The WSJ brings us news of increasing opposition to laws that would protect faith healing. Or as I call it, negligence. As usual it has required the death of innocents before people will come to grips with common sense.
The recent death from untreated diabetes of an 11-year-old Wisconsin girl has invigorated opposition to obscure laws in many states that let parents rely on prayer, rather than medicine, to heal sick children.
Dale and Leilani Neumann of Weston, Wis., are facing charges of second-degree reckless homicide after their child, Madeline Kara Neumann, died on Easter after slipping into a coma. The death, likely preventable with insulin, has renewed calls for Wisconsin and dozens of other states to strike laws that protect parents who choose prayer alone in lieu of medical treatment.
I'll take issue here. "Likely preventable with insulin" should actually be, "completely and totally, unquestionably, preventable with insulin." In fact for type I diabetics, and critically in diabetic ketoacidosis, the choice really is insulin or death, with no middle ground. You need insulin to live. But I digress.
Lawyers nationwide say they are eager to see if the Neumann case sparks more changes in state laws. It raises a "national discourse as to whether children can be medically neglected legally," says Marci Hamilton, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York who writes about children's rights. In another recent case, a 15-month-old child in Oregon died in March from a form of pneumonia and a blood infection after her parents opted to try to heal her with prayer. Oregon law provides no defense for parents charged with causing the death of a child through neglect or maltreatment, and the couple has been charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminal mistreatment.
There's been a small, steady pushback against state provisions protecting spiritual healing. A Massachusetts bill that would have protected parents who used prayer in lieu of medical treatment stalled in committee last year, despite the measure's broad sponsorship by 33 lawmakers.
In Maryland, lawmakers in 2005 repealed part of a law that had protected parents from losing custody if they withheld medical treatment because of religious belief. And in Maine that year, legislators amended several laws regarding religious treatment, and repealed part of its family law that stated that children couldn't automatically be considered abused solely because they were treated "by spiritual means by an accredited practitioner." Evert Fowle, the district attorney in Augusta, Maine, said the amendments would now allow him to bring charges against guardians should a child be harmed after being treated with prayer alone.
And here is the question for my readers, although to me it isn't much of a question at all. Do parents have a duty to their children to protect their health using the best information available? Or does freedom of choice dictate the ability of parents to decide whether their children can live or die based upon unethical human experimentation with prayer or quack therapies? Because that's what you call it when you take an unproven modality and try it out on someone to see if they get better - experimentation. Did I load that question heavily enough?
More below the fold:
I have a new group of heroes - Legal Duty Inc.
In all, 45 states offer some legal accommodations in child-protection laws for parents who use spiritual healing, according to the Christian Science church. The laws vary widely, with some states protecting parents or guardians from felony abuse or murder prosecutions, while others exempt prayer practice only in misdemeanor cases, according to Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty Inc., a nonprofit group based in Sioux City, Iowa, that opposes such laws.
Wisconsin has three statutes providing religious healing exceptions: one in the child-abuse laws, one in the laws concerning crimes against children, and one that bars the state from forcing medical care on someone who chooses Christian Science prayer. The state's child-abuse laws were amended in 1987 to say: "A person is not guilty of an offense ... solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing." The wording was requested by the local Christian Science government-relations office, according to the Wisconsin Legislative Council, a state agency.
A 1998 study in the journal Pediatrics, by Rita Swan, president of Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, and Seth Asser, a Rhode Island pediatrician, reported that 172 children died with no medical care because of religious reasons in the two decades after states began exempting faith healing. Of those, 140 children had a greater than 90% chance of survival if they had been treated medically, the researchers found. "Some of the religious defenses to felonies are a chilling betrayal of children," says Ms. Swan, a former Christian Scientist who lost a child to spinal meningitis in 1977 after initially relying on church practitioners before finally seeking medical help.
That's what's so sad about these cases. With kids, they don't have a choice. They can't consent to be born to a crazy parent versus a normal parent, and they don't have the capacity to accept or reject medical decisions based on personal belief. Some basic protections are at work to prevent children from being made absolute chattel of their parents, and the requirement that health care be provided for when they are sick is critical. But why do we allow this loophole? Why do we say, if you're religious, it's ok to kill your child with neglect? It's frankly insane in my opinion. On the one hand we have modalities that will save lives a great deal of the time. In some of these cases, all of the time. On the other you have prayer. Essentially doing nothing and hoping for the best.
Oh wait. It's worse than doing nothing. It's doing nothing, and apparently charging insurance companies for the service:
Church lobbyists are now asking that the state allow insurance plans to reimburse prayer practitioners, who can charge $20 to $50 for a day's worth of prayer, says Wanda Jane Warmack, the church's legislative manager.
I know something is wrong in the world when I start feeling sympathetic for insurance companies.
- Log in to post comments
Hey...y'know what with all this child obesity stuff going on, my church says you should stop feeding your kids and let them feed upon the Holy Spirit. What could possibly go wrong?
/end sarcasm
Parents have a duty to protect their children using the methods they find best.
This may result in the death and/or debilitation of their children (i.e. restricting young children to a vegan diet) and you and I and even society might deem them crazy/mad/evil etc ...
However there cannot and shouldn't be a requirement to use what you or I might believe is best at any given time.
Otherwise we might as well just hand the kids over to the state for rearing or perhaps just those children of parents the state considers unfit for whatever reason is popular at the time.
That's not to say that the state shouldn't intervene once physical harm (however your society decides to define that) is shown to either punish the perpetrators or rescue the victim.
The state may also have a reasonable case for enforcing vaccination of all as this gives herd immunity. Rights of the many trumping the rights of the few in that case.
But in these sad cases the pre-emptive intervention of the state may do more overall harm than good to society.
P.S. Before someone asks, the parents in all these cases are, I believe, loons.
Even in the case of eschewing any effective treatment in favor of prayer?
There, I definitely part company with you.
There is a concept in the legal system of what a reasonable, prudent person should know or do. At some point a prudent person should know, "well, I've prayed about it and my child is still getting worse. I think I need to get help." That is not the state raising your child, it is protecting a citizen's (the child's) legal rights from being infringed upon by dumbasses (the parents).
(Is there a legal definition for dumbass? Can someone be prosecuted for stupidity? Hmmm...)
A doctor friend of mine (now retired for years) once told me that over 95% of human illness and malady would heal on it's own just fine. It's that other 5% that kept him in business. I think that has to be taken into account as well. Many, many people rush to a doctor when they would have been just as well off to have stayed at home. (Possibly even better off to have stayed home and not be exposed to who knows what in the waiting room.) It gets back to justifiable belief. The person is sick. Family and friends pray over them. The person gets better. This cycle happens over and over again (for the 95% that would have gotten better anyway). Then, something like this happens and the parents pray. The child doesn't get better. Maybe they aren't praying hard enough. They call in the pastor. By the time they finally figure out this isn't working, it's too late. Tragic, but is being uneducated and of below average intelligence a crime? Even when it results in harm to others?
I don't believe that prayer is an efficacious treatment, however it isn't our beliefs of what is best that is at issue.
The question was Do parents have a duty to their children to protect their health using the best information available?
So if the parents believe that prayer is the most efficacious treatment, given the best information that they have (they may be smart as bricks, but that is not the issue) then in their best opinion it may be the way to go.
It may not be right, their child may die but they may be honestly doing what they consider best out of love for their child.
I do hope not; I would be in serious trouble a lot of the time if it was.
The law of the land has given every parent the choice of killing a scientifically viable life. Abortion. After that, it is all semantics.
A reasonable person standard should be enforced because I don't see how religious beliefs can justify homicide. However, this is really difficult. On one hand, if you let a physician's judgment have the force of law, you get cases like those where the government tries to impose an additional or questionable course of chemotherapy on a teenager with cancer when the parent and child have decided they don't want that. This violates the rights of both, and the government should allow some autonomy. On the other hand, keeping a very sick child away from all medical treatment is unconscionable and should not be protected. If the Wisconsin girl's parents knew her condition and how it should be treated, they should be prosecuted for first-degree murder. Finding the boundary between reasonable autonomous choices and child endangerment is nigh impossible.
I don't know why my comments always appear anonymous because I'm logged in.
Stupidity is one thing, but I think this comes down to the expectations of society. All individuals here have come under the social contract that they will not cause the loss of life or property of another individual (regardless of relation, the court cares not if you killed a stranger or a family member, you will be dealt with equally). We expect this of many people who find themselves on our shores; Africans who traditionally practice female genital mutilation, Hispanic immigrants need to learn English, Native Americans must stop using certain substances in their religious activities.
As for the last example I find it interesting we can stop people from using peyote (because its harmful to the body and needs to be illegal) but have no power to say prayer healing does harm as well. It is completely reasonable that if society demands it, parents must care for their children in a responsible manner, and I think the outrage of most Americans at these stories should be a guiding point when discussing what our society demands in the way of minor health care, regardless of religious affiliation.
I can see the absolute outrage most people (including prayer healers) would show if a child died of a curable illness and the parents resorted to satanic or pagan rituals to heal her. Can you imagine the story on CNN if a tradition pig blood ceremony was conducted as a way to cure a child of diabetes? Prayer, unless those who believe in it are willing to accept the opposite beliefs of other, should be fully maintained in the spiritual healing process, but it should not be an acceptable substitute for health care in children or adults.
Arghh.
Children may be "property" of their parents to a certain extent, but we don't hesitate to remove a child from a home if they are pistol whipped.
From a health standpoint, trying to heal diabetes with prayer is safer than beating a child about the head. The motives may be different, but the result is the same.
"Do parents have a duty to their children to protect their health using the best information available?"
The question assumes they are capable of that. When parents rely on prayer alone and the child dies or is injured as a result, they were still trying to do what they honestly thought was the best thing for the child. They were just being idiots about it.
So in my view, there is justification for confiscating the children and any other under the parents' care. For their own protection, as the parents have demonstrated they are unfit carers. Legally though, it should be treated as reckless homocide or criminal negligence - certinly not murder. There is no need for harsh jail sentences. A slap on the wrist should be enough.
Jail doesn't even make a good deterrent - parents that religious are not capable of believing the prayer will fail, so the threat of jail wouldn't work.
In the event that someone is actually promoting their own nonsense healing service - be it prayer, healing crystals, magic lights, whatever woo they like - then it's prosecution time. Charge them with fraud and whatever else will stick, and lock them up somewhere that keeps them from lureing any other suckers in.
Your right to swing your fist by practicing your religion should end at the end of your kid's nose, frankly. I have absolutely no problem with people killing themselves by any means they like once they're over the age of majority, and as long as they don't take anybody else with them when they do (unless the person they're taking with them is a consenting adult). That is, I'm all for freedom of religion, as long as you don't do something publicly dangerous like let your child die, or start an epidemic because you, say, stupidly decided that God didn't want you to have vaccinations.
Chuck, up until the point where the "child" in question isn't using my body anymore, I, being the owner of that body, get to decide what to do with that body. Until you can get pregnant, STFU.
From legal perspective, parental stupidity, rather than intent, is taken into account when prosecuting the negligent parents in charging them with negligent homicide or manslaughter of various degrees (depending on the state). Doing what one thinks is best does not insulate one from criminal or civil liability if the outcome is, in fact, injurious to another. Kevorkian might have thought he was doing what he thought was best, but hes actions landed him in prison. Maybe these people should heed the famous saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The last time I checked none of my children are self-sufficient or are capable of maintaining their health and well-being and are dependent upon their parents, so STFU right back at ya.
I would suggest that a lot of the claims for state intervention are based on "good intentions" but in those cases the social workers, state attorneys and judges are immune from prosecution if they get it wrong.
And how do you then stop the state appartchicks going too far.
Child is obese, bad parents. Child isn't learning, bad parents. Child argues with teachers, bad parents. Child believes what we don't want them to, bad parents.
Parents don't conform with the ideology of those in power, take children away from bad influences etc
Good intentions are all well and good, but freedom is better and pre-emptive state actions erode freedom.
I understand that the phrase was "give me liberty or give me death" not "lets surrender liberty to those God has placed above us and are so much wiser than we".
From a health standpoint, trying to heal diabetes with prayer is safer than beating a child about the head.
Unfortunately, legislation and legal precedents are not determined from a health standpoint. That is one of the prices of freedom.
Here is the ultimate logical problem to solve:
When can the government supersede parental rights and parental rights supersede a childs rights if a parent can terminate a childs life?
Chris', I don't think anybody is advocating the pre-emptive removal of all children from Christian Science households; state intervention would only kick in once a child has been provably harmed by denial of medical care.
Now, if you think *all* interventions by the state in the parent/child relationship are wrong, even in cases of physical harm, then I'm not sure we'll ever reach a compromise.
(relurking now)
The argument from slippery slope is usually a logical fallacy. (It's included in Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, for example.) Show us that the slope is in fact slippery.
Hey...y'know what with all this child obesity stuff going on, my church says you should stop feeding your kids and let them feed upon the Holy Spirit. What could possibly go wrong?
I know you were being facetious, but isn't that pretty much exactly what the Copts do?
It raises a "national discourse as to whether children can be medically neglected legally," says Marci Hamilton
erm...if your country needs to -discuss- this topic, then you have serious, serious problems.
What i do have to say though in defence of the parents is that they were brought up in a world where they ARE told that god will heal the sick. They are told these types of confirmations every day, by their friends, their family, their leaders in every level of government and church. Everybody that they trust.
I am torn on this issue. On the one hand I feel for the children that unnecessary lose their lives due to superstition (religion) and the 1st amendment to the constitution which gives freedom of religion. I do not see the issue being resolved without a battle all the way up to the supreme court. It is nice seeing MarkH post again, however I think PalMD has been doing an excellent job here and is a good addition to this blog.
If you read my original comments you'll see that I agree with you, once physical harm can be shown then the state should intervene.
It's pre-emptive strikes that I oppose.
1) Intervention by social workers to remove children from family home in Scotland because children are fat.
2) Removal after birth of children from mothers because the state considers them unfit, against the mothers wishes (mostly drug users, but no harm has been shown).
The slope is very slippery and, at least in the UK, we have started sliding down it.
Such pre-emptive strikes based on good intentions are simply anti-freedom.
Their kissing cousin is anti-free speach, which in the UK and much of Europe is long gone.
If you believe that the state knows best at all times and in all places then please explain why practices and social norms change?
Goverments have been terribly wrong in the past, just look at the recent history of goverment intervention for the "good of all" in the USA.
The USA has already wandered down this slippery slope and managed to get back up again, do you really think that it is a good idea to go down it again?
Oh yes; just because it is included in someones baloney detector kit doesn't make it false and arguements from authority (I'm assuming that Sagan is someone you consider authoritative on social movements) are, I suspect, also in that detector kit.
Since it has come up I think it's relevant to discuss the standard for behavior defined by common law in the United States. It's actually an ancient standard, coming from British common law and is in most cases that of the "reasonable person". The case that started it all, if I recall correctly, was that of an idiot who thought the best way of preventing his haypiles from smoking in the sun would be to create a hole in the top so the heat could escape. The resulting fire from creating chimneys in his hay stacks damaged others properties and it was his defense that he was not responsible for the mistake because he was too stupid to know better. The court decided that stupidity could not forgive harm to others and made the standard that we all have to abide by that of a reasonable person. You may be so stupid that you think people like getting punched in the mouth as a form of greeting, but your stupidity doesn't forgive you, you are judged in this society by what a reasonable person thinks. Pretty fuzzy, but it seems to have worked ok for the last few centuries.
Is denying your child medical care when they are deathly ill and praying over them a thing a reasonable person think appropriate? I think not. I think most people if their child were in DKA would seek help of those who know what they are doing. My question is, why do we allow a religious loophole to the reasonable person clause?
Mark, as devil's advocate here, consider this:
The concept of a reasonable person is always considered, but that is tempered by the defendant's capacity and their intent. In order to consider what a reasonable person would do, you also have to consider more than just the 24 hours leading up to the event in question. If you take a reasonable person, such as yourself, and from an early age, teach them that prayer is the answer to every problem that you could possibly have, how would you then respond? The people that you look to for guidance in your life (your parents, your pastor, etc.) all are telling you that, if you aren't getting the right outcomes in your life, it is because you aren't praying hard enough. Maybe you have even seen this for yourself. You have observed people that were sick actually get well while people were praying for them and you have been convinced that there is a causal relationship between the two. Would that influence your thoughts?
(On a personal note, I think the parents and the cult leaders that were behind this little girls death should all fry before they are allowed to infect others with their nonsense, but my views wouldn't hold up in court.)
I love it Bill. Not guilty by reason of religiosity. I don't think that will fly. It's an interesting argument, and a good lawyer might try to make it, but really, no jury is going to buy that it's ok to commit crimes or harm another because your pastor told you so. Once they do start allowing that as an excuse is when we need to run for the hills.
I understand where you're coming from, you don't want to condemn people for being born into an irrational environment. While these things may diminish your capacity to make reasonable judgments, and it's not ultimately your fault, that's still just too damn bad in terms of your legal responsibility. Ignorance is not an excuse.
The devil's advocate approach to child abuse is all bunk. It is entirely possible that an individual might live their life such that by the time they have children, they believe some form of child abuse (e.g. denial of medical treatment, physical/mental/sexual abuse, denial of proper education) to be acceptable and rational.
There's no question that the parents believe that they are acting rationally. I'd imagine that parents very rarely defy their own rationality just to abuse their children. None of that matters. If you commit child abuse, you go to jail.
Chuck - "The law of the land has given every parent the choice of killing a scientifically viable life. Abortion. After that, it is all semantics."
Many states do not allow, or have special restrictions on, late-term abortion (i.e. abortion after a fetus is viable).
You're using the term "scientifically viable" because it sounds fancy and suits your purposes. Abortion of a viable fetus in this country is not as straightforward as you make it seem, so you are either being intentionally deceitful, or need to look up "viable" in the dictionary.
Because your society is religious?
Also, it isn't a loophole as most religious beliefs are consider reasonable by the majority of people in your society.
I would point out that no one has suggested that the parents shouldn't be prosecuted for what they've done.
This is a complex, social issue. I cannot argue philosophy, it is inconclusive. For example, there is a notion called "natural law." Using it, one can strongly argue from the perspective of the fetus that abortion is illegal; but from the perspective of the pregnant woman, it is allowable.
I have a personal feeling that parents who choose faith healing are incompetent to raise children.
There was an episode (60 Minutes?) a few years ago featuring a large family (ca. 14 kids) in which a boy died of a curable infection because of their religion. Then, a girl died of Type 1 diabetes. They invoked scripture that said to take the sickest people to the church leader to be anointed (which they had done).
What I found interesting was the show's interview of a theologian who said that anointing is recommended; however, "Nowhere in scripture is there a proscription on taking a sick kid to a doctor."
Yes, but scripture isn't, er, gospel. All religious writings are interpreted by humans (whether or not you believe in their divine origins). There is no "incorrect" interpretation of scripture...although some are more or less evil.
@Pal- there you go, arguing philosophy. I told you I am not prepared for that :)
This is why am no good without data, I dare ask- isn't your point about "scripture" essentially the same as mine about "natural law"?
If you read the article though, the describe how 45 states have exemptions for this nonsense. That is my point, there is a legislated loophole in almost every state in the country for religious people to behave negligently in the medical treatment of their children.
6/14/08
Sadly, so few people know "the truth" about the Neumann family. Little Kara was seen by many people, including customers whom she waited on at Monkey Mo, just a few days before she died! How could she have been "so sick" as the media tries to say, & still wait on customers, & none of them notice anything "unusual" about her?
If you would go to MayoClinic.com, you will note that dk can exhibit symptoms w/in 24 hrs! Kara got "ill" Sat eve, after dinner. She felt tired & Mom slept w/her. The next day, she was looking better. Mom gave her some chicken broth (either Sun or Sat). Dad performed CPR on his little beloved daughter, when there appeared to be no breath in her...
The "tiredness & nausea" were symptoms that she was actually exhibiting - which was very much like her older sister had experienced when she was 11 & entering into puberty. The dictionary says that nausea gives the "sensation" of impending vomiting. She did NOT vomit, nor have diarrhea the day of her death, nor ANY days preceeding her death!
Young Kara had been active in sports, music, being w/friends & family, & working at the family coffee shop. There were no signs of impending illness that could lead to her death! Her parents loved her & gave her a nice, clean home, & lots of love. It is NOT true that she laid around for weeks prior to her death!
A friend of the family who loved Kara very much...
"Wikipedia" shows viable at 25 weeks. I will gladly defer to someone with more medical experience to validate that number.
Hi Chuck,
That's also what I have heard, and do not have any evidence to the contrary. It appears that many states have special consideration for abortion after 24 weeks or so, from what I can tell. If we consider 25 weeks to be the norm for a viable fetus, most abortions apparently occur well before this point.
Christina, thank you for the comment. I certainly only know what has been in the press, as I have not spoken to the family.
However, and this by no means applies only to Kara's family, it takes quite a bit of denial to miss the symptoms of diabetes in a child to the point of death. Part of the denial is the cult belief that allowed them to think that waiting just a little longer would bring the help of the Lord. I have no doubt that they loved their daughter as much as I love mine. However, as a parent, I can tell you that most of the time, no matter how much I want to believe my daughter is fine, when she is very sick (and she has been twice) we have overcome any denial and sought care well before she ended up dead. This has nothing to do with my medical background. It is hell to watch your child suffer, and fills you with fear and dread. A normal parent, who doens't believe in the appearance of the deus ex machina, seeks help in time, most of the time.
I don't know if they should be charged criminally. The loss of their daughter is probably hell enough. But unless they give up their dangerous cult beliefs, they shouldn't be responsible for children, without strict observation by authorities. As you stated, casual encounters are not enough.
Paraphrasing part and copying the rest, "On 03/22/08, at 4:58 p.m., rather than seek help medical help for his daughter, Dale Neumann chose to send an email with the subject, Help our daughter needs emergency prayer!!!! In the body of the email, Please is there a direct number to get hold of David Eels, We need agreement in prayer over our youngest daughter, who is very weak and pale at the moment with hardly any Strength.
The next day at 2:33 p.m., a police officer and an ambulance were dispatched to the Neumann home. A woman in California called and told dispatchers that her sister-in-law was not caring for the child at the residence and that the child was ill and due to religious reasons the family would not take her to the hospital for treatment. She further advised the dispatchers that she thought the girl was in a coma at the time of the call."
This can be found on http://www.wsaw.com/karaneumanndeath/misc/18347734.html
The parents did not have to know a week in advance that their child was sick. They had at least 22 hours in "panic mode." They knew they needed help and turned to whacko David Eells rather than taking her to a doctor.
I have no doubt that the parents believed their daughter would be healed by the power of prayer. They may even believe that taking their daughter to the hospital would not have changed the outcome. Their belief doesn't change the fact that their ignorance was the major cause of their daughters death.
But how do we balance this with the 1st amendment? Are not the loopholes meant to do that?
Chuck said "The law of the land has given every parent the choice of killing a scientifically viable life. Abortion. After that, it is all semantics."
If you find abortion abhorrent, then you should put all your efforts into making sure that the MMR, varicella and other vaccines are promoted! Those diseases can cause fetal death, spontaneous abortion and severe disabilities in the baby! Rubella is especially dangerous to the fetus if the mother gets in the first trimester. After my firstborn had neonatal seizures and ended up in the Children's Hospital I was asked over and over and over again if I had been ill during the pregnancy (a nasty cold/influenza).
The Texas police mob action against the polygamists is enough of an example of the bureaucratic slippery slope that laws that control how parents raise their children lead to. Every day you can read in the newspapers and blogs about government over-reaction to parental behaviors of various kinds. The slippery slope is that the acquisition of powers by the government in violation of citizens rights never ends. Like taxes, once gained, they are never (or rarely) given back and prosecutors and police will push them to the limits. The bureaucracy has extraordinary unconstitutional rights right now to rip the children out of any of your homes with no notice, no warrants just on the hint by a possibly deranged neighbor that you are "abusing" your children.
In my opinion, this police environment has gotten so bad that, in an effort to guard all civil rights, all such laws need to be repealed and power to raise their children in the way they see fit returned to parents without fear of the police and let Darwin sort out the winners.
Strange to relate I did read all your article.
Also, I did respond to why some states have specific exemptions for religion.
I'll repost just in case you missed it.
Posted by: Chris' Wills
Because your society is religious?
Also, it isn't a loophole as most religious beliefs are consider reasonable by the majority of people in your society.
There are lots of reasons that a jury might accept, all the law does in 45 states of the USA is be explicit about one of the allowed reasons.
I guess that most juries in your society would be likely to accept it as reasonable even if it wasn't explicitly stated.
Now you may not like that, but freedom of religion is one of the hallmarks of a free society.
It also comes down to how much freedom you are willing to forgo to enforce your views.
And who will judge your fitness and the validity of your beliefs prior to you being allowed to breed?
Now let's see, who else isn't fit to have children?
Freedom doesn't mean you can do anything you want and then just say "religion" and be forgiven. Just like freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a movie theater, freedom of religion does not forgive you of your responsibility to your children who are not capable of consent. Nor does being a parent mean that you can do whatever you want to your children because they're "yours". No human is "yours".
Your religion might very well say you can marry your 14 year old niece and hold her captive in your Texas compound with all your other underage, captive wives. The law says otherwise and has damn good reason to remove children from parents that would allow them to be abused in such a way. You can certainly do whatever the hell you want, but your children are not chattel. They are not your property. And they need special protection as they don't have the capacity to make independent decisions, escape from harm, or provide consent. If the parent does something harmful to their children, they lose their right to be a parent. That isn't governmental excess, that's human decency and protection of the rights of the children to exist, have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These laws basically say that freedom of religion can exceed the bounds of other freedoms and allow harm to non-consenting individuals that are under your power. Even a rabid libertarian should be able to see that the boundary of your freedom exists precisely where harm is caused to another without their consent. Children have rights too, that is what you are failing to acknowledge.
One can make an argument that parents who allow their children to suffer due to neglect, such as failing to provide adequate medical treatment, could avoid criminal liability on the grounds they did not know better. However in such a case surely the parents can not be considered fit and proper people
to be parents ?
MarkH makes an important point in stating that children have rights, and are not simply the property of their parents and subject to the whims of their parents. We do not, and should not, tolerate parents abusing their children by starving them to death. How is denying medical treatment any different ?
Chris Willis brings up the question of obese children, and ask if the state should remove obese children from their parents. The answer is clearly yes, if the parents have shown they either cannot or will not address the issue of obesity in their children. It is only something that should happen as a last resort, but if the parents refuse to acknowledge the health risks their obese children face, and refuse to co-operate with health professionals in helping those children loose weight, then the question of removal should be considered.
Excuse me. How to twist what someone has written.
I have written that if you can prove physical harm then prosecute.
I have argued against pre-emptive strikes based on you or others not liking someone elses beliefs.
I have also pointed out that the laws give religious belief as an example of a reasonable excuse as your society is religious.
Laws tend to reflect the society they exist in.
If such laws are unconstitutional why do they still exist?
I'm sure that you aren't the first person to notice them.
Refuse to cooperate!!
Last resort!!
Let's paraphrase shall we.
If the parents don't do what Mr Penfold wishes them to then remove their children, even if the children don't want to go. It's for their own good.
There are cases of physical abuse when it is societies right to intervene but having podgy kids isn't one of them.
Or perhaps the state should force all children to go on physical training courses, with a little indoctrination thrown in.
No the bit about indoctrination isn't a mistake, you are saying that the state is right and the parents are wrong as if the state is always going to be right.
What happens if the wrong people get into power?
Truly a Brave New World you seek to build.
The reason that so many states have laws allowing religious exemptions from child neglect laws is because of decades of intense lobbying by the Christian Science Church. As I'm sure many readers here know, a small group that engages in massive lobbying on an issue of concern to them can often manipulate public policy in a way that is not desirable.
The question here is primarily a policy one, not a constitutional one. No one that I know of is arguing that it is unconstitutional to pass laws shielding Christian Scientists, or others, from prosecution for child neglect. They are, however, bad policy.
The policy question is whether parents who engage in conduct that ordinarily constitutes child neglect, or some other sort of crime, should be let off when they play the "I'm a Christian Scientist" card. Christian Scientists say that they should. CHILD, Inc., to which I belong, says they should face the same legal liability faced by any other parent.
"Chuck said "The law of the land has given every parent the choice of killing a scientifically viable life. Abortion. After that, it is all semantics.""
I made no judgments. The laws of the land have many inequalities in them. Many actions are both legal and illegal, depending on where and when they happen.
Brian:
Are abortion after 24 weeks considered murder due to the parent's beliefs?
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2006-08-02/arts/unplanned-parenthood.php
Bill said: "If you take a reasonable person, such as yourself, and from an early age, teach them that prayer is the answer to every problem that you could possibly have, how would you then respond? The people that you look to for guidance in your life (your parents, your pastor, etc.) all are telling you that, if you aren't getting the right outcomes in your life, it is because you aren't praying hard enough."
I think what is being overlooked here is that laws provide guidance too.
Laws riddled with religious loopholes teach parents that it is ok, even encouraged, to deny kids lifesaving medical care. Churches that promote "spiritual healing" teach their followers that such laws constitute "evidence" that spiritual healing works.
Some parents may persist in abusive behavior despite the law, but for those many parents who are torn between church dictates and care for their children, appropriate laws will help.
When prosecutors have brought charges against medicine-denying parents, courts have ruled that the laws are too inconsistent to enforce. In one place, the law says, "No neglect" and in another place, it says "Neglect is ok for religious reasons." Even parents who would deliberately choose death for the kids cannot be punished while laws allow religious neglect.
In short, current laws fail to guide those who could be guided and fail to punish those who should be punished. And children, the most vulnerable among us, pay the ultimate price.
Children should have rights. Parents may lose custody of children if they don't provide the child with food, for instance. Why should it then be acceptable for parents to refuse to provide medicine which is every bit as critical as food to the child's survival.
And a fetus is not the same as a child. An expectant mother's body is drastically altered by bearing a child; sometimes in ways that may be fatal to her. A woman, being a fully grown adult, has a right to the medical care that best suits her needs, even if it is not beneficial to a life being built by her own body.
The people who should be charged are those who "teach" that prayer is the ultimate answer. But they aren't prosecuted, they get syndicated TV shows and make millions.
"The people who should be charged are those who "teach" that prayer is the ultimate answer."
Some of the best hate speech I have ever heard.
The US is one of only two countries not to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the other being Somalia).
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
Under Article 24, the Convention states: “States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.”
I don’t know precisely how this has played out in other countries, but it would be interesting (and potentially very useful) to investigate.
I've been trying to get to the web site of CRIN (Child Rights Information Network, the UNHCHR monitoring group), but something is very wrong with it.
So what is the code of the Penfold League of the Righteous State.
Yes, Penfold is a nice icon for the kiddies, click above to see the nice icon :o), it's clean.
What are the kiddies in its loving care taught is right and wrong?
Parents who let their children overindulge (over indulging being decided by the Penfold) ?
Parents who smoke?
Parents who are vegans?
Parents who eat meat?
Parents who drink alcohol?
Parents who smoke marijuana?
Parents who take their children to religious services?
Parents who require their children to study?
Parents who don't take their children to religious services?
Parents who are into BDSM?
One parent raising their children alone?
Single parent with multiple partners?
One parent raising their child in a homosexual relationship?
Group parenting?
One parent is classed as Black the other White?
Parents who don't share Penfold's view of the world?
I'm sure that all are considered detrimental to a child's welfare by some.
In the case of the podgy children, let us imagine the scene.
Along with a few policemen the social workers tear the children from their parents and drags them kicking and screaming from the family home as the children see their parents being manhandled to the ground (they wouldn't cooperate).
The children are led into a comfortable room and the social workers leave, the children hear the lock turn and notice the bars on the windows.
All for their own safety of course.
The next day they are told no exercise no meals, we'll get the lard off you says the instructor laughing merrily.
They are then weighed and so it goes until they reach the optimum weight set by the Penfold League.
Of course, they aren't allowed to contact their parents and no-one will tell the parents where they are incarcerated under pain of law during the months of detention.
Eventually they are released, thinner and wiser in the ways of Penfold.
What have they learnt?
1)The state is all powerful
2)Parents are powerless
3)They can ignore their parents and threaten to set the social on them if they don't get their way
To add insult to injury
1)The parents are blamed because their children are unruly. They are fined by the courts who say you have parental responsibilities even though they know they can't exercise them.
2)The social worker writes it up as a job well and each night sleeps the sleep of the self righteous
OK, you might claim that is over the top, but is it truly.
The crying children isn't likely to be false neither is the use of police to restrain parents who won't cooperate.
Most people thought that forced sterilisation wouldn't happen in the USA but it did. I'm sure that those perpetrating it did so knowing that it was for the good of society
The intentions may be good but they can pave the steps into an abyss.
If you remove or weaken the rights of another you weaken your own rights; unless you are one of the rulers and even then you might fall foul of those above you; you also help produce an easily controlled fearful nation of people.
Be very careful what you wish for, your wish may be granted.
Just to remind people; I am all in favour of prosecuting parents who physically harm their children.
But a balance is required between promulgating your own beliefs as to what constitutes harm, individual liberty and societal cohesion.
Just as you need to balance security and liberty.
Chris' Wills, June 14:
dude, you left out the detail.
1) Intervention by social workers to remove children from family home in Scotland because children are fat.
Connor McCreaddie was age 8 and weighed 200 pounds, well into the range of "morbidly obese". His family had been repeatedly advised about the health effects this was having and had been repeatedly contacted about the need to address his health and his diet. They missed all the appointments and refused interviews with community and paediatric nutritionists, doctors, school nurses and social workers. He was removed into care as a last resort, as a panel of nurses, a consultant paediatrician, the deputy head of hiss school, police and social workers deemed him a victim of neglect. Don't you think that puts it in a slightly different light?
2) Removal after birth of children from mothers because the state considers them unfit, against the mothers wishes (mostly drug users, but no harm has been shown).
I suspect you are referring to the teenage mother who recently had her newborn son taken. Not only was she only recently out of care herself, she had long-running mental health problems and mental illness as well as being drug addicted. Nevertheless, a court ruled that in the absence of harm and due process, her having her son arbitrarily taken was unlawful; arrangements were made to ensure that the son was returned, although under supervision. All in all, mother and baby were separated for less than a day.
In previous cases where a drug-addicted mother has had a baby removed immediately into care, it has been only where 2+ previous children have had to be removed into care due to injury from abuse or neglect, and social services were able to demonstrate that the mother's circumstances had not significantly changed. Will you seriously argue that this is unreasonable?
Once again, detail is everything. Yes, the UK *is* a nanny state, but try to ensure that your examples are not just neo-conservative talking points with all relevant details stripped away in order to demonise a different system.
Hah, sorry, got something wrong myself. Connor McCreaddie was threatened with being taken into care in order to bring his weight down; that threat was enough to get the mother to agree at a hearing to a formal plan for his diet. He was never actually taken into care, it was just that a hearing to determine that was necessary to force the mother to tackle the issue.
So much for that.
I find the self-righteous pontificating on this thread nauseating. My friend took her 19-year-old son to hospital with an acute-onset illness. The doctor said it was 'stomach flu' and discharged him. During the night he died from undiagnosed DKA - yes, type 1 diabetes. My ex-husband, as an SHO in a London hospital sent a young man home with a headache - he later died from a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Last year a man presented to hospital with excruciating back pain - he was told to "harden up" and discharged. Twelve hours later he was dead from CNS sepsis. People make bad calls - including doctors; are you proposing these health professionals should be prosecuted for reckless manslaughter? These parents are an easy target because they believe in God - that automatically makes them "stupid" in your book. Faced with such assiduous arrogance it's no wonder people are going to woo woo practitioners in droves!
Nursey, I think YOU are the self-righteous one. What religious people have now is a "get out of jail free" card, issued in advance, no matter what the circumstances. If the circumstances are sufficiently egregious, they *should* be brought to trial where they will have their day in court.
Based on your reasoning, no doctor should ever be charged with malpractice because sometimes some doctors make understandable mistakes.
Instead, we would all just *believe* that doctors (at least the religious ones) *really love* their patients and would never ever commit any negligent act. No need to investigate further. And no accountability for anyone.
I definitely have nothing against religion or religious people. What I have a problem with is cults.
And, yes, if a medical practitioner doesn't take his/her job seriously and is inept, then they are and should be held responsible/liable. This reinforces my point regarding reasonable person being adjusted based on education and intelligence. Doctors are held to a higher standard than the general public and that is how it should be. But, doctors are human and make mistakes, just like parents make mistakes.
(Not sure if the following is relevant, but...)
Several years ago, I took an elderly lady to her doctor with vomiting, upper abdominal pain, fever, etc. She was diagnosed with a stomach virus. The next morning, I took her to the emergency room and she died later that day from complications of a ruptured gall bladder. Mistakes happen. Turns out that, in this case, prayer would have been just as effective as going to the doctor. I know the doctor personally. I can give you 100 examples of where he has helped people. He probably helped 20 or 25 people that day. He missed that one. He is human and he got careless. Was it just a simple mistake or was it carelessness(malpractice)?
When we look at what the parent of this child did, was it a simple mistake (he was listening to trusted advisors) or was he negligent?
Dudette, I wasn't referring to any case in particular. Just some general cases that had stuck in my brain over the decades and it seems to me that they have become more frequent and more intrusive.
What is a neo-conservative?
In Scottish terms I'm probably old fashioned conservative with a small c and politically all over the place; though proud to state that I never voted for Bliar.
There are situations when intervention is considered to be in the best interest of society as a whole and of course the childs best interests, but I do not believe that state employees are always right and as a general rule I oppose pre-emptive strikes.
I'm not sure how "neglect" was shown in the obese child case, is being overweight a sign of neglect? (though 200lbs is a lot for an 8 year old)
There are lots of very overweight (obese) children in Scotland. Would you think it proper for all of them to come under state supervision until the parents conform to the prevailing opinion of the state employees?
6/19/08, Thurs eve
I appreciate the comments made by "Nursey", on the 16th. I am sorry to hear about the death of your friends & other misdiagnosed sicknesses that led to death.
Because I believe the Neumanns (I spoke w/them face to face a couple of times since Kara died); I will state "for the record" that Kara had NOT exhibited signs of vomiting or diarrhea! This is pertinent, because it has been "noised about" that she was extremely ill for weeks, possibly even months! If this was truly the case, then why was she seen by many customers, serving them at the Monkey Mo coffee shop? How could she have been active in sports & music lessons if she was indeed as sick as people suspect she was? What about her physical? (although I don't think it's required to do blood work on a potential athlete... maybe it SHOULD be required, eh?)
She may have exhibited symptoms of tiredness, which her Mother confirmed. Nevertheless, it appeared to her that Kara (11 yrs old), was simply entering into puberty, w/the same symptoms her sister had 5 yrs earlier!
As a Substitute Teacher in many school districts, I have become appalled at the number of obese children. I know that "weight" is an issue for me, too. So, when I saw Kara, w/her older sister at the cafe, they both seemed thin to me. But, so is their Mother! Some time after Kara's death, when I was called in to a middle school, I noticed quite a number of girls who were very thin. Perhaps they, like Kara, were simply going thru their "growth spurt", which includes abdominal pains.
Speaking of, the flu was going around quite prevalantly at that time. Leilani could've suspected any number of maladies; but she truly believed that Kara was simply going thru puberty. She had not been sick previously. After dinner Sat eve, Kara called for her Mom. Her Mom stayed w/her. The next morning, w/rest from the nite before; she appeared to be doing better. In learning a little bit about dk, I hear that there can be what's called a "honeymoon period". That is, that one can experience both ups & downs in their life - feeling good for awhile; & at other times feeling tired. Perhaps, this sickness is the cause of some athletes who "suddenly die" - even tho they're in the "prime of life" & in "peak physical condition". Doctors can make mistakes. And so can parents, teachers, or anyone!
I wish more people would realize the grief this family feels in losing their precious little one. Their only comfort is in the "blessed hope" of eternal life. I believe this to be true. So do countless other people. Whether or not you believe in an "afterlife", we will all stand before the "Judge". The sheep who have accepted the Shepherd's forgiveness (thru Christ's death on the cross), will enter into Heaven for all eternity. While those who have rejected His love will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. God IS a God of love; but He is also just! If I am wrong in believing this, then I have nothing to lose! But if you, dear reader who do not agree w/this, find out you are wrong - sadly, you have "everything to lose".
You may not feel as if this "blog" is the place to "preach". Unfortunately, it is primarily the faith of the Neumanns that is "on trial". Their faith was & still is in God. They trust & accept His sovereignty. They have, what the Bible says, "... the measure of faith that God has given them" - Romans 12:3. Feel free to read it in its context.
Their "measure of faith" was that God would heal their daughter. They did not truly realize exactly how ill their daughter was. MayoClinic.com says that sometimes the symptoms can come on a person as quickly as w/in a 24 hr period of time. When Kara lay still, her father performed CPR on her. The 9-1-1 call had already been dispatched.
The Neumann's love for Kara was & is great. Their sorrow & grief is real. Please do not badger them any more w/the "shoulda, woulda, couldas". This family, & Kara have/had faith in God. Like the Hebrew boys thrown into the fire - their faith in God was trusting in Him for the outcome - whether or not they'd live or die. We don't criticize them; because God intervened in a miraculous way (Daniel 3). But, what if He hadn't? They, too, would be criticized even to this day! Yet, they did not waver in their faith in God's ability to rescue them, nor did they waver in His sovereignty. I see this being exemplified in the Neumann family.
Thank-you for listening & considering kindness & prayers towards this grieving family.
Christina
Wow. I think we're done here. You almost sounded sane until you broght up a bible story as if it was fact, and one that suggests we trust god to save children from human sacrifice. Wonderful. And wonderfully inconsistent. So which was it? Were they trusting to god or did her death just sneak up on them like you suggest?
These parents are directly responsible for the death of their daughter. The fact she was a wonderful little girl and loved by them doesn't change the fact that their incompetence led to their death. Even with onset within 24 hours, which is realistic for DKA, by the time she was in a coma they should have gone to the hospital. The idea that DKA just sneaks up on you and kills you is nonsense. The idea that they didn't have hours to recognize their child was seriously ill is nonsense. The idea that this isn't a widespread problem is nonsense. Your faith is killing people who have no consent to choose or discard these beliefs. This behavior is monstrous, whether you accept it or not, and your religion and faith is no excuse for allowing children to die.
6/20/08, Friday
Dear MarkH:
I appreciate your comments. You have a right to your opinion. I'm glad that you seemed to "believe me" until I brot up the issue about the Hebrew "boys". In the Bible, which I adhere to being Truth, these "boys" were actually probably in their 20's - which is "boys" to me... Anyway, the story in the Old Testament was NOT about child sacrifice. It was about the 3 Hebrew "guys" being burnt because they refused to worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar set up. Whether or not you believe in the Bible as "Truth," I'm sure you can find info on the I/net that this king not only existed, but that he indeed did erect a golden image that was to be worshipped - & no other gods, - else the "penalty" was the furnace!
I can't persuade anyone to believe or not believe the Bible - that is the work of the Holy Spirit. But, as the Lord allows, I will share its message w/others.
The Neumanns did that & continue to do so. I have been in "healing lines" where God healed me (a backache - I was scheduled to see the Chiropractor the following day; but never went! I regret that I didn't, so that I could have confirmation of my healing)! Now, I currently do not attend a church that has "prayer lines for healing, etc." In fact, I do take prescribed medication - daily. True, not everyone who goes up for prayer gets healed. But, the reason that "prayer" is important, is because of Whom we "pray," or "talk" to for the healing. God is sovereign. He can do as He wishes. We can, at times, "sway Him," I believe; but the ultimate outcome is His will. The young Hebrew men were willing to die for their faith in God. The Neumanns faith in God is just that - they believed that He had/has the power to heal! At the point that Kara lay unconsious, her Dad gave her CPR, & a 9-1-1 call was given. Prior to that, the Neumanns did not think that their daughter's illness would be unto death. Yes, they called the online ministry for prayer the eve before; & because Kara was better the following day, their belief was that God healed her.
Even the "enemies" of God have had to "step aside" when the children of God came into their camp! Pagans feared & trembled! Nevertheless, there were times that God chose NOT to help his people win battles or overcome sickness or death. Does He not LOVE those people? Yes, or course He does! He makes it to rain on the just, as well as the unjust. Too much, as well as too little rain can hurt us. God's love for mankind is so great that He sent His Son, Jesus, to take our place at Calvary. You can believe, or choose not to believe. I urge you to "choose life!" The Bible says that the wages of sin is death - Romans 6:23a. Adam sinned. He died. But before he did, he passed on to his progeny the "sin nature". Only an INNOCENT ONE could atone for sin. That's why the Jews offered so many sacrifices, "w/out blemish". Jesus, the Perfect Lamb of God "became sin for us". Therefore; He had to be punished. He willingly sacrificed His perfect life, to save His imperfect creatures (us humans made in His image), who decided to disobey Him, knowing full well the consequences.
I need to get off my "soapbox". But, I, like the Neumanns, will only adhere to what we understand God's Word to mean! We know of His healing power. And we also know of His sovereinty. My brother, tho a man, decided to drink & drive. His consequence was death. He had "saving faith in Jesus as his Lord & Savior;" but he chose to be foolish. Although his case is not exactly like Kara's, nevertheless, my parents, believers in God, also believed that God was able to resurrect my brother! He will - at the last day!
Any more that I can "say" on this blog, is simply your choice to believe or not believe God's Word. I can't, nor do I wish to attempt to "sway" anyone into believing. I've said my peace. Except for one last thing. "Part B" of Romans 6:23 says, "but the GIFT of God is eternal life thru Jesus Christ our Lord". No ifs, &'s, or buts. If you disagree, dear Reader, then one day you'll have to take it up w/your Maker!
Christina
Chris' Wills -- sorry for the very late reply, I hadn't revisited this thread in a while.
The issue was not an "overweight" child, in the 8-year-old's case. The issue was a morbidly obese child, and, more to the point, the fact that the parents refused to meet with doctors, nurses, nutritionists, and social workers. Numerous meetings were scheduled, apparently, none of which the the mother, grandparents or boy attended as they had originally said they would. Since the school nurse and a doctor who had seen the boy were all concerned about the boy's health if his weight were not brought down, and since their purpose in scheduling the meetings was to help set up a diet plan that the boy and his mother could/would manage, and since the mother was unwilling to do this...I don't know, how does this *not* raise all sorts of red flags about at least potential neglect? I would hardly have listed this as a "pre-emptive" action.
The fact is, it was the threat of child services potentially removing the kid which finally brought the mother to a meeting, and when she agreed to a diet plan and committed herself to bringing the boy to see the doctor regularly for monitoring, he wasn't removed. I don't personally think that any of the health workers, social workers, or police acted unreasonably in this case. If the mother had demonstrated to the health workers that she was willing to adhere to a reasonable standard of care for the boy from the beginning, the situation would not have progressed. At what point do you think the people who are supposed to protect child welfare should have acted differently?
And, I cannot think of, or find on Google, any similar cases of the threat of a child being removed because of being "overweight", as you persist in characterising it. (Technically, yes, morbidly obese is overweight, it's just that it's overweight and then some, and using the lesser term smacks of spin to downplay the issue.) If you know of other cases of this happening, though, I would certainly be interested.
I had you pegged as being US, for some reason, in which case the term "neo-conservative" would probably have meant more to you -- although frankly, I have a hard time believing you are on the internets and haven't run into it enough to understand it. But for things like this, Wikipedia is actually a very good place for an overview.