NationStates Jolt Archive

Long story short, a pair of religious nutjobs refused to get health assistance for their seriously sick daughter's because they believe that worshipping jesus will heal everything.

Medical examiner: Toddler died after failed 'faith healing'

11:26 AM PDT on Monday, March 24, 2008

Associated Press

Prosecutors are reviewing the death of a 15-month-old girl a medical examiner says could have been saved if she had been treated with antibiotics.

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.

He said both conditions could have been prevented or treated with antibiotics, and the child's breathing was further compromised by a benign cyst that had never been medically addressed and could have been removed from her neck, The Oregonian reported Saturday.

If prosecuted, the paper said, 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.

"We are reviewing the case, and our investigation is progressing," said Greg Horner, Clackamas County chief deputy district attorney. He did not release the parents' names.

When The Associated Press called the number listed for the church Saturday, the person who answered hung up.

Child-abuse detectives recently referred investigative findings to the prosecutors, who are evaluating the case in light of a law passed in 1999 after several faith-healing deaths of children.

"This is the first time that they could be taking a shot at interpreting the law," said state Senate President Peter Courtney, who supported the bill.

It eliminated Oregon's "spiritual-healing defense" in cases of second-degree manslaughter, first- and second-degree criminal mistreatment and nonpayment of child support.

The Legislature passed the bill after months of debate over religious freedom, parental rights and the state's responsibility to protect children.

The Followers of Christ Church came to Oregon early in the 20th century. According to church tradition, when members become ill, fellow worshippers pray and anoint them with oil. Former members say those who seek modern medical remedies are ostracized.


Source (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_032408_news_faith_healing_death_15_month_girl_.2096e0ed.html?npc)

They need a friggin' law against this kind of thing. And another that outlaws this sort of "religion".

Hard to imagine anything will change. Children are not People; they don't have rights; you can't outlaw religion. Criminal neglect? Maybe. But this has been going on for a long time. My grandmother used to relish in telling me about how her childhood neighbor died in agonizing pain of pneumonia because his parents were Christian Scientists and didn't believe in hospitals. My grandmother is a dick.

I actually met a girl at university who was raised Christian Scientist. Her beliefs weren't as shocking as her misinformation... for instance, she told us her uncle had been cured of AIDS by prayer. She changed a lot the first year, I don't think she's a CS anymore.

Long story short, a pair of religious nutjobs refused to get health assistance for their seriously sick daughter's because they believe that worshipping jesus will heal everything.
And?


They need a friggin' law against this kind of thing.

So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?

Interesting.

friggin' law against this kind of thing. And another that outlaws this sort of "religion".

No, the religion should not be outlawed. People should not, however, be allowed to practice their religion on others including their children.

And?




So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?

Interesting.

People should certainly be allowed to refuse medical treatment; however, they should not be allowed to neglect their children. Would you agree that parents should be required to feed their children?

What if their religion insisted that they don't feed their children?

Now, where's the difference?

So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?

Oh yeah, their religious rights to let their children die. :rolleyes:

I bet if this child died because it was neglected by drug addicts everyone would agree that it's a horrible thing. But she was neglected because her parents are religious, which makes it ok.

If they want to kill themselves with their superstitions, fair enough, but their children shouldn't be the victim of their delusions.

People should certainly be allowed to refuse medical treatment; however, they should not be allowed to neglect their children.
To what extent? When does the responsible State stop and the Nanny State begin?

Would you agree that parents should be required to feed their children?

What if their religion insisted that they don't feed their children?

Now, where's the difference?

Strawman?

Oh yeah, their religious rights to let their children die. :rolleyes:
They didn't set out to let the child die. *shrug*


I bet if this child died because it was neglected by drug addicts everyone would agree that it's a horrible thing. But she was neglected because her parents are religious, which makes it ok.

If they want to kill themselves with their superstitions, fair enough, but their children shouldn't be the victim of their delusions.

Very interesting to see more people automatically siding with an invasive State. Where do you draw the line? Unhealthy diet?

it really sounds like she was killed by an infection and not Christianity, even killed by stupidity, or bad parents, or irresponsible parents, but not Christianity.

So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?

Interesting.

People can do what they want to themselves, and I support that. However, causing a child to die from neglect for any reason including religion isn't a right. Parents can do what they want to themselves but they shouldn't be able to have the sort of the control over their child where it is okay to kill them.

Strawman?

No?

Well, clearly God wanted the child to die. :rolleyes:

In Canada, by the way, parents can't really refuse medical treatement (particularily blood transfusions, and antibiotics I presume) for their children. A minor can be temporarily made a ward of the state or province for as long as the procedure takes.

Edit: But of course, we are all freedom hatin' liberals

Very interesting to see more people automatically siding with an invasive State. Where do you draw the line? Unhealthy diet?

Where it could directly and reasonably result in a child's death I think it should be out lawed.

it really sounds like she was killed by an infection and not Christianity, even killed by stupidity, or bad parents, or irresponsible parents, but not Christianity.

I agree, the thread title is misleading. Most Christians are reasonable folks who go to the doctor when sick (if they can afford to do so) and bring their children to the doctor even faster.

*Sighs* It's not most Christians that believe that medicene is aganst God, but rather this wacko group. And you shouldn't ban even wacko sects, because:
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
I think it's Captain Picard who said that, but it's been awhile.

People can do what they want to themselves, and I support that. However, causing a child to die from neglect for any reason including religion isn't a right. Parents can do what they want to themselves but they shouldn't be able to have the sort of the control over their child where it is okay to kill them.

Again, I don't think "causing a child to die from neglect" is particularly accurate - the child died from parental neglect, but the parents didn't set out to 'cause' it.


In Canada, by the way, parents can't really refuse medical treatement (particularily blood transfusions, and antibiotics I presume) for their children. A minor can be temporarily made a ward of the state or province for as long as the procedure takes.

Something similar is happening here too - primarily to do with Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Causing a bit of consternation re our Constitution.

Well, clearly God wanted the child to die. :rolleyes:

In Canada, by the way, parents can't really refuse medical treatement (particularily blood transfusions, and antibiotics I presume) for their children. A minor can be temporarily made a ward of the state or province for as long as the procedure takes.

Edit: But of course, we are all freedom hatin' liberals
It's the same in the US, actually. There may be some variation from state to state, but several cases of this kind have been prosecuted before, in all parts of the country.

so how do crazed fundies wind up handling their very own personal real life problem of evil?

Again, I don't think "causing a child to die from neglect" is particularly accurate - the child died from parental neglect, but the parents didn't set out to 'cause' it.

except that they did, by refusing to take reasonable steps to avoid it.

Very interesting to see more people automatically siding with an invasive State. Where do you draw the line? Unhealthy diet?

I don't know how things work in America, but here it is possible for parents who refuse necessary medical treatments for their children to be temporarily taken away their parental rights by a judge in order to make it possible to save the child's life. (for instance a child of Jehova's witnesses getting a live saving blood transfusion even though it's parents are against it).
I would say the line is drawn there where the life of a child isn't at stake. A grown-up can refuse treatment, parents can refuse non-life saving treatment.

Again, I don't think "causing a child to die from neglect" is particularly accurate - the child died from parental neglect, but the parents didn't set out to 'cause' it.

The child died from parental neglect that was caused by the parents neglecting the child (i.e. refusing to take the child to a doctor when sick). How exactly is "causing a child to die from neglect" inaccurate?

It's this kind of shit makes me think that we need an "age" for religion. Along the lines of what we have for driving, voting and drinking.

I would say the line is drawn there where the life of a child isn't at stake. A grown-up can refuse treatment, parents can refuse non-life saving treatment.

I don't even see why their allowed to do that much (barring inability to pay for such care). But as I said I don't agree with the general consensus that parents should be allowed to practice their religion on their children.

Again, I don't think "causing a child to die from neglect" is particularly accurate - the child died from parental neglect, but the parents didn't set out to 'cause' it.

.
unintentional causation is still causation.

I'm sure an equal number have been murdered by a lack thereof.

*cue chaos*

except that they did, by refusing to take reasonable steps to avoid it.

The child died from parental neglect that was caused by the parents neglecting the child (i.e. refusing to take the child to a doctor when sick). How exactly is "causing a child to die from neglect" inaccurate?

By combining it with the thread title - it has grated me somewhat and it is skewing my answer to come off more..... defending the parents than I intended.

The child died. The parents were negligent. The parents did not murder their child. That's simply how I see it.

It's this kind of shit makes me think that we need an "age" for religion. Along the lines of what we have for driving, voting and drinking.

Go. Now. (http://www.cbc.ca/nextprimeminister/) ;)

I have to say, South Lorenya, you make the most illegitimate arguement against religion I have ever heard. What it sounds like you're saying is that Chrisianity should be outlawed because a few people have such a strong faith that they let stupidity get the better of common sence, now that's just rediculous. It would be the equivilant of me saying that you should never be aloud to speak again because of that ONE comment.
I admit that I'm Christian, but i can asure you that neither my personal beliefs, nor my religion tell me to let common sence go out the window like that couple had done.

I don't even see why their allowed to do that much (barring inability to pay for such care). But as I said I don't agree with the general consensus that parents should be allowed to practice their religion on their children.

Well, I think I agree, but it was the quick and dirty answer.

By combining it with the thread title - it has grated me somewhat and it is skewing my answer to come off more..... defending the parents than I intended.

I agree, the title is trollish.

The child died. The parents were negligent. The parents did not murder their child. That's simply how I see it.

That's why they are being charged manslaughter instead of murder, isn't it? I'm not even sure if they should be punished that hard (after all, they did lose a child...) But I think it's best that laws should be in place to prevent stuff like this and accompany the parents if they have other children etc.

Again, I don't think "causing a child to die from neglect" is particularly accurate - the child died from parental neglect, but the parents didn't set out to 'cause' it.


Fine, allowing the child to die from neglect then.

15 months old is far too young for them to consciously decide what treatment is best for them. It's not a nanny state if you prevent parents from letting their children be killed, it's just common sense.

Religious freedom ends where individual freedom begins.

*Sighs* It's not most Christians that believe that medicene is aganst God, but rather this wacko group. And you shouldn't ban even wacko sects, because:

I think it's Captain Picard who said that, but it's been awhile.

We aren't talking about banning the sect, just about the choices that the parents can make for the children.

That's why they are being charged manslaughter instead of murder, isn't it? I'm not even sure if they should be punished that hard (after all, they did lose a child...) But I think it's best that laws should be in place to prevent stuff like this and accompany the parents if they have other children etc.

Actually, looking back this seems to be the only thing (so far):

to face charges for failing to seek medical treatment for a gravely ill child.

Though I don't know what that can be spun to for further charges.

Oh yeah, their religious rights to let their children die. :rolleyes:

I bet if this child died because it was neglected by drug addicts everyone would agree that it's a horrible thing. But she was neglected because her parents are religious, which makes it ok.

If they want to kill themselves with their superstitions, fair enough, but their children shouldn't be the victim of their delusions.

Who says it's ok?
I bet they are brought to trial.
And the title of the thread is flamebait -- the kids was not murdered by Christianity, he was killed by nutjob parents. Big difference.

By combining it with the thread title - it has grated me somewhat and it is skewing my answer to come off more..... defending the parents than I intended.
So why didn't you include in your first response to this thread a comment about the title, to make it clear where you were coming from?

Who says it's ok?
I bet they are brought to trial.
And the title of the thread is flamebait -- the kids was not murdered by Christianity, he was killed by nutjob parents. Big difference.

Nutjob parents obeying their particular interpretation of christianity. No more tenuous than a lot of connections made really.

Nutjob parents obeying their particular interpretation of christianity. No more tenuous than a lot of connections made really.

A lot more flame-y than a lot of connections made, though.

So why didn't you include in your first response to this thread a comment about the title, to make it clear where you were coming from?

Go back and read my first response. Where did I defend the parents, their neglect of their child or in fact any aspect of "faith healing" over medicinal healing?

But of course you're right. I should have automatically assumed posters are retards who think ideologies can actually kill people - like the thread title says. (.....which has now been changed)

A lot more flame-y than a lot of connections made, though.

It serves its purpose of getting a reaction rather well, actually adressing the issue, not so well.

It's this kind of shit makes me think that we need an "age" for religion. Along the lines of what we have for driving, voting and drinking.

I think the age of majority -- 18 -- would be a reasonable cutoff. Once you are old enough to legally be responsible for your own contracts, you should be able to decide what faith if any to follow.

Medical neglect should be treated as such no matter what the circumstances.

15 months old is far too young for them to consciously decide what treatment is best for them. It's not a nanny state if you prevent parents from letting their children be killed, it's just common sense.

Religious freedom ends where individual freedom begins.

Which is why the parents decided for the child?

I have come from the land before time, with a solution!

Ban religion. :D

Go back and read my first response. Where did I defend the parents, their nelgect of their child or in fact any aspect of "faith healing" over medicinal healing?

But of course you're right. I should have automatically assumed posters are retards who think ideologies can actually kill people - like the thread title says.

It was implied that when you said "So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?" that you support their right to do this.

Also, calm down. The thread title was mostly to attract attention, we all responded with respect to the article and mostly ignored the title when it obviously affected your answer. We assume that you, like us were responding to the OP, and it you weren't responding to the article than it would have made sense to point that out, not because we're retards but because it helps to know where you are coming from.

Christianity is not responsible. But the parents are, and parental neglect resulting in the death of children is bad. Hang the bastards, publicly, in front of their church.

It was implied that when you said "So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?" that you support their right to do this.

To me, it would imply a further discussion on the interference of the State in private matters. The battle of Freedom of Religion versus a Nanny State. And if you read my 2 posts following that, you would see a continuation of that thought process - leading away from a title and article which was frankly, only going one way.


not because we're retards but because it helps to know where you are coming from.

I know most people on here are not that obtuse, however, sometimes people can and do surprise me.

Which is why the parents decided for the child?
And you'd expect that when it comes to court proceedings, that decision has to pass some kind of "reasonable person" test in common law systems.

Would a reasonable person, of neither exceptionally great or exceptionally little intelligence, expect that praying and spraying the kid with oil will cure it, as opposed to medical treatment?

That's of course for the judges or juries to decide but I'd suggest that the answer is "no". And if religion is taken out as a defense (seems silly to put it in there in the first place, especially if you only apply it to this particular crime but not to others) and the parents fail the reasonable person test, I really don't see the problem with going to jail for negligence causing death. You'd act no differently if it wasn't a nutcase but someone who just plain didn't bother to take the kid to the doctor.

And you'd expect that when it comes to court proceedings, that decision has to pass some kind of "reasonable person" test in common law systems.
Yes, some kind.
Would a reasonable person, of neither exceptionally great or exceptionally little intelligence, expect that praying and spraying the kid with oil will cure it, as opposed to medical treatment?
That would depend entirely on their beliefs. However, we all know that people with such beliefs are completely irrational/misinformed.
That's of course for the judges or juries to decide but I'd suggest that the answer is "no". And if religion is taken out as a defense (seems silly to put it in there in the first place, especially if you only apply it to this particular crime but not to others)
If that is the case, yes, it is especially silly.
and the parents fail the reasonable person test, I really don't see the problem with going to jail for negligence causing death. You'd act no differently if it wasn't a nutcase but someone who just plain didn't bother to take the kid to the doctor.
I agree.

By combining it with the thread title - it has grated me somewhat and it is skewing my answer to come off more..... defending the parents than I intended.

The child died. The parents were negligent. The parents did not murder their child. That's simply how I see it.

No, I think it would be first degree manslaughter rather than murder. They need a very long jail sentence and any other children they have need to be put in a GOOD home.

I think the age of majority -- 18 -- would be a reasonable cutoff. Once you are old enough to legally be responsible for your own contracts, you should be able to decide what faith if any to follow.

Most people make that decision before they're 18. :)

I don't know how things work in America, but here it is possible for parents who refuse necessary medical treatments for their children to be temporarily taken away their parental rights by a judge in order to make it possible to save the child's life. (for instance a child of Jehova's witnesses getting a live saving blood transfusion even though it's parents are against it).
I would say the line is drawn there where the life of a child isn't at stake. A grown-up can refuse treatment, parents can refuse non-life saving treatment.

its that way here too.

but the illness has to come to the attention of authorities eh? if its quick and no one calls social services the child will die before the government can force treatment.

parents who can be shown to have let their child die when that child would have lived with typical medical treatment often get charged with a criminal offense and often enough get convicted of it.

No, I think it would be first degree manslaughter rather than murder.
At the moment it's nothing more than a charge of failing to seek medical treatment for a gravely ill child - could that be spun to a weak manslaughter charge? *shrug*


They need a very long jail sentence and any other children they have need to be put in a GOOD home.

I don't see any court doing that to parents who have just lost a child to be honest.

i believe that parents should have no say at all in their childs medical treatment or spiritual development, because the fact of the matter is if you are born into a religion its likely that forever your mind will be constantly warped by that ideology, so it restricts the childs ability to make rational decisions as they have been practically brainwashed.

Most people make that decision before they're 18. :)

And many who have, let's be honest, had that decision made for them either break with the church entirely or take something of a sabbatical until they are able to reaffirm and commit to their faith.

This generally happens, oh, in the teen years when people are questioning EVERYTHING.

That's why they are being charged manslaughter instead of murder, isn't it? I'm not even sure if they should be punished that hard (after all, they did lose a child...)

Fuck that. It's their fault they don't get to plead emotional distress at the loss of their child as a mitigating factor in their punishment anymore than someone who held a gun to their kids head and pulled the trigger.

i believe that parents should have no say at all in their childs medical treatment or spiritual development
Then who should?

because the fact of the matter is if you are born into a religion its likely that forever your mind will be constantly warped by that ideology, so it restricts the childs ability to make rational decisions as they have been practically brainwashed.
Lolwut?

I know most people on here are not that obtuse, however, sometimes people can and do surprise me.

Most people responded to the content of the post, not the title. Those that where not responding to the article made it clear. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that you were responding to the article and the tone in your first response pointed to rejected the idea that we should require parents to seek medical aid for their children when in conflicts with medical beliefs.
Therefore it was not "obtuse" to believe that you where defending the parents as being within their rights.

I don't see any court doing that to parents who have just lost a child to be honest.

They "lost" their child the same way I "loose" my garbage every Wednesday night. It would me more accurate to say they threw their child away.

That would depend entirely on their beliefs. However, we all know that people with such beliefs are completely irrational/misinformed.
Beliefs are one thing though, real expectations another. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't tell you how beliefs are handled in reasonable person tests, but I would suspect that judges may well think that you wouldn't expect a miracle healing anymore than you'd expect the brick you threw off a highway bridge to suddenly change direction and miss the cars. A reasonable person is capable of judging cause-effect relationships to a certain extent and faith has got to have its limits. Particularly if the parents weren't always part of this cult and have been exposed to real life.

Most people responded to the content of the post, not the title. Those that where not responding to the article made it clear. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that you were responding to the article and the tone in your first response pointed to rejected the idea that we should require parents to seek medical aid for their children when in conflicts with medical beliefs.

....yet by talking about State interference and freedom of religion (see my second post) you still infer that I was specifically narrowing my argument to this one case and not a broader topic. Guess you shouldn't assume so much.

Therefore it was not "obtuse" to believe that you where defending the parents as being within their rights.
Hey, if you can't read then that's your problem - not mine. No where did I defend the parents, or their actions.

They "lost" their child the same way I "loose" my garbage every Wednesday night. It would me more accurate to say they threw their child away.

Quoted For Truth.

its that way here too.

but the illness has to come to the attention of authorities eh? if its quick and no one calls social services the child will die before the government can force treatment.

parents who can be shown to have let their child die when that child would have lived with typical medical treatment often get charged with a criminal offense and often enough get convicted of it.

Well if the child can't be saved the parents should be punished.

Fuck that. It's their fault they don't get to plead emotional distress at the loss of their child as a mitigating factor in their punishment anymore than someone who held a gun to their kids head and pulled the trigger.

No, there is a great difference in intent. If you shoot your child you want to murder it. If you do this, you're stupid, but you didn't really have a bad intention. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished, but certainly not as murderers.

Well if the child can't be saved the parents should be punished.


of course they should. but the reality of that depends on the prosecutors involved and the political climate.

Rights are not absolute, and interests must be weighed. While the parents have the right to their religious beliefs it seems counter to the interests of a society as a whole to allow them to use those religious beliefs as a shield from the consequences of their actions.

A child died as a result of their negligence. That's all that needs to be said.

it really sounds like she was killed by an infection and not Christianity, even killed by stupidity, or bad parents, or irresponsible parents, but not Christianity.

I'm with you.

I find it frustrating that Biblical literalists don't use the absence of Jesus' words to mean that he had no opinion on the issue (i.e. medical treatment). I find it even more frustrating that they'd expect a faith healing when those that happened even when Jesus was incarnate and walking the land were rare, let alone those that happened once the Savior had ascended.

God helps those who help themselves, right? Jehovas Witnesses and other Luddite fundamentalists would be wise to heed that maxim.

I think it's Captain Picard who said that, but it's been awhile.

IIRC, the in the episode, "Drumhead" Picard is quoting a famous Federation Judge.

*looks it up*
From wikiquote
Jean-Luc Picard: You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
Adm. Norah Satie: How dare you! You who consort with Romulans! Invoke my father's name in support of your traitorous arguments! It is an affront to everything I hold dear. And to hear his name used to subvert the United Federation of Planets. My father was a great man. His name stands for principle, and integrity! You dirty his name when you speak it! He loved the Federation! But you, Captain, corrupt it! You undermine our very way of life! I will expose you for what you are! I've brought down bigger men than you, Picard!


You know, Nerd Factor 5 and such.
-----

Arguably, however, the act of the parent forcing their religion onto their child is the first link that gets forged, not overruling the religious freedoms of the parents based on sound medical reasoning.

Rights are not absolute, and interests must be weighed. While the parents have the right to their religious beliefs it seems counter to the interests of a society as a whole to allow them to use those religious beliefs as a shield from the consequences of their actions.

A child died as a result of their negligence. That's all that needs to be said.

...and prosecuted.

As the religious and the libertarians all leapt to the defense of neglegent parents.


If they had been neglegent without using gawd as their excuse, we would all be universally condeming them. But because gawd is their excuse, especially the Christian gawd, whoa now, we need to be tolerant of their beliefs. Id even wager that if they were Muslim, there would be more condemnation.


Fuck that. Neglegence is neglegence. I dont give a shit if you want to let yourself die from easily curable illnesses because medication is the devil, but not your child. That is not acceptable.

No, there is a great difference in intent. If you shoot your child you want to murder it. If you do this, you're stupid, but you didn't really have a bad intention. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished, but certainly not as murderers.

Manslaughter would be the appropriate charge here, I think.

Manslaughter would be the appropriate charge here, I think.

Hell, I'm unsure personally whether to call this negligence or recklesness (or negligence as opposed to gross negligence, depending on your jurisdiction and how they define it)...

This sad story reminds me of another sad story (http://www.courttv.com/trials/andressohn/110705_ctv.html).
People who care more about their beliefs than the well-being of their children are unfit as parents.

As the religious and the libertarians all leapt to the defense of neglegent parents.

What a skewering generalization.
If they had been neglegent without using gawd as their excuse, we would all be universally condeming them. But because gawd is their excuse, especially the Christian gawd, whoa now, we need to be tolerant of their beliefs. Id even wager that if they were Muslim, there would be more condemnation.
Eh? Assumptions aside, negligence is not the same as believing something will heal your child and it not working. Negligence would be simply not caring if your child lived or died. I think mild idiocy is what we would call this.
Fuck that. Neglegence is neglegence. I dont give a shit if you want to let yourself die from easily curable illnesses because medication is the devil, but not your child. That is not acceptable.
Who knows, maybe the child was all for it? But at any rate, I agree that it probably isn't healthy, socially, to let kids die from cureable illnesses. No matter how much it goes on throughout the world due to various reasons.

Long story short, a pair of religious nutjobs refused to get health assistance for their seriously sick daughter's because they believe that worshipping jesus will heal everything.



Source (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_032408_news_faith_healing_death_15_month_girl_.2096e0ed.html?npc)

They need a friggin' law against this kind of thing. And another that outlaws this sort of "religion".

One problem, the "Followers of Christ" denomination is not Fundamentalists, they are WoF (Word of Faith) Charismatics... I find the article misleading in that respect...

Though, despite that error, I find the idea that parents and a church group would do this morbidly disgusting....

As the religious and the libertarians all leapt to the defense of neglegent parents.

I did no such thing, neither did most other religious posters Christian or otherwise.

What a skewering generalization.

I dont really care.

Eh? Assumptions aside, negligence is not the same as believing something will heal your child and it not working. Negligence would be simply not caring if your child lived or died. I think mild idiocy is what we would call this.

If your child is DYING, refusing it essential medical care is negligence.

Who knows, maybe the child was all for it?

At 15 months?

As the religious and the libertarians all leapt to the defense of neglegent parents.


No one has leapt to their defence.

As the religious and the libertarians all leapt to the defense of neglegent parents.

They did no such thing. They defended them against the charge of murder and actually support negligence charges.



NEO ART: is negligent manslaughter something that even exists, legally speaking? I don't think negligent homicide would stick in the OP case.

Negligence would be simply not caring if your child lived or died.

Incorrect. Negligence is not just "not caring". Negligence is the failure to forsee to forsee and anticipate the risk that an ordinary person would have seen.

"Not caring" is generally refered to as malfeasance, willingly placing someone at risk without concern for the forseeable consequences. That's recklessness.

This is a somewhat oversimplistic primer however

No one has leapt to their defence.

Let me rephrase that. Not lept to their defense but either subtly justified it or spoken out against action being taken against parents whos superstitions are directly responsible for the death of their child.

I dont really care.
As I supposed from you posting it and all.
If your child is DYING, refusing it essential medical care is negligence.
One could make the case that we are all dying. Were the parents aware the child was dying? Or did they believe it was merely ill?
At 15 months?
I dislike selective quoters. It's nothing personal I hope you understand.

I don't know. Fetii tend to be very agreeable all the time.

Let me rephrase that. Not lept to their defense but either subtly justified it or spoken out against action being taken against parents whos superstitions are directly responsible for the death of their child.

Not even subtly. Everyone here who has "defended" the parents have "defended" them from claims that the death is tantamount to murder. It isn't, you agree yourself, and nobody has justified that child's death in any way. What are you on about?

Let me rephrase that. Not lept to their defense but either subtly justified it
Source?

or spoken out against action being taken against parents whos superstitions are directly responsible for the death of their child.

The most I've seen is a discussion over which is the more applicable charge - manslaughter, murder, negligence etc.

Incorrect. Negligence is not just "not caring". Negligence is the failure to forsee to forsee and anticipate the risk that an ordinary person would have seen.

"Not caring" is generally refered to as malfeasance, willingly placing someone at risk without concern for the forseeable consequences. That's recklessness.

This is a somewhat oversimplistic primer however

I'm wary as to how "ordinary person" is defined, but I sit corrected/modified in my opinion/statement at any rate.

NEO ART: is negligent manslaughter something that even exists, legally speaking? I don't think negligent homicide would stick in the OP case.

Negligent manslaugher is a bit of a repetition. Manslaughter (if we ignore the "voluntary manslaughter" statutes which are a whole different animal) is defined, generally, as negligent homicide. Causing the death of someone without intent to kill, but as a result of your failure to act as a reasonable person.

IE your failure to act as a reasonable person resulted in the death of someone to whom you had a duty.

There is also reckless homicide, also called gross criminal negligence. Reckless homicide is not merely the failure to act as a reasonable person, but is demonstrated through a showing of a callous and wanton disregard for the health and safety of other people. That you were aware of the risk your actions posed and you did not care. Depending on your jurisdiction, reckless homicide may be manslaughter in the first degree (and negligent homicide being manslaughter in the second degree) or it might be murder in the second degree, with criminally negligent homicide being "manslaughter" and homicide with intent being first degree murder

Long story short, a pair of religious nutjobs refused to get health assistance for their seriously sick daughter's because they believe that worshipping jesus will heal everything.



Source (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_032408_news_faith_healing_death_15_month_girl_.2096e0ed.html?npc)

They need a friggin' law against this kind of thing. And another that outlaws this sort of "religion".

Outlawing any type of religion is immoral, unconstitutional and illegal. Are you mad?

Children are not People; they don't have rights;

Yeah they are and yeah they do. Ever read any of the laws?

Negligent manslaugher is a bit of a repetition. Manslaughter (if we ignore the "voluntary manslaughter" statutes which are a whole different animal) is defined, generally, as negligent homicide. Causing the death of someone without intent to kill, but as a result of your failure to act as a reasonable person.

IE your failure to act as a reasonable person resulted in the death of someone to whom you had a duty.

There is also reckless homicide, also called gross criminal negligence. Reckless homicide is not merely the failure to act as a reasonable person, but is demonstrated through a showing of a callous and wanton disregard for the health and safety of other people. That you were aware of the risk your actions posed and you did not care. Depending on your jurisdiction, reckless homicide may be manslaughter in the first degree (and negligent homicide being manslaughter in the second degree) or it might be murder in the second degree, with criminally negligent homicide being "manslaughter" and homicide with intent being first degree murder

Thanks always, Neo.

So does this mean that the DA's office will most likely file negligent homicide, then (in your opinion)? I don't see recklessness as applying, but I also don't see the point in adding any more than a handful of years in prison to a couple who have to, through their inaction no less, live with the death of their child.

One could make the case that we are all dying. Were the parents aware the child was dying? Or did they believe it was merely ill?

Im sure in the final stages Doctors said "Hey give your kid this or it will fucking die."

I dislike selective quoters. It's nothing personal I hope you understand.

I don't know. Fetii tend to be very agreeable all the time.

Im sorry, I know you werent really making that arguement, but its best IMO to nip it in the but before someone does.

Thanks always, Neo.

So does this mean that the DA's office will most likely file negligent homicide, then (in your opinion)? I don't see recklessness as applying, but I also don't see the point in adding any more than a handful of years in prison to a couple who have to, through their inaction no less, live with the death of their child.

The line of negligence to recklessness is, generally, as follows for this case

negligence - their failure to secure proper medical attention was a failure to act as a reasonable person would have, and such failure resulted in the death of the child

recklessness - they were aware of the risk they posed to the child and with callous disregard for the life of the child did nothing

Recklessness is a bit of a stretch because one can argue that they believed what they were doing was correct. They didn't disregard the interests of the child, they did what they thought was right. A negligence claim would not necessarily be defeated by this defense because the response was...your belief was not reasonable.

It's difficult because at what point do we draw the line of "yeah, you thought you were doing the right thing, but your belief was SO out there, SO unlikely to do ANYTHING that for all practical purpose, you did nothing"

Im sure in the final stages Doctors said "Hey give your kid this or it will fucking die."

If that was the case, then the idiocy comes into play, regardless how they justified it.
Im sorry, I know you werent really making that arguement, but its best IMO to nip it in the but before someone does.
No problem.
By the by, was that some sort of semi-Freudian slip right there? :p
*looks at KoL suspiciously*

The line of negligence to recklessness is, generally, as follows for this case

negligence - their failure to secure proper medical attention was a failure to act as a reasonable person would have, and such failure resulted in the death of the child

recklessness - they were aware of the risk they posed to the child and with callous disregard for the life of the child did nothing

Recklessness is a bit of a stretch because one can argue that they believed what they were doing was correct. They didn't disregard the interests of the child, they did what they thought was right. A negligence claim would not necessarily be defeated by this defense because the response was...your belief was not reasonable.

It's difficult because at what point do we draw the line of "yeah, you thought you were doing the right thing, but your belief was SO out there, SO unlikely to do ANYTHING that for all practical purpose, you did nothing"

That is a fine question. And much like the classic "who decides" question regarding my field, aesthetics -- there is no very good answer.

And?




So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?

Interesting.

Where minors are concerned absolutely, I am all for freedoms but throw away your own life not that of someone who did not have a chance to really decide for themselfs. This is not Grey area, this is not an area where a reasonable person can contest the effectiveness of medicine

Their religious belief comes second in this case

That is a fine question. And much like the classic "who decides" question regarding my field, aesthetics -- there is no very good answer.

But we have tons of debateable ones. So debate we shall! Until people like you come along and try to ruin the fun with your "no good answer" spiel. But we will not be deterred. Or waver. None of that nonsense.

As the religious and the libertarians all leapt to the defense of neglegent parents.

Hey, I say punish the parents for child neglect. I always believe in the phrase that a person's right end where the other's person nose begin. The parents obviously violated the child's right to have a healthy life so it's Government's job to punish the parent's for violating the Child's rights.

As the religious and the libertarians all leapt to the defense of neglegent parents.

Really? Smunkee and I leapt to the defense of these parents? truly?

Really? Smunkee and I leapt to the defense of these parents? truly?

Don't forget me, also Kat check your T'gram please. :)

Hey, I say punish the parents for child neglect. I always believe in the phrase that a person's right end where the other's person nose begin. The parents obviously violated the child's right to have a healthy life so it's Government's job to punish the parent's for violating the Child's rights.

Maybe that's what you say.. but what do you mean?

Seriously, what kind of religious(?) Libertarian would you be if you actually held the views expressed above?

But we have tons of debateable ones. So debate we shall! Until people like you come along and try to ruin the fun with your "no good answer" spiel. But we will not be deterred. Or waver. None of that nonsense.

Are you kidding? I took classes in Aesthetics in grad school -- the phrase "no good answer" are basically fightin' words. They're a place to start, not end. I have ruined no fun, but rather encouraged more. Rage on!

Maybe that's what you say.. but what do you mean?

Seriously, what kind of religious(?) Libertarian would you be if you actually held the views expressed above?

Who says I am a religious Libertarian? I have always held the viewpoint that Religion is a private and personal thing, and that it shouldn't be supported by Government and people should stop shoving their religion down other's people throat. I don't care what you believe, I don't, as long as your belief doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Not even subtly. Everyone here who has "defended" the parents have "defended" them from claims that the death is tantamount to murder. It isn't, you agree yourself, and nobody has justified that child's death in any way. What are you on about?

Meh, just probably an excuse to trot out the old "religious people are evil mind controlled retards who eat their own young" nonsense.

Meh, just probably an excuse to trot out the old "religious people are evil mind controlled retards who eat their own young" nonsense.

But...but... they are! They are! :p

Are you kidding? I took classes in Aesthetics in grad school -- the phrase "no good answer" are basically fightin' words. They're a place to start, not end. I have ruined no fun, but rather encouraged more. Rage on!
Er...yep.. Definitely kidding. That's exactly what I meant.
*hides*
Who says I am a religious Libertarian?
I do not know? I thought you were, perhaps I was mistaken in my views. Erring perhaps, in my perceptions.

I have always held the viewpoint that Religion is a private and personal thing, and that it shouldn't be supported by Government and people should stop shoving their religion down other's people throat. I don't care what you believe, I don't, as long as your belief doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Even though you fly planes, I respect you for those views.

Don't forget me, also Kat check your T'gram please. :)

Replied.

But...but... they are! They are! :p

Well, I don't have any kids.... and really, don't feel I should eat someone else's young, so....


*starts sprinkling adobo on Kryozerkia*

Well, I don't have any kids.... and really, don't feel I should eat someone else's young, so....


*starts sprinkling adobo on Kryozerkia*

...wah! No! I'm very gamey... I don't taste good. Trust me, Ceiling Cat, I tasted myself and I has no flavour. :)

As the religious and the libertarians all leapt to the defense of neglegent parents.

Can't say I remember doing that.

...wah! No! I'm very gamey... I don't taste good. Trust me, Ceiling Cat, I tasted myself and I has no flavour. :)

Which is what the adobo is for.

Seriously, the excuses the meals try to make get more ridiculous every year.
*sighs wearily and picks up utensils*

Can't say I remember doing that.

Which just goes to show how insidious your hive-mind of religious/libertarian fanatics is.

Which is what the adobo is for.

Seriously, the excuses the meals try to make get more ridiculous every year.
*sighs wearily and picks up utensils*

What happened to the Lottery??

What happened to the Lottery??

We stoned them all.

Thankfully they all turned the other cheek so it didn't take too much time out of my busy schedule.

*rushes off to abort some 2 year old fetii*

Seriously, what kind of religious(?) Libertarian would you be if you actually held the views expressed above?

So, your contention is that it is impossible for a person of faith(of some sort) to be a libertarian?

So, your contention is that it is impossible for a person of faith(of some sort) to be a libertarian?

No contention. I just wasn't sure if Wilgrove was religious or not.

i believe that parents should have no say at all in their childs medical treatment or spiritual development, because the fact of the matter is if you are born into a religion its likely that forever your mind will be constantly warped by that ideology, so it restricts the childs ability to make rational decisions as they have been practically brainwashed.

That's ridiculous. People are necessarily born into all sorts of circumstances--there's no blank slate of childhood. While we all have issues from that (and how!) that doesn't mean everyone's warped and brainwashed. Both my parents were born into Protestant families of different denominations, yet neither is Christian now and I was raised without religion.

That's ridiculous. People are necessarily born into all sorts of circumstances--there's no blank slate of childhood.

Tsk. Tsk. John Locke is just twitching for a fight now. I think a hand just burst from his grave.. Oh.. this isn't good, he's crawling this way weilding a large blank slate as a weapon!

Both my parents were born into Protestant families of different denominations, yet neither is Christian now and I was raised without religion.
Quite a plausible scenario. But no doubt some posters will point out the worthlessness of anectdotal evidence, especially the unverifiable and contrary to their point kind.

People can do what they want to themselves, and I support that. However, causing a child to die from neglect for any reason including religion isn't a right. Parents can do what they want to themselves but they shouldn't be able to have the sort of the control over their child where it is okay to kill them.

It wasn't neglect, they assumably knew about the situation full-well, and no doubt they were taking action.

Just because they were taking prayerful action in lieu of medical action does not make it neglect.

Tragic? Of course. A little ridiculous? I think so. Within their parental rights? Yes.

If it is not in their parental rights, then perhaps the state should force all children into orphanages to be run by the state, this way no one can complain that the state isn't invasive enough.

Just because they were taking prayerful action in lieu of medical action does not make it neglect.
ne·glect
1. To pay little or no attention to; fail to heed; disregard: neglected their warnings.

They failed to heed medical warnings

2. To fail to care for or attend to properly.

They failed to apply the correct medical treatment.

3. To fail to do or carry out, as through carelessness or oversight.

Hmmm.... all three definitions seem to apply.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neglect

Oh, oh and :
neglect. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neglect
a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness, indifference, or willfulness; especially : a failure to provide a child under one's care with proper food, clothing, shelter, supervision, medical care, or emotional stability

So, yes neglect.

Tragic? Of course. A little ridiculous? I think so. Within their parental rights? Yes.
No, not within their right. As Wilgrove has previously stated their rights end where their kid's began. Allowing their child to die was not within their parental right.

If it is not in their parental rights, then perhaps the state should force all children into orphanages to be run by the state, this way no one can complain that the state isn't invasive enough.

Or just, you know, prosecute when someones actions can reasonable lead to another persons death.

I cannot think of anything but religion that would convince parents to refuse medical treatment, the fact that it was in lieu of prayer simply amplifies this.

If it wasn't for religion, these parents would probably be certified insane and put away in an asylum but lucky them, religion excuses their insanity.

The only reason this is not neglect is that they genuinely wanted to help, they genuinely thought prayer would do the trick.

That is insanity.

Long story short, a pair of religious nutjobs refused to get health assistance for their seriously sick daughter's because they believe that worshipping jesus will heal everything.

They need a friggin' law against this kind of thing. And another that outlaws this sort of "religion".

Sorry, but arresting them for the death of their child is enough. the Government is not stopping them from practicing their religion, but punishing them for the fact that a life under their care was lost.

I cannot think of anything but religion that would convince parents to refuse medical treatment, the fact that it was in lieu of prayer simply amplifies this.


Not quite. My cousin used to refuse medical treatment because of his extreme fear of doctors/ operations. Poor bugger, it killed him ultimately.

Not quite. My cousin used to refuse medical treatment because of his extreme fear of doctors/ operations. Poor bugger, it killed him ultimately.

Well, with all due respect, there's an element of insanity there as well - I can understand it, hell, I can understand these parents, it's still 'not sane'.

At least it was his choice though.

Not quite. My cousin used to refuse medical treatment because of his extreme fear of doctors/ operations. Poor bugger, it killed him ultimately.

I'm so sorry :(

Which just goes to show how insidious your hive-mind of religious/libertarian fanatics is.

After consulting our Queen, we are forced to conclude that you are mistaken in several ways.

That said, our hearts collectively mourn on this tragic occasion and we are sad that this could have been prevented if only the Doctor had possessed a little more faith.

I'm so sorry :(

It was very sad, but I was very young at the time.

Tsk. Tsk. John Locke is just twitching for a fight now. I think a hand just burst from his grave.. Oh.. this isn't good, he's crawling this way weilding a large blank slate as a weapon!

Oh my! Chomsky defend us from zombie!Locke!

Quite a plausible scenario. But no doubt some posters will point out the worthlessness of anectdotal evidence, especially the unverifiable and contrary to their point kind.

Probably so. I was going to say something like "Who would make up something that inane?" but you never know.

I remember a Law and Order about this...like way early in the 1st or 2nd seasons. Except it was more like Scientology than Christian sect.

People should certainly be allowed to refuse medical treatment; however, they should not be allowed to neglect their children. Would you agree that parents should be required to feed their children?

What if their religion insisted that they don't feed their children?

Now, where's the difference?

Didn't we have a thread hear a few months back about a vegan couple who tried to raise their baby on fruit juice, then went to prison for homicide when the baby died after six weeks of starvation?

So, your contention is that it is impossible for a person of faith(of some sort) to be a libertarian?

Only if it's a faith they made up themselves.

Human history has gotten to the point that all the religions that have really caught on are the ones that tell other people what to believe. So if you follow them, you don't believe in allowing others to do as they please. They must do as your God commands.

Didn't we have a thread hear a few months back about a vegan couple who tried to raise their baby on fruit juice, then went to prison for homicide when the baby died after six weeks of starvation?

You're right, t'would be interesting to compare notes...

*searches*

While this is a shame I don't see why the parents should be punished.

We - as a society - allow children die around the world all the time for treatable conditions and allow adults to die because of religious conviction so why should we punish parents who followed their religious conviction? If this had happened in sub-Saharan Africa with a family following a tribal shaman nobody would probably even take any notice.

Of course, if there's a law against unintentionally, practically accidentally, hurting a child then I can almost see the point in prosecution.

I also don't see how a proper Christian would prosecute the parents as the child must've died 'coz God Wanted So and is currently in heaven being breastfed by angels!

Note: this post is meant to be (moderately) sarcastic.

Natural selection lives on. I know it seems tragic, but consider the kind of person that they would've raised that 15 month old to be.

Natural selection lives on. I know it seems tragic, but consider the kind of person that they would've raised that 15 month old to be.

Yeah, i think allot of todays problems have to do with saving those who shouldve died, and they in turn pass on their Genetic Traits which werent meant to make it into the system and so we get more and more crazy psychos and diseases and disorders....

Natural selection lives on. I know it seems tragic, but consider the kind of person that they would've raised that 15 month old to be.

A human being. That should be enough.

Yeah, i think allot of todays problems have to do with saving those who shouldve died, and they in turn pass on their Genetic Traits which werent meant to make it into the system and so we get more and more crazy psychos and diseases and disorders....

Let's hear it for eugenics! Weed out everyone who can't use punctuation and then move on to the cripples.

Who says it's ok?
I bet they are brought to trial.
And the title of the thread is flamebait -- the kids was not murdered by Christianity, he was killed by nutjob parents. Big difference.

Why were they nutjobs instead of just "good Christians" ?
I mean - they actually believed that God would heal their child or that He would take it to heaven if He thought that best. Are you less of a nutjob if you believe that the omnipotent, benevolent God will do nothing while your child is suffering and dying - and yet still worship Him ?

Low blow perhaps, but the question remains: why are they nutjobs for truly believing ?

ne·glect
1. To pay little or no attention to; fail to heed; disregard: neglected their warnings.

They failed to heed medical warnings

2. To fail to care for or attend to properly.

They failed to apply the correct medical treatment.

3. To fail to do or carry out, as through carelessness or oversight.

Hmmm.... all three definitions seem to apply.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neglect

Oh, oh and :
neglect. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neglect
a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness, indifference, or willfulness; especially : a failure to provide a child under one's care with proper food, clothing, shelter, supervision, medical care, or emotional stability

So, yes neglect.

Umm, no, not neglect. They did indeed take action. Merely because the course of action they chose was not the course of action you would've taken does not make them negligent. They did not disregard medical warnings, they prayed, which is action, whether you like it or not.

I don't agree with how they handled the situation, but they did not ignore the situation outright, in fact they went to the extent of their moral boundaries in trying to heal their child, I understand that you personally disagree with their course of action, but your opinion does not qualify their actions as neglect.

They fit none of the definitions for neglect, because, again they acted on the situation.

No, not within their right. As Wilgrove has previously stated their rights end where their kid's began. Allowing their child to die was not within their parental right.

I'm glad that you hold Wilgrove's opinion should be so highly treated as fact, however, it remains that his opinion is not fact, nor is his opinion the standard for law.

Define "allow". As you use it here it sounds as though they took no actions at all, which is clearly not the case. What about SIDS? Are those parents responsible for allowing their children to die? Or is it that you don't actually know what you're talking about?

I cannot think of anything but religion that would convince parents to refuse medical treatment, the fact that it was in lieu of prayer simply amplifies this.

If it wasn't for religion, these parents would probably be certified insane and put away in an asylum but lucky them, religion excuses their insanity.

The only reason this is not neglect is that they genuinely wanted to help, they genuinely thought prayer would do the trick.

That is insanity.

That is opinion. Frankly, a very narrow-minded, ignorant, and intolerant one.

That is opinion. Frankly, a very narrow-minded, ignorant, and intolerant one.

And yet the child is dead.

That is opinion. Frankly, a very narrow-minded, ignorant, and intolerant one.

Voices in my head tell me that sprinkling oil on my kid is going to cure them of pneumonia.

That is insane.

Compare that with...

My religious beliefs dictate that I do not place my child under medical care.

Entirely sane all of a sudden!

Only religion grants respectability to insanity in this way.

Umm, no, not neglect. They did indeed take action. Merely because the course of action they chose was not the course of action you would've taken does not make them negligent. They did not disregard medical warnings, they prayed, which is action, whether you like it or not.
They did disregard the medical warning of "if you don't do this than your child will die". They did not intervene when they were told, and it was reasonable to assume that their child would die if (s)he did not receive medical care. As a parent it is their job to provide, this includes medical care.

I don't agree with how they handled the situation, but they did not ignore the situation outright, in fact they went to the extent of their moral boundaries in trying to heal their child, I understand that you personally disagree with their course of action, but your opinion does not qualify their actions as neglect.
No, but legally this would qualify this case as neglect.

They fit none of the definitions for neglect, because, again they acted on the situation.
2. To fail to care for or attend to properly.
They did not respond properly. This killed the child. Therefore: neglect.

And yet the child is dead.

So, because prayer, in this case, seemed fruitless, all religious people who believe in the powr of prayer are insane? Not only is this a reasonable logical jump, but it just plain makes sense. Oh wait, not it doesn't. There are many reasons, even for Christians who could argue that God just didn't happen to grant the prayer, perhaps he wanted the child immediately with Him? Perhaps He was working something deeper into the lives of the parents?

I, again, don't agree with their choice personally, humans were blessed with the intellect to develope medical technology, I consider it an indirect gift from God.

They did disregard the medical warning of "if you don't do this than your child will die". They did not intervene when they were told, and it was reasonable to assume that their child would die if (s)he did not receive medical care. As a parent it is their job to provide, this includes medical care.


No, but legally this would qualify this case as neglect.


2. To fail to care for or attend to properly.
They did not respond properly. This killed the child. Therefore: neglect.

They responded as properly as they felt they could, so, not neglect. They provided what they felt was superior to medical care, how is that neglect?

Why were they nutjobs instead of just "good Christians" ?
I mean - they actually believed that God would heal their child or that He would take it to heaven if He thought that best. Are you less of a nutjob if you believe that the omnipotent, benevolent God will do nothing while your child is suffering and dying - and yet still worship Him ?

Low blow perhaps, but the question remains: why are they nutjobs for truly believing ?

Why are they nutjobs? Because there's a line where faith becomes stupidity. I doubt very much that God wants us to forsake modern medicine and rely on "miracles". Of course miracles can happen, but that's no reason not to take advantage of our technology. If we believe God gave us a brain, why are we so adverse to using it? Maybe willful ignorance should be a sin.

Why are they nutjobs? Because there's a line where faith becomes stupidity. I doubt very much that God wants us to forsake modern medicine and rely on "miracles". Of course miracles can happen, but that's no reason not to take advantage of our technology. If we believe God gave us a brain, why are we so adverse to using it? Maybe willful ignorance should be a sin.

Lol, maybe it should! :)

I agree with you, my beliefs absolutely account for miracles, then again I marvel at science as well, and respect the power of both.

They responded as properly as they felt they could, so, not neglect. They provided what they felt was superior to medical care, how is that neglect?

Indeed - do I have to repeat this?

It's insanity.

Legally it's neglect though, it would seem

Voices in my head tell me that sprinkling oil on my kid is going to cure them of pneumonia.

That is insane.

Compare that with...

My religious beliefs dictate that I do not place my child under medical care.

Entirely sane all of a sudden!

Only religion grants respectability to insanity in this way.

Now you are qualified to judge mental stability in people you don't know?

And if their beliefs (at least, the core of their beliefs) are accurate, then they wouldn't be insane would they?

Indeed - do I have to repeat this?

It's insanity.

Legally it's neglect though it would seem

Ok, you are free to have your opinion.

I hope for your sake that someday your tolerance, and understanding will increase with potential maturity.

I'm glad that you hold Wilgrove's opinion should be so highly treated as fact, however, it remains that his opinion is not fact, nor is his opinion the standard for law.
Well, most constituional law (in the West at least) is founded on that principal. They have added some extra laws sense that don't abide by that but generally speaking that would by why murder is illegal. It infringes upon other people's feedom.

Define "allow". As you use it here it sounds as though they took no actions at all, which is clearly not the case. What about SIDS? Are those parents responsible for allowing their children to die? Or is it that you don't actually know what you're talking about?
They took no effective action when they knew it would result in the child's death, thus allow.
If they're reasoning skills were so insufficient that they did not allow them to reach this conclusion then they were insane, in which case I don't think they should go to jail but rather an insane asylum.
Children who die from SIDS are sometimes unpreventable and other times the parents do not have the knowledge to reasonably assume that their actions could result in a child's death.

Now you are qualified to judge mental stability in people you don't know?

And if their beliefs (at least, the core of their beliefs) are accurate, then they wouldn't be insane would they?

Insanity: such unsoundness of mind as affects legal responsibility or capacity.

Either:
1. they knew the kid would die and they let it happen which would be manslaughter.
2. They were insane as their religious belief affected their ability to reason that their child would die.
We do not know so we can't identify which it is. If their belief that God would heal their child was correct this situation would not exist and it would not have affected their reasoning ability. However as this is not the case I direct you to the above possibilities.

Well, most constituional law (in the West at least) is founded on that principal. They have added some extra laws sense that don't abide by that but generally speaking that would by why murder is illegal. It infringes upon other people's feedom.

Constitutional laws are based off of Wilgrove's opinion? I wasn't aware, that seems actually rather arbitrary.

They took no effective action when they knew it would result in the child's death, thus allow.
If they're reasoning skills were so insufficient that they did not allow them to reach this conclusion then they were insane, in which case I don't think they should go to jail but rather an insane asylum.
Children who die from SIDS are sometimes unpreventable and other times the parents do not have the knowledge to reasonably assume that their actions could result in a child's death.

But to them the action they took was far more potentially effective. Who can say that medical treatment had a 100% chance of perfectly curing the infant?

Regardless, parents who believe their children are healthy (if the child has no symptoms) are just insane as people who believe that prayer works. Every parent who has ever let any child die ever is neglectful because steps could've been taken to perhaps prolong life. Ergo all these parents are both insane, and neglecting. Hmm, wait, that doesn't follow, nor does it follow that because they believed prayer would work better than medical treatment, that they must be insane. Misguided? IMO yes. Insane? No real evidence has been provided to actually support such an idea.

Insanity: such unsoundness of mind as affects legal responsibility or capacity.

Either:
1. they knew the kid would die and they let it happen which would be manslaughter.
2. They were insane as their religious belief affected their ability to reason that their child would die.
We do not know so we can't identify which it is. If their belief that God would heal their child was correct this situation would not exist and it would not have affected their reasoning ability. However as this is not the case I direct you to the above possibilities.

So, if the Christian God is real, and if He sometimes answers prayers, then He must not exist if He didn't grant this request, and so the parents are insane? Interesting, though I cannot help but note that your logic is hardly existent, I would suggest you take a class regarding logic, so that next time you try to use it, it might be present.

EDIT: Their belief was more than likely that God could heal their child, which He of course easily could. This is no garauntee that He would. Perhaps a couple of extra classes for recommendation: Theology, and Semantics.

So, if the Christian God is real, and if He sometimes answers prayers, then He must not exist if He didn't grant this request, and so the parents are insane? Interesting, though I cannot help but note that your logic is hardly existent, I would suggest you take a class regarding logic, so that next time you try to use it, it might be present.

Words cannot describe this paragraph.

Oh wait, one can - insane.

Constitutional laws are based off of Wilgrove's opinion? I wasn't aware, that seems actually rather arbitrary.

:rolleyes:
No they are based off of the classic liberal belief of my rights end where yours begin, govern minimally and all that. Generally, Locke's beliefs.


But to them the action they took was far more potentially effective. Who can say that medical treatment had a 100% chance of perfectly curing the infant?
It almost defiantly would have. They could have easily saved their son/daughter's life by allowing her to have the medical excess necessary to survive.

Regardless, parents who believe their children are healthy (if the child has no symptoms) are just insane as people who believe that prayer works.
No, they have no reason to believe that their child isn't healthy. Their child but in fact be completely healthy.
Every parent who has ever let any child die ever is neglectful because steps could've been taken to perhaps prolong life.
Bullshit.
Ergo all these parents are both insane, and neglecting.
Your logic doesn't follow.
Hmm, wait, that doesn't follow, nor does it follow that because they believed prayer would work better than medical treatment, that they must be insane. Misguided? IMO yes. Insane? No real evidence has been provided to actually support such an idea.
The kid died, either from willful neglect or insanity. That's the proof.

Words cannot describe this paragraph.

Oh wait, one can - insane.

Source? Reasoning?

None? Didn't think so.

So, if the Christian God is real, and if He sometimes answers prayers, then He must not exist if He didn't grant this request, and so the parents are insane?
How did I say that at all?
Interesting, though I cannot help but note that your logic is hardly existent, I would suggest you take a class regarding logic, so that next time you try to use it, it might be present.
I would suggest that you take an English class, so that next time you try to read you may have some basic comprehension.

EDIT: Their belief was more than likely that God could heal their child, which He of course easily could. This is no garauntee that He would. Perhaps a couple of extra classes for recommendation: Theology, and Semantics.
As there was no guarantee he would they should have turned to medicine.

It almost defiantly would have. They could have easily saved their son/daughter's life by allowing her to have the medical excess necessary to survive.

Source?

No, they have no reason to believe that their child isn't healthy. Their child but in fact be completely healthy.

Bullshit.

Your logic doesn't follow.

Exactly, my logic doesn't follow because I was using your logic, you must not have noticed the ridiculous satyr. Thank you for helping my point along quite well.

The kid died, either from willful neglect or insanity. That's the proof.

Proof? Nothing said on this thread is proof of insanity... perhaps you don't quite know the meaning of the word? I suggest, for your approval perhaps, evidence?

As there was no guarantee he would they should have turned to medicine.

Again we turn to "I think they should have done this, so they are both negligent and insane"

There is little garauntee of anything, and as such garauntees are of little use in arguments.

How did I say that at all?

If their belief that God would heal their child was correct this situation would not exist and it would not have affected their reasoning ability. However as this is not the case I direct you to the above possibilities.


That is how you said it.

I would suggest that you take an English class, so that next time you try to read you may have some basic comprehension.


As there was no guarantee he would they should have turned to medicine.

Thank you for the suggestion, I will keep it in mind.

Source? Reasoning?

None? Didn't think so.

No problems...

So, if the Christian God is real,

For which there is no evidence but belief in a higher being is hard to call insane in itself, belief in a God borne of a small tribe in the ME, completely ignoring the many other beliefs in this world, might be considered insane but I'll let it pass as it's irrelevant - I'm happy to concede that belief in a Christian God is a sane choice.

and if He sometimes answers prayers, then He must not exist if He didn't grant this request, and so the parents are insane?

If simple medical treatment is available that 99% guarantees your child's life as opposed to sprinkling oil, which has no guarantee whatsoever, sticking to that against all odds, yes, that's insane. It is not a rational, sane choice to make. Believing in prayer and medicine, I can call that sane but persisting in prayer alone, refusing medical help, to the point where the kid dies due to a belief is simply not rational.

Interesting, though I cannot help but note that your logic is hardly existent, I would suggest you take a class regarding logic, so that next time you try to use it, it might be present.

This is where it gets really funny, you then ask the poster to take a lesson in logic, something you're clearly getting a D- in.

EDIT: Their belief was more than likely that God could heal their child, which He of course easily could. This is no guarantee that He would. Perhaps a couple of extra classes for recommendation: Theology, and Semantics.

Their belief was insane.

Believing in prayer and medicine, I can call that sane but persisting in prayer alone, refusing medical help, to the point where the kid dies due to a belief is simply not rational.

I would argue that just because they acted irrationally, does not mean they acted insanely. The two are not the same. I think their choice was not rational, that is due to my own beliefs (which, though faith-based, also have some room for science).

This is where it gets really funny, you then ask the poster to take a lesson in logic, something you're clearly getting a D- in.

Actually, I got an A in my uni class on the subject.

Well, it is late here, and I must get to bed, as I work tomorrow, it has been strangely fun (then again, I love debate).

I bid you all adieu, and goodnight.

I would argue that just because they acted irrationally, does not mean they acted insanely. The two are not the same. I think their choice was not rational, that is due to my own beliefs (which, though faith-based, also have some room for science).



Actually, I got an A in my uni class on the subject.

Well I suspect we're applying different definitions to 'insanity' - I've said that, in legal terms, they are guilty of neglect, not insane.

In medical terms, they don't have a specific medical disorder, unless you call extremism a disorder or at least symptomatic of a disorder.

They are still insane

Main Entry:
in·san·i·ty Listen to the pronunciation of insanity
Pronunciation:
\in-ˈsa-nə-tē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural in·san·i·ties
Date:
1590

1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia

2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility

Medical and legal out the way...

...or

3 a: extreme folly or unreasonableness b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable

Mirriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity)

So, if the Christian God is real, and if He sometimes answers prayers, then He must not exist if He didn't grant this request, and so the parents are insane? Interesting, though I cannot help but note that your logic is hardly existent, I would suggest you take a class regarding logic, so that next time you try to use it, it might be present.

EDIT: Their belief was more than likely that God could heal their child, which He of course easily could. This is no garauntee that He would. Perhaps a couple of extra classes for recommendation: Theology, and Semantics.

Well, look at it this way : If the Christian god is real, there are some cases in which he grants wishes, and some in which he doesn't.
Pneumonia is real, and so are antibiotics. And neither work on a "sometimes" basis. A small child with pneumonia has a rather higher chance of dying if untreated, regardless if parents pray for it or not. However, it has a very high chance of surviving if treated.
By not being able to rationally look at these simple facts and risks involved, the parents have shown themselves to be naive and negligent in the extreme, bordering on insanity.

Believing the god could help the child but might not, and not taking steps to avoid the consequences of god's disinterest but rather accepting the child's death could be regarded as human sacrifice, if one wanted to think the case through to its extremes.

While this is a shame I don't see why the parents should be punished.

We - as a society - allow children die around the world all the time for treatable conditions and allow adults to die because of religious conviction so why should we punish parents who followed their religious conviction? If this had happened in sub-Saharan Africa with a family following a tribal shaman nobody would probably even take any notice.

Of course, if there's a law against unintentionally, practically accidentally, hurting a child then I can almost see the point in prosecution.

I also don't see how a proper Christian would prosecute the parents as the child must've died 'coz God Wanted So and is currently in heaven being breastfed by angels!

Note: this post is meant to be (moderately) sarcastic.

the parents are prosecuted in such cases not only because they let their child die but to deter other likeminded parents in the future.

instead of the tragedy remaining private and thus depriving others who might think that prayer is a substitute for medicine from getting valuable information that they might need to help make the decision to take their own kid to the doctor its incredibly public and painful. it spurs on discussion, debate and ...well...no one wants to end up in prison eh?

Meh, just probably an excuse to trot out the old "religious people are evil mind controlled retards who eat their own young" nonsense.

Agreed. One of my friends when I was an undergrad once told me "God doesn't want his followers to be idiots." I have come to respect many Christians and other people of faith for their ability to have faith and reason coexist. God gave us our minds, it's up to us to use them.

Er...yep.. Definitely kidding. That's exactly what I meant.
*hides*

You can't hide forever! *searches*

Natural selection lives on. I know it seems tragic, but consider the kind of person that they would've raised that 15 month old to be.

Yeah, i think allot of todays problems have to do with saving those who shouldve died, and they in turn pass on their Genetic Traits which werent meant to make it into the system and so we get more and more crazy psychos and diseases and disorders....

So is there some kind of final solution in the offing?

But to them the action they took was far more potentially effective. Who can say that medical treatment had a 100% chance of perfectly curing the infant?

Anyone who's ever looked objectively at the rate of cures based on prayer versus the rate of cures based on antibiotics for a pneumonia infection. You want logic, there it is. no cure is 100% effective due to variations in human physiology from person to person, but with something as straightforward as pneumonia (mind you, I'm not talking about modern resistant strains), antibiotics are as close to 100% as medical science gets. It is not a contravention of God's Will to use the technology mankind developed with God-given intellect.

Regardless, parents who believe their children are healthy (if the child has no symptoms) are just insane as people who believe that prayer works. Every parent who has ever let any child die ever is neglectful because steps could've been taken to perhaps prolong life. Ergo all these parents are both insane, and neglecting. Hmm, wait, that doesn't follow, nor does it follow that because they believed prayer would work better than medical treatment, that they must be insane. Misguided? IMO yes. Insane? No real evidence has been provided to actually support such an idea.

So many fallacies, so little time. An apparently healthy child can be hiding any number of non-presenting illnesses or disorders. Medical testing can discover them, but only when such testing is indicated either by symptom or by regular check-ups. People who believe that prayer works must do so with the knowledge that it is only when God's Will matches the will of the ones praying. In the course of human events, this is not all that common (I'll leave the potential for coincidence and the debate about corelation and causality for another thread).

Your attempt to reduce your opponent's argument to absurdity fails because it presupposes the same level of demonstrable knowledge about the availability and efficacy of healing help. A doctor can show the recorded rates of success for various therapies. I doubt similar records (including both successes and failures) have been kept for prayer and faith healing.

Your staunch defense of faith against unreasonable charges is admirable and even impressive. As such, it's disappointing to see you resort to such vague, cloth-eared syllogisms to make your point.

And?




So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?

Interesting.

'Religious rights' isn't a panacea. If your religion says it's okay to screw 6-year-olds, touting your religious rights isn't going to save you from the prosecutions for indulging your religious prediliction. If my 'religion' says I don't have to pay taxes, whipping out the 'religious rights' card isn't going to get me an exemption.

Laws should respect 'religious rights' (perhaps), but not to the extent that religious rights TRUMP law.

They responded as properly as they felt they could, so, not neglect. They provided what they felt was superior to medical care, how is that neglect?
Because ‘neglect’ isn’t defined as ‘doing what you think is right’. It is negligent to refrain from giving your children necessary medical care, no matter if you think that hugging them, chanting, praying to whatever god or gods, etc., will make them better.

To use another (extreme) example, an individual might feel that they are showing love to their child by having sexual intercourse with them. That does not mean that they are showing appropriate love. The defence that ‘they provided what they felt was superior love to their child, how is that molestation?’ is not acceptable.

Again we turn to "I think they should have done this, so they are both negligent and insane"

Agreed - that is not a valid argument.

However, it is extremely likely that medicine would have been more effective than praying. One can even state that with medicine there would have been a small chance that the child would have died, while with praying there was a small chance that it would live. Even someone who devoutly believes in the benevolence of God will have a hard time denying it, seeing how rare miracle healings are.

Now, the parents deliberately picked an option that had a vastly smaller chance of healing their child. I think everyone will agree on that.

Whether that is insane or careless or whatever depends on if you truly believe that it is up to God to decide who lives and who dies.

So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?

Interesting.

I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask you: what of the rights of the child?

While this is a shame I don't see why the parents should be punished.

It's called neglect. These parents are no different from parents who would starve their child on the assumption that prayer would be enough to nourish them or refuse to clothe them on the assumption that prayer would keep them warm.

Failing to properly care for your child is neglect, and they should therefore be prosecuted for it.

We - as a society - allow children die around the world all the time for treatable conditions and allow adults to die because of religious conviction so why should we punish parents who followed their religious conviction?

If the parents want to die because of their religious conviction, that is fine. I do not believe they should be allowed to apply their religion to someone else in this manner.

If they prevented another adult from getting healthcare, would that be ok?

Of course, if there's a law against unintentionally, practically accidentally, hurting a child then I can almost see the point in prosecution.

There is a law against neglect.

There are also laws that cover killing someone accidentally, when a reasonable person would be aware that the actions being taken could result in death.

So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?

Interesting.

Not forcing people to have medical care - forcing them to seek medical care for their children.

Likewise, we don't force adults to seek education, but we do make laws that they must seek education for their children. We don't force adults to eat, but we do make laws that they must feed their children.

Their religious rights mean that, if they are sick, they can forgo medical care. Why should their rights allow them to force that religious viewpoint on a child? Why should their religious rights, in essence, give them the right to watch their child die of an easily treated disease?

If they prevented another adult from receiving medical care, it would unequivocally be considered to be homicide.

Exactly, my logic doesn't follow because I was using your logic, you must not have noticed the ridiculous satyr.

No? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Villacasale03.jpg)

And?




So, you'd have a law forcing people to have medical care - even if it over-rules their religious views and by extension, trampling all over their religious rights?

Interesting.

Its the parents religious belief to not have medicine the child has the right to choose, if the child is to young to choose then what? I believe it should be compulsory to take medical care until you can decide you don't want it yourself.

Is there another case here or is this thread just mistitled?

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=41388&cat=14

11-Year-Old Girl Dies after Parents Opt for Prayer Over Medicine

Police in Wisconsin are investigating the death of 11-year-old Madeline Neumann following her parent's revelation that they had placed their faith in prayers over medicine as a means of treating the girl’s diabetes.

Hooray for invisible guy in the sky!

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/WDH0101/80325030

Vergin said the girl had not seen a doctor since age 3. Police have not had contact with her family in the past.

The girl had attended Riverside Elementary School in the D.C. Everest School District during the first semester but didn’t return for the second semester.

Isn't there some sort of compulsory education in force in the United States? Oh well...

If they prevented another adult from getting healthcare, would that be ok?

Apparently it is.

There's no law against converting, brainwashing even, someone to a religion that outright refuses medical treatment.

Consider for example scientology & psychology.

I really don't see why a child shouldn't be allowed to follow parents religious rules - It's called religious freedom. The alternative is to estrange the children and their parents in a direct measure against the freedom of religion and the sanctity of family!!! The child might continue to live BUT would be deemed as spawn of Satan by the family and live a miserable life afterwards!!!!11!

Or are you possibly hinting that religious freedom isn't a respectable value??? :confused:

I really don't see why a child shouldn't be allowed to follow parents religious rules - It's called religious freedom. The alternative is to estrange the children and their parents in a direct measure against the freedom of religion and the sanctity of family!!! The child might continue to live BUT would be deemed as spawn of Satan by the family and live a miserable life afterwards!!!!11!

Or are you possibly hinting that religious freedom isn't a respectable value? :confused:

It's not a bad point and the answer has to lie in creating a happy medium.

In the UK, Sikhs do not need to wear a motorcycle helmet because they have turbans. I can understand this leeway for belief, despite the fact that I think it's just as insane really.

Yet I understand that a society does not chop and change overnight and to try and force that breeds resentment so there needs to be give and take.

Where do we draw the line?

To often we see discussions where either/or is debated when it's nearly always a question of determining an acceptable line in between.

As said, people are free to follow their religions but there is a point at which it crosses the line of acceptable social behaviour - letting your child die in this way is simply unacceptable.

These People are idiots. if they have any other children, the government needs to take them away.

I mean honestly... "God, please cure our sick child for us, amen!"

God: "Will do, the cure's waiting for you over at the hospital. I helped invent it a long time ago. Go get it!"

idiots: "Ummm... well, we were sorta hoping we didn't have to do anything... you know, like our preacher says. You know, that whole faith without works cuz works are evil, right?"

God: "Umm... your preacher told you not to do anything that God can do for you?"

idiots: "Yup. please heal our daughter!"

God: "umm... do you want me to force feed you with a spoon and some gerber baby food so you don't have to chew either?"

idiots: "But she's sick!"

God: "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand your dumb. Go get help. And then get help."

As said, people are free to follow their religions but there is a point at which it crosses the line of acceptable social behaviour - letting your child die in this way is simply unacceptable.

Consider the alternative.

IF there was legislation against letting your children perish because of your religious preference it would mean putting the know-how of doctors ABOVE the faith to an invisible guy in the sky, tree spirit or what ever you are worshipping.

It woul mean, for a fundie Christian, that the LAW puts mortals above God - I don't think there's a verse in *any* holy book that says: Consult thy doctor, for they are an agent of God who in His/Her/Transgender infinite wisdom and power can not cure diseases directly!

Consider the alternative.

IF there was legislation against letting your children perish because of your religious preference it would mean putting the know-how of doctors ABOVE the faith to an invisible guy in the sky, tree spirit or what ever you are worshipping.

It woul mean, for a fundie Christian, that the LAW puts mortals above God - I don't think there's a verse in *any* holy book that says: Consult thy doctor, for they are an agent of God who in His/Her/Transgender infinite wisdom and power can not cure diseases directly!

Anyone who doesn't believe in medicine should have no reason to believe in agriculture, or science, or psychology, or anything real.

So making progress is bad? Because we actually learned to use the powers God gave us to help people it's evil? Perhaps we should refuse to learn anything... because if God knows everything, we have no reason to know anything! Let God do everything, that way we won't need to do anything ourselves! yay!

Consider the alternative.

IF there was legislation against letting your children perish because of your religious preference it would mean putting the know-how of doctors ABOVE the faith to an invisible guy in the sky, tree spirit or what ever you are worshiping.

It would mean, for a fundie Christian, that the LAW puts mortals above God - I don't think there's a verse in *any* holy book that says Consult thy doctor, for they are an agent of God in Her infinite wisdom and power can not cure diseases!

In some senses, we don't even need to bring God into the picture here - if I believe that my child's cold is best cured by sprinkling olive oil on her head - and believe me, it works - does society have a right to tell me this isn't the case? If the child dies because I refused to treat my child with effective medicine, persisting with the belief that the oil would work, should I be let off?

Why then, merely by bringing God into this, does anything change?

Anyone who doesn't believe in medicine should have no reason to believe in agriculture, or science, or psychology, or anything real.

Is religion really that bad? Is beleiving in comforting sky spirit a bad thing even if it can lead to premature death from a treatable disease and education deprived brain?

In some senses, we don't even need to bring God into the picture here - if I believe that my child's cold is best cured by sprinkling olive oil on her head - and believe me, it works - does society have a right to tell me this isn't the case? If the child dies because I refused to treat my child with effective medicine, persisting with the belief that the oil would work, should I be let off?

Why then, merely by bringing God into this, does anything change?

The simple alternative to freedom of religion - limiting it under certain cases - is in my view close to disbandment of religion, putting the State above God.

For that matter, I'm uncertain whether believing in alternative medicine is actually criminal - For example, I think it is entirely OK to deny vaccinations from one's child.


Is there another case here?

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=41388&cat=14

11-Year-Old Girl Dies after Parents Opt for Prayer Over Medicine

Police in Wisconsin are investigating the death of 11-year-old Madeline Neumann following her parent's revelation that they had placed their faith in prayers over medicine as a means of treating the girl’s diabetes.

Hooray for invisible guy in the sky!

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/WDH0101/80325030

Update: Police say coffee shop owners believe lack of faith killed daughter
..
..
Vergin said the girl had not seen a doctor since age 3. Police have not had contact with her family in the past.

The girl had attended Riverside Elementary School in the D.C. Everest School District during the first semester but didn’t return for the second semester.

Isn't there some sort of compulsory education in force in the United States? Oh well...

I would also like to have a clarification for my previous question.

In some senses, we don't even need to bring God into the picture here - if I believe that my child's cold is best cured by sprinkling olive oil on her head - and believe me, it works - does society have a right to tell me this isn't the case? If the child dies because I refused to treat my child with effective medicine, persisting with the belief that the oil would work, should I be let off?

Why then, merely by bringing God into this, does anything change?

"Noah, build an ark."

"Why? Why can't you just let me walk on the water?"

Just because a miracle works once, doesn't mean it has to happen every time. It only works if it is God's will. Chances are, those typical situations would be like... if it's absolutely crucial that they be healed right now... he'll heal them... or if it's life-threatening and there's no time to get him to the hospital, then pray over him while waiting for the ambulance.

However... if your child breaks their arm playing, would you just pray over them, kiss it and make it better? of course not. God wouldn't think you'd be that dumb.

Is there another case here or is this thread just mistitled?

It's a separate case.

Or are you possibly hinting that religious freedom isn't a respectable
value?

I can't answer for Dempublicants but, for my own 2c, I would say 'up to a point'.

Hoping either of those two answers provide a glimpse of clarification at least :)

The simple alternative to freedom of religion - limiting it under certain cases - is in my view close to disbandment of religion, putting the State above God.

For that matter, I'm uncertain whether believing in alternative medicine is actually criminal - For example, I think it is entirely OK to deny vaccinations from one's child.

I suppose the first part is a constitutional interpretation matter in terms of 'Freedom of Religion' - to be honest, I do not think the founders meant 'Freedom of Religion' allowed for every form of religious practice, especially where that freedom bumped against the laws of the land, I could be wrong but I doubt it.

For the second point, I am also uncertain. I have stated that I think they were insane but I'm not sure that equates to culpable.

We recently had the thread on a mother leaving her child in a car for a few minutes - perhaps that child could have leapt out and run into traffic but I find it hard to see that as a culpable matter aside from the fact that it's simply against the law.

Ultimately, it comes down to what the law says and, in this case, they're guilty of neglect - or at least I hope it does.

Personally, I think parents should be given the benefit of the doubt in terms of leeway given for their beliefs on how best to bring up their child, my rationale simply comes from my love of variety in life, and yet I also think there should be set limits where it's obvious.

Where simple medicine is available, it's neglectful not to use it, regardless of belief.

Is religion really that bad? Is beleiving in comforting sky spirit a bad thing even if it can lead to premature death from a treatable disease and education deprived brain?

Only if it is an adult capable of making sovereign decisions. A child is unable to do this.

The simple alternative to freedom of religion - limiting it under certain cases - is in my view close to disbandment of religion, putting the State above God.

If the removal of the religion is due to the violation of human rights (imposing one's will on another either by force or due to one not capable of making their own decisions (such as a child), so be it. In this particular case with the OP's post, it would be no different if the child had been sacrificed to a God.

For that matter, I'm uncertain whether believing in alternative medicine is actually criminal - For example, I think it is entirely OK to deny vaccinations from one's child.

I disagree. A child cannot make a decisions as to whether or not they want to be more susceptible to a disease or not. I would argue that no rational person would unless they can forumulate a solid basis for their opinion, something which a child is obviously incapable of (as well as some adults).


Response in bold.

Everyone has the inalienable God-given right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Sound familiar? A parent denying their child life is in opposition to this statement. Would God contradict God? (That's a rhetorical question :P)

It's a separate case.

Where simple medicine is available, it's neglectful not to use it, regardless of belief.

Is that independent of the age of the patient?

I ask this because I personally can't see *any* difference in allowing an adult exercise freedom of religion that causes his or her death and banning that same adult exercising the same form of religion over a child - whose legal guardian he or she usually is. Let alone illegalizing the act of very same parent trying to convert other adults and children to his or her religion, even though belief in such a religion over medicine would constitute as a serious health risk.

If the latter isn't illegal, why should following the rules of the religion made illegal if they don't infringe upon others not wishing to follow that religion?


If you really meant what you said then I'm inclined to believe it infringes upon freedom of religion because hurting oneself through misinformation - Sky Fairy Cures! - is not in my opinion illegal, and taking away children of a person following a religion because of the religion sounds frankly too harsh.

Is that independent of the age of the patient?

I ask this because I personally can't see *any* difference in allowing an adult exercise freedom of religion that causes his or her death and banning that same adult exercising the same form of religion over a child - whose legal guardian he or she usually is.

Again, I'd leave religion out of it - there are circumstances where someone can refuse medication, effectively ending their lives. I don't know of any special law dedicated to religious beliefs - even in India, the act of Sati is illegal. Again, where the law is clear, why should religion get an exemption?

Let alone illegalizing the act of very same parent trying to convert other adults and children to his or her religion, even though belief in such a religion over medicine would constitute as a serious health risk.

The law only comes into effect here on consequence - if the child had lived there'd be no case. The fact remains that a child died due to neglectful parenting. If I left my kid out in the wilderness because my religion says it must be tested against the wolves and the kid died, I'm done for neglect - again, why does religion gain an exemption?

If the latter isn't illegal, why should following the rules of the religion made illegal if they don't infringe upon others not wishing to follow that religion?

There's no illegality, so far as I know, in sprinkling your child with oil, the illegality only comes where the child dies of neglect, or is seen to be in risk of serious harm during neglect.

If you really meant what you said then I'm inclined to believe it infringes upon freedom of religion because hurting oneself through misinformation - Sky Fairy Cures! - is not in my opinion illegal, and taking away children of a person following a religion because of the religion sounds frankly too harsh.

Wait, this isn't directed at me? I don't think I've said the children should be taken away from anyone with this religious belief, my opinion is that if the child has died, or even come to harm to be honest, due to neglect then I don't really care if it's pure neglect or if it's out of religious belief, it remains neglect.

Regardless of all this, having a belief that prayer alone will save your child is utterly irrational - where irrationality harms your child, certainly when it's contrary to the law, then I'm not a great fan.

On the other subject, I have absolutely no qualms with the law of the land taking precedence over any religious belief whatsoever and I do not think that goes against the spirit of Freedom of Religion.

Is that independent of the age of the patient?

I ask this because I personally can't see *any* difference in allowing an adult exercise freedom of religion that causes his or her death and banning that same adult exercising the same form of religion over a child - whose legal guardian he or she usually is

Legal guardian != being allowed to do whatever you want with the child, even if you believe it to be in its best interests.

As an already used example - even if you believe that having sex with your child would be good for it you are not allowed to do so. Even if you believe that your child does not need an education because all wisdom will be given through the cosmic rays of the supreme Leopard, you must school it according to certain standards.

And even if you believe that it is up to God to decide if your child will live or die - you must seek medical attention for it. Because while you are the guardian, you are not the child itself. That is a seperate person.

Wait, this isn't directed at me? I don't think I've said the children should be taken away from anyone with this religious belief, my opinion is that if the child has died, or even come to harm to be honest, due to neglect then I don't really care if it's pure neglect or if it's out of religious belief, it remains neglect.

I don't see following a religious agenda that leads to passive death neglect.

Is rejecting treatment negligence? Is seeking alternative cures - because we know medicine isn't perfect - negligence?

If religious cause that can lead to such a dangerous situation I'd think it would be deemed dangerous and illegal. Thus it wouldn't be OK to convert others to it nor would it be ok to allow parents following such a religion to raise their children under such dangerous environment.

But as the religion is legal, adult can still strictly follow the religion and nobody is taking children away from the fundamentals then the government MUST accept the risk of passive dying as legal...right?

On the other subject, I have absolutely no qualms with the law of the land taking precedence over any religious belief whatsoever and I do not think that goes against the spirit of Freedom of Religion.

But it can go harshly against religion - If State forces a believer to commit an act that is explicitly against the core tenents of his or her faith thus dooming a child or adult to eternal damnation in the eyes of believers...Can it be called religious freedom?

A quote from the other thread:
Is saving a child or adult now worth risking an eternal afterlife in paradise?

Is that independent of the age of the patient?

I ask this because I personally can't see *any* difference in allowing an adult exercise freedom of religion that causes his or her death and banning that same adult exercising the same form of religion over a child - whose legal guardian he or she usually is. Let alone illegalizing the act of very same parent trying to convert other adults and children to his or her religion, even though belief in such a religion over medicine would constitute as a serious health risk.

If the latter isn't illegal, why should following the rules of the religion made illegal if they don't infringe upon others not wishing to follow that religion?


If you really meant what you said then I'm inclined to believe it infringes upon freedom of religion because hurting oneself through misinformation - Sky Fairy Cures! - is not in my opinion illegal, and taking away children of a person following a religion because of the religion sounds frankly too harsh.

You can't see it because you assume children are capable of making their own informed decisions. They are not and are entirely subject to the nonsensical beliefs of their whacked-out parents. I don't care WHAT belief system the parent has if the child is being screwed over as a result, and neither should you. To disagree is to open the doors to routine child abuse 'in the name of _____'.

You can't see it because you assume children are capable of making their own informed decisions.
No, I assume parents are capable of making informed decisions about their children.

If following a dangerous religion or religious guideline is legal for parents, why wouldn't it be for children?

A quote from the other thread:
Is saving a child or adult now worth risking an eternal afterlife in paradise?

Do you prefer a system where people can molest, maim, kill, consume and so on children "because that will increase their chances of getting into paradise according to my religious beliefs" ?

Do you prefer a system where people can molest, maim, kill, consume and so on children "because that will increase their chances of getting into paradise according to my religious beliefs" ?

There's a difference in active & passive behaviour.

Also, like I've pointed out an adult is allowed to follow the religious rule in question here.

If following a dangerous religion or religious guideline is legal for parents, why wouldn't it be for children?

The children have zero say in the manner in which they are indoctrinated by their parents and are NOT capable of making their own decisions. They are simply either not educated enough OR not at an age in which they can make a conscious choice in what to do with themselves.

There's a difference in active & passive behaviour.

Why ? Your question was if we should be allowed to block the way to paradise.

Also, like I've pointed out an adult is allowed to follow the religious rule in question here.

An adult is not allowed to kill or eat another adult last time I checked - even if that other adult consents. However, I personally am of the opinion that they indeed should be allowed to eat eachother if they want to so I will not press that point.

A child however cannot consent to such things. And a child is a seperate person - which therefor deserves protection.
As I said: guardianship gives you power over the child, but not unlimited power. We do place restrictions on what the parents may decide.

I don't see following a religious agenda that leads to passive death neglect.

Is rejecting treatment negligence? Is seeking alternative cures - because we know medicine isn't perfect - negligence?

If religious cause that can lead to such a dangerous situation I'd think it would be deemed dangerous and illegal. Thus it wouldn't be OK to convert others to it nor would it be ok to allow parents following such a religion to raise their children under such dangerous environment.

But as the religion is legal, adult can still strictly follow the religion and nobody is taking children away from the fundamentals then the government MUST accept the risk of passive dying as legal...right?



But it can go harshly against religion - If State forces a believer to commit an act that is explicitly against the core tenents of his or her faith thus dooming a child or adult to eternal damnation in the eyes of believers...Can it be called religious freedom?

A quote from the other thread:

I see Freedom of Religion as equality of religion, in that all will be treated equally before the law, none shall be explicitly herded out and treated differently, of which the obvious point is persecution.

I do not take it to mean that religion is free to practice as it chooses due to separate beliefs.

I don't think anyone could make a case stand up in court as to what God believes, therefore it will essentially be your individual belief and, as an individual, you are not free to act on your your specific beliefs.

Is saving a child or adult now worth risking an eternal afterlife in paradise?

No, it's not. Alas, your individual beliefs on the criteria do not supercede the law of the land you're living in - if that law is wrong in the eyes of your respective god, I'm sure you'll be rewarded in heaven for any punishment received here on earth.

The children have zero say in the manner in which they are indoctrinated by their parents and are NOT capable of making their own decisions.

An adult brought up in such an indoctrinated environment will NOT be capable of making their own rational decisions about such a question of FAITH: If medicine is teached to be EHVIL OF SATHAN! then that tenent *will* affect the child - even when he or she has grown to be an adult.

In my opinion, age is irrelevant here because the very same practice by adults - refusal of treatment, seeking alternative treatments - is as legal as indoctrinating children to it.

It ALL falls within religious freedom, I don't see how letting an 18 year old passively die would be legal but letting 17 year 11 month old passively die would be illegal. 'Passively' is also the wholly wrong word here, the parents merely SEEKED and USED the VERY BEST treatment they thought - were indoctrinated to when they were children - was available.

The children have zero say in the manner in which they are indoctrinated by their parents and are NOT capable of making their own decisions. They are simply either not educated enough OR not at an age in which they can make a conscious choice in what to do with themselves.

What about a person's wife/husband in a coma - are we, as their legal guardians, allowed to make their choice for them? I think we can to a certain extent, I'm sure we can refuse treatment in cases, ask for the machine to be switched off in certain cases.

In some sense we apply the same criteria to the child.

I don't really think we can refuse medication for our wife/husband in a coma, I'm not sure - lawyers please!

We do place restrictions on what the parents may decide.

Is there a law that prohibits parents from seeking and using the very best cure they thought possible, especiallyone that doesn't damn the child into eternal damnation - even if you personally think they're wrong and they were legally indoctrinated to it when they were children themselves?

Is there a law that prohibits parents from seeking and using the very best cure they thought possible, especiallyone that doesn't damn the child into eternal damnation - even if you personally think they're wrong and they were legally indoctrinated to it when they were children themselves?

Your 'eternal damnation' is incapable of being proved. Cause of death is not.

When I murder my future son or daughter to please Cthulhu and grant them passage to heaven, I'll be sure to cite your reasoning as to why I should be allowed to do it.

Is there a law that prohibits parents from seeking and using the very best cure they thought possible, especiallyone that doesn't damn the child into eternal damnation - even if you personally think they're wrong and they were legally indoctrinated to it when they were children themselves?

Yes and no.

If I truly believe that a good dose of cyanide is the best possible cure for my child's pneumonia, administer that cyanide and my child dies, I'm not done under a law that prohibits me from using the best cure according to my belief, I'm done under murder.

Similarly, if I truly believe that sprinkling oil is the best possible cure, I should really be done for murder as well except the sprinkling oil was not the cause of death, the neglect to seek proper medical care is.

Well, perhaps that isn't the exact law, it may be that Neo Art has already provided the exact law earlier, I remember he's contributed somewhere along the line.

When I murder my future son or daughter to please Cthulhu and grant them passage to heaven, I'll be sure to cite your reasoning as to why I should be allowed to do it.

Murder is illegal. Foregoing treatment is legal.

Yes and no.

If I truly believe that a good dose of cyanide is the best possible cure for my child's pneumonia, administer that cyanide and my child dies, I'm not done under a law that prohibits me from using the best cure according to my belief, I'm done under murder.

I would seriously doubt it would fall under murder as it would clearly be done without intent to kill.

Besides in this case the cure they sought is by itself completely legal, not only that it infact is protected by law. It is also completely legal to indoctrinate children to the belief.

I would seriously doubt it would fall under murder as it would clearly be done without intent to kill.

Besides in this case the cure they sought is by itself completely legal, not only that it infact is protected by law. It is also completely legal to indoctrinate children to the belief.

What would it fall under, if I administer cyanide to my child in the belief it would cure them of pneumonia, what am I charged under?

I suspect it might be manslaughter due to insanity.

What if I sprinkled oil on my child's head and asked my garden gnome to cure my child?

Again, the inclusion of the word 'religion' creates an excuse for what is essentially insanity.

Just because I believe something does not make it right.

As a society, we have laws that protect people from insane decisions, why would we even consider allowing any form of religion to create a legal loophole - that isn't freedom of religion, it's positive exclusion, we're excluding them from the norm as an exception.

What would it fall under, if I administer cyanide to my child in the belief it would cure them of pneumonia, what am I charged under?

I suspect it might be manslaughter due to insanity.

I suspect you'd be institutionalized assuming you'd be convincing in your Cyanide is the Cure for Pneumonia! argument. :D

That would make you technically not guilty under the law system of United States, would it not?

(for that matter has someone tried this new miracle snake oil?;))

Just because I believe something does not make it right.
But for an adult it does, in the eyes of law - Religious freedom an' all that.

Is there a law against refusing treatment? Is there a law against seeking alternative treatment? Why wouldn't the laws allowing alternative treatment or refusal of treatment apply to children whose legal guardian believes in alternative medicine over more traditional medicine?

As a society, we have laws that protect people from insane decisions, why would we even consider allowing any form of religion to create a legal loophole - that isn't freedom of religion, it's positive exclusion, we're excluding them from the norm as an exception.

Religious freedom allows people to accept their faith as being true and also allows them to act accordingly (within the boundaries of secular laws, naturally) - Irrelevant of whether someone thinks the basis of their religion is insane.

Think Xenu.

From the other thread: Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13559380&postcount=22)

But for an adult it does, in the eyes of law - Religious freedom an' all that.

Religious freedom allows people to accept their faith as being true and also allows them to act accordingly - Irrelevant of whether someone thinks the basis of their religion is insane.

Think Xenu.

No, clearly not, otherwise Mormon's would still be [openly at least] practicing polygamy.

The law of the land takes precedence over the law of any religion.

There may be no law against seeking alternative medicines but that's irrelevant, it's illegal to be irresponsible and/or neglectful to your child such as leads to their death - hell, it's illegal, as I understand it, to leave your child alone in a car.

That responsibility or neglectfulness is defined by the common, reasonable man - what would the reasonable man do? Seek a couple of antibiotics or sprinkle oil on the kid's head?

Your starter for 10 is...

These parents are not being charged with murder, as far as I know they're not even being charged with manslaughter, they're being charged with neglect.

Whether that neglect was intentional or not, it's still neglect given what the reasonable man would do in that situation.

I might believe that leaving my child in a pool full of sharks is no problem out of a misguided belief that sharks are friendly, the reasonable man would not.

These analogies are making me thirsty.

No, clearly not, otherwise Mormon's would still be [openly at least] practicing polygamy.

That's a silly law, IMO.

And I corrected my post by adding (within secular laws) there.

Whether that neglect was intentional or not, it's still neglect given what the reasonable man would do in that situation.

Resort to a cure they are legally indoctrinated to think works best?

That's a silly law, IMO.

And I corrected my post by adding (within secular laws) there.

Fair enough, give it a go though, I suspect you'll be charged with polygamy.

Resort to a cure they are legally indoctrinated to think works best?

Ooh, the burden of responsibility is shifting here.

I'm in danger of running up against Godwin's Law *must resist*

What I'm really running up against is specific laws - are people absolved of responsibility in certain cases, if I can show I was indoctrinated into a cult, does that diminish the extent of my culpability?

To be honest, I would say no unless it could be proved I was coerced outside my own volition into that cult/sect/religious body.

I'm still held to the criteria of the reasonable man.

They're still guilty of neglect.

EDIT: I could have made the first use of Tsaraine's law (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13559251&postcount=656) here, I could have made a comparison to Saddamn Hussein in some way...dammit!

Resort to a cure they are legally indoctrinated to think works best?

The fact that they're indoctrinated that way makes them inherently unreasonable. You may as well say that someone who's been indoctrinated to believe all Christians/Jews/Muslims are part of a murderous conspiracy and subsequently shoots up a church/synagogue/mosque remains 'reasonable'.

Fair enough, give it a go though, I suspect you'll be charged with polygamy.

Not if I do it in secret! :fluffle:

What I'm really running up against is specific laws - are people absolved of responsibility in certain cases, if I can show I was indoctrinated into a cult, does that diminish the extent of my culpability?

Probably not, however in this case the parents followed a completely legal and accepted behaviour...for an adult.

Is there a law against foregoing standard medical treatment of a child?
They're still guilty of neglect.

In a sense I think they should be.

On the other hand, I solemnly think they did what they thought was best for their kid - I don't think punishing them would do any good. Perhaps sentencing them to a re-education camp.... :p

Probably not, however in this case the parents followed a completely legal and accepted behaviour...for an adult.

Is there a law against foregoing standard medical treatment of a child?


The leading case is Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), in which the U. S. Supreme Court ruled, "The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or child to communicable disease, or the latter to ill health or death. . . . Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves."

I typed 'duty of medical care for a child' into Google and picked the first site, where I headed straight to the FAQ section, which is where I picked out the above.

Nevertheless, state and federal governments have created many religious exemptions allowing parents to withhold some medical care from children, almost entirely because of Christian Science lobbying.

Here's the site (http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/) - it looks quite interesting given a brief scan, I'm hoping it's not a ranting anti-Christian site though, again on a brief scan, it doesn't look like a positive Christian site.

EDIT: Nearly every board member is a doctor of some kind, either a pediatrician or other, otherwise lawyers.

The leading case is Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), in which the U. S. Supreme Court ruled, "The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or child to communicable disease, or the latter to ill health or death. . . . Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves."

Thank God (sic!)!

I still wonder whether the spirit of that ruling is widely followed across USA.

Religious freedom allows people to accept their faith as being true and also allows them to act accordingly (within the boundaries of secular laws, naturally) - Irrelevant of whether someone thinks the basis of their religion is insane.

Well it isn't within secular law to neglect or abuse your child.

If the Child is too young to defend itself or think for itself then it's abuse as here.

Well it isn't within secular law to neglect or abuse your child.

At that point I had yet to see any law stating it was negligence or abuse and my logic was thus:

1. Alternative cures are allowed, as is promoting & indoctrinating alternative medicine to one's kids
2. Parents can decide whether the child is allowed to be treated (consent an' all that - though are there limits to this?)
3. Parents choosing alternative cure for their child over traditional medicine is...not illegal(?)

At that point I had yet to see any law stating it was negligence or abuse and my logic was thus:

1. Alternative cures are allowed, as is promoting & indoctrinating alternative medicine to one's kids
2. Parents can decide whether the child is allowed to be treated (consent an' all that - though are there limits to this?)
3. Parents choosing alternative cure for their child over traditional medicine is...not illegal(?)

No, you're wrong, there is a law which states that parent's can temporarily lose their parenting rights if it's necessary to save the child's life. They can decide whether the child is allowed to be treated as long as not treating doesn't harm the child (I think, I'm not sure how this is measured). Parents choosing alternative 'cure' for their child is not illegal as long as the health of the child isn't in danger. (so it is legal to give your child homeopathic water to prevent diseases or in addition to good treatment, but solely relying on homeopathy to cure your child of pneumonia is illegal)

Anyway this is how I think it is, I'm not sure about the subtleties but I think Neo Art has explained them somewhere earlier.

Murder is illegal. Foregoing treatment is legal.



I would seriously doubt it would fall under murder as it would clearly be done without intent to kill.

Besides in this case the cure they sought is by itself completely legal, not only that it infact is protected by law. It is also completely legal to indoctrinate children to the belief.

So I finally see what game you are playing here-situational ethics that are acceptable as long as they are within the confines of the law, or twisted sense of religous practices superceding the rights of a young and impressionable mind. You are arguing that allowing a child to die due to lack of medical treatment (which IS a form of homicide (in this case negligent homicide) is 'A OK' because of the parent's religous beliefs. Sorry, but that is just a bunch of horeshit for the aforementioned reasons that you have yet to refute.

It is NOT legal to abuse and neglect your child under any circumstance. You toying around with the law being the ultimate judgement of 'what is good or evil' (situational and highly fickle at best) does NOTHING to further your argument. A child has been killed because of stupid people and here you are championing their ill cause. You are completely ignoring the rights of children who a) cannot fend for themselves, b) are entirely susceptible to the whims of their parents (for better or for worse), c) are incapable of forming their own informed decisions due to their age and lack of development, d) cannot choose what form of 'indoctrination' (known as religion) is best for them because of c), and finally e) cannot choose their parents, which leads us back to d, c, b, and a.

This is not a matter of 'alternative' medicine that can be beneficial, this is a matter of religous dolts who neglected their child because of their religous beliefs (not chosen by the child by the definition of a child) and as a result of this their child subsequently died. Your argument supporting them is as ludicrous as it is irrational.

So I finally see what game you are playing here-situational ethics that are acceptable as long as they are within the confines of the law, or twisted sense of religous practices superceding the rights of a young and impressionable child.

What are the child's rights? Would it grow in an environment that can look beyond the fact that it might be doomed to eternal damnation? Would the child live an environment where it would grow in knowing that there is no Paradise waiting for it at the end while constantly bombarded by religion from every direction? Would the child have a right to a normal life after getting the treatment in such an environment?

What does the law say about religious indoctrination? Exactly: Teaching your religion to your kids is protected by the law, therefore torturing and misinforming a child for being eternally damned if resorting to medicine is completely legal.

You are arguing that allowing a child to die due to lack of medical treatment (which IS a form of murder) is 'A OK' because of the parent's religous beliefs. Sorry, but that is just a bunch of horeshit for the aforementioned reasons that you have yet to refute.

I'm merely suggesting that there might not be any law against it.

It is NOT legal to abuse and neglect your child under any circumstance.

I'm asking whether foregoing standard treatment can count as negligence or abuse especially when the parents actively seeked the best known cure for them with best of their capability?

You are completely ignoring the rights of children who a) cannot fend for themselves, b) are entirely susceptible to the whims of their parents (for better or for worse), c) are incapable of forming their own informed decisions due to their age and lack of development, d) cannot choose what form of 'indoctrination' (known as religion) is best for them because of c), and finally e) cannot choose their parents, which leads us back to d, c, b, and a.

Here's my stance (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13559418&postcount=38)...particularly this: Overall I still think being brought up as, in my view, ignorant shouldn't be a death sentence to anyone [regardless of age].

In the end, I'm arguing because not many care to defend the other side here and single sided debate usually leads to biased result - Bit of the advocatus diaboli in me, apparently.

I'm merely suggesting that there might not be any law against it.

I'm asking whether foregoing standard treatment can count as negligence or abuse especially when the parents actively seeked the best known cure for them with best of their capability?

Yet I've already shown you that it is against the law - although there are numerous exceptions due to lobbying by religious groups, even those are changing, as shown in this very case.

I think your real issue is that these parents are being punished for acting on genuine concerns for their child, that in their own minds, they did the absolute best they could, based on a belief that the alternative would commit their child to hell.

It's a fair enough concern but the fact is, you're allowing this due to religious belief. Why are you giving them an exemption?

If I genuinely believe the best thing for my child is cyanide, regardless of whether that's religious indoctrination or not, I am still culpable.

A child died. It died because it's parents did not seek medical attention. No matter why or how, we cannot make an exemption for indoctrination - it's unfair in front of the law.

They're not being charged for murder, they're not being charged for manslaughter, they're being charged for negligence because, regardless of whether they were aware of it or not, before the law they were negligent.

Yet I've already shown you that it is against the law - although there are numerous exceptions due to lobbying by religious groups, even those are changing, as shown in this very case.

Yes, you did - however most of the points here are concentrated on the arguments I posted earlier in this topic.

Besides, I haven't noticed that law in the other topic yet and if everyone else ignores your post then I might as well do the same ;)

I think your real issue is that these parents are being punished for acting on genuine concerns for their child, that in their own minds, they did the absolute best they could, based on a belief that the alternative would commit their child to hell.

It's a fair enough concern but the fact is, you're allowing this due to religious belief. Why are you giving them an exemption?

Because they didn't know any better - I believe genuine ignorance should not be a crime (please, don't take this out of context), especially such monumental ignorance that is basically sanctioned by the law. :(

If I genuinely believe the best thing for my child is cyanide, regardless of whether that's religious indoctrination or not, I am still culpable.
In this case the treatment was not actively harmful.

They're not being charged for murder, they're not being charged for manslaughter, they're being charged for negligence because, regardless of whether they were aware of it or not, before the law they were negligent.

I hope they will not be senteced severely - It would not help anyone.

Yes, you did - however most of the points here are concentrated on the arguments I posted earlier in this topic.

Besides, I haven't noticed that law in the other topic yet and if everyone else ignores your post then I might as well do the same ;)

Yeah, I noticed and haven't posted in there for that very reason :)

In this case the treatment was not actively harmful.

Hence neglect not manslaughter - it was also active neglect in that they [most likely] knew the alternatives yet chose not to act on them.

I hope they will not be sentenced severely - It would not help anyone.

I'm undecided on this, mostly because I can't properly determine if my bias against religion is affecting my opinion.

Stupidity is not an excuse for doing stupid acts.

I'm undecided on this, mostly because I can't properly determine if my bias against religion is affecting my opinion.

I'm slightly biased against religion too - However I can, at some level, understand how being brought up in a rigidly religious environment can lead to cases like these.

I see these more as side effects of existing legislation defending the right of parents to indoctrinate their children to whatever silly faith they have rather than dark acts of malice without a prior cause.

I'm slightly biased against religion too - However I can, at some level, understand how being brought up in a rigidly religious environment can lead to cases like these.

I see these more as side effects of existing legislation defending the right of parents to indoctrinate their children to whatever silly faith they have rather than dark acts of malice without a prior cause.

I certainly see a case - we're coming to Godwin's Law again - do people have a responsibility to act against the crowd where the reasonable man would do so.

Would the unique environment they were in affect any ruling, not out of deference to religion but out of sympathy to such an [and here's my bias] insidious influence.

God wouldn't think you'd be that dumb.

And yet... apparently those folks were that dumb. Didn't god know that, then? I mean, what with the omniscience and all... ?

I have to ask, G3N13.

If somebody's religion forbade them from providing food to their children, would you think that it's okay for parents to starve their children to death?

If not, why is this different?

As at least somewhat religious (Although not christian) I can honestly say this. If I were to have kids and teach them my religious beliefs, and tell them that sickness is caused by demons inhabiting their body, I'd also be smart enough to point out that said demons can be viruses or bacteria, and that medication can get rid of them. Of course that's if it's a young child. And I wouldn't be wrong either, provided the kid wasn't born with some weird sense of the Abrahamic concept of a demon.

And to that effect, I reiterate my previous statement in this thread. Hang the parents infront of their church for such criminal act.

Yeah, in this case, the rules of neglect/endangerment should still apply. I could CLAIM that my religion lets me do anything I want. I could say, if I hypothetically had AIDS, that it's okay to give it to an unwitting person because if God loves them, they won't contract the disease. But I'd still be in trouble for endangering another person's life.

They still have their "freedom of religion" - they can just practise their bullshit withOUT their kids if they insist upon harming them. With rights come responsibilities. If you're not responsible enough to have your child treated, then obviously your "right" to be in charge of another person's life is secondary.

Just like with freedom of speech, I do NOT have the right to yell "Fire!" and watch chaos ensue. There are reasonable limits on rights. Not all slopes are slippery.

Is there a law that prohibits parents from seeking and using the very best cure they thought possible, especiallyone that doesn't damn the child into eternal damnation - even if you personally think they're wrong and they were legally indoctrinated to it when they were children themselves?

As mentioned elsewhere - in certain countries, like the USA, there are laws against that yes.

Of course, other countries can disagree. Male and female circumcision are legal in quite a few countries. Some cultures believe that drilling a hole in the skull of a child will make it able to speak to the spirits better - and such practices are deemed legal. Others believe there is nothing wrong with picking "a chosen child" every few years, that gets isolated from its peers, put into a room with hallucinogenic substances and is treated like a truth speaking Oracle. Until the kid hits puberty of course - then it is shunned.

But hey - we have to respect religion, right ?

One point worth remembering is this: recklessness.

Criminal law consists of two parts

1) guilty act ... I hit Bob on the nose with my fist
2) guilty mind ... I intended to hit Bob on the nose with my fist

Point (2) is why accidents are accidents and not crimes. It is often a defence to say 'I didn't mean to do it.'

But... there are exceptions (there are always exceptions).

If I throw a brick at you, and you are standing in front of a shop window, and I break the window, what happens then... ?

1) guilty act ... I hit the window with a brick and broke it...
2) guilty mind... I didn't mean to break the window ... NO!!!

Y'see... if I do something that is reckless, i.e. I couldn't care less what the result is... like throwing a brick at you when I could also break the window behind you, then I am reckless. Being reckless counts as intending to do something.

So, if I couldn't care less, or disregard, one way or the other that an event may happen, then I have, effectively, the intent to carry out the act.

Let's apply it here.

1) I omit, on religious grounds, to have necy treatment for my child and s/he dies...

2) I didn't intend for my child to die (no guilty mind) but...

3) I completely disregarded the high probability that my child could die

then I am guilty of criminal neglect.

Parents here were, at first sight, guilty of criminal neglect.

The next question is this... do their religious beliefs mitigate / excuse their acts and intent?

Over to you...

Cool, we have activist judges for a reason. . .

Another freaking Cult...

hopefully this will be another nail in the coffin that is religion.

**snip snip**
The next question is this... do their religious beliefs mitigate / excuse their acts and intent?

Over to you...

Stupidity by any means is not an excuse for being a moron.

/thread

Stupidity by any means is not an excuse for being a moron.

Seems to be yours though.

Seems to be yours though.

I'll take original comebacks for $600, Alex. :rolleyes:

I'll take original comebacks for $600, Alex. :rolleyes:

I don't have a log-in for Findlaw.org but I'm sure there's plenty of cases where peer pressure is a mitigating factor in crime, religion is one the most influential peer pressures we have and I've no doubt it would be taken into account in this case.

It's not a case of stupidity.

I don't have a log-in for Findlaw.org but I'm sure there's plenty of cases where peer pressure is a mitigating factor in crime, religion is one the most influential peer pressures we have and I've no doubt it would be taken into account in this case.

It's not a case of stupidity.

There are mitigating circumstances for all kinds of crime; there is even a legal definition for 'idiot'. I'm not a big fan of a lot of these, such as succumbing to peer pressure, as I don't find that to be a genuine excuse. In California if you do something such as robbing a bank and you're the getaway driver, you are responsible for whatever your buddies do, including comitting murder. I don't think the argument of 'God made me do it' is akin to peer pressure. Again to reiterate, the parents screwed up big time because they were clueless, but I do not believe that failing to have the thought "gee-whiz, the prayers aren't working" is an excuse.

UPDATE: Ava Worthington's parents have been indicted for manslaughter and crimninal mistreatment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_us/faith_healing_death