecting one from liability when making good faith attempts to help an injured person. Both the liability and the good samaritan laws might only apply to doctors, though. I seem to remember reading these "outrage" stories of doctors refusing to assist accident victims because of the liability issue and "outrage" stories of doctors being sued for trying to help accident victims.
Posted by: SteveM | March 26, 2008 2:51 PM
"I can tell you that up here in the Great White North the parents would be charged under the Criminal Code for failing to provide the necessities of life." No, unfortunately you are mistaken, much as it bugs the shit out of me to say it.
Posted by: vlad | March 26, 2008 2:51 PM
#53: