Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

[captodometer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by purrtykitty Yes, yes, yes...in the United States, parents have a responsibility to provide for their children's basic needs...which includes medical care. If you don't want to provide this, THEN DON'T HAVE CHILDREN!! IMO, I think this is even worse that the Jehovah's Witness situtation because at least there, the people were part of an organized religion that they practiced regularly, even if in many people's opinions the were mis-interpreting the bible. Here, these people didn't regularly attend church, nor were they a part of any organized religion...they just felt like praying. In my mind, that's just unacceptable.

There are no laws determining who gets to become a parent. If you have a normal reproductive system and can find a partner of the opposite sex, you can have a child. No questions asked. Doesn't matter if you have the money to care for the child. Probably doesn't even matter if you beat one of your previous children to death.

We don't take away the children of adults on welfare, even though the only way the child is likely to get any type of health care is by being taken to an emergency room and waiting 13hrs to be seen: not exactly the standard of conventional modern medical care. Neither do we take away the children of the working poor, who aren't able to afford health insurance any more than the people on welfare. Or the obese children of middle class/wealthy parents: allowing your child to become obese certainly isn't a good medical decision. We don't take away the children of people in poor countries that have little to no health care infrastructure, and rehome them to countries where the medical care is better. And we definitely don't do forced sterilizations to keep any of the people I mentioned from having more children.

So where is the outrage for all these children? If the gold standard for being a good parent is providing access to conventional modern medicine, everyone I listed is just as guilty as parents who withhold medical care because of religious beliefs. The reason might be different, but the outcome is the same: sick or dead child.

There are hundreds of millions of parents in this world who would provide their children with modern medical care if they were able; by comparison the number of parents who could and don't because of their religion is microscopic. To use religion as the basis of who we will be upset with, and who we won't is an incredible double standard. The outrage should be generated by the fact that most of the world doesn't have access to health care period.

And if we as a society did manage to decide that we were going to determine parental rights based upon religion, whose religion are we going to use? Lots of people have religious beliefs and don't belong to a formally organized religious group, just like the couple in this story. And religions that are recognized by some people aren't recognized by others: to some people Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, to others they are cult members. Where do we draw the line? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of God, so when we start making policy decisions based on religion we are skating on thin ice. And it's a slippery slope best not traveled on: the final destination ends up being a modern day Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany, or some other equally objectionable form of religious persecution.

The system works well enough the way that it is: most people regardless of income or religion attempt to provide their children with the best medical care possible. The only reason stories like this generate news headlines is because they are a rare occurrence.

 

[athena123]

captodometer, you've made a couple of very good points in this thread. The parents in this case are incredibly ignorant and stupid people. Yet I would never condone the right of child protection agencies to take away their children just because of their beliefs, regardless of how distasteful I find them to be. That's a truly slippery slope I don't ever want to see in this country.

The price of freedom is that BECAUSE of those freedoms, especially religious freedom, is that some parents are going exercise extremely poor judgment based on their religious beliefs. It's horrible that their children have to pay the price for the faith of their parents.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for adults who choose to forego medical treatment because of their religious beliefs. But because a child died from their mindset, they deserve to go to prison. The child didn't have a choice; the parents did and they made the wrong one.

 

[ms.marymac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by athena123 captodometer, you've made a couple of very good points in this thread. The parents in this case are incredibly ignorant and stupid people. Yet I would never condone the right of child protection agencies to take away their children just because of their beliefs, regardless of how distasteful I find them to be. That's a truly slippery slope I don't ever want to see in this country. The price of freedom is that BECAUSE of those freedoms, especially religious freedom, is that some parents are going exercise extremely poor judgment based on their religious beliefs. It's horrible that their children have to pay the price for the faith of their parents. I don't have a lot of sympathy for adults who choose to forego medical treatment because of their religious beliefs. But because a child died from their mindset, they deserve to go to prison. The child didn't have a choice; the parents did and they made the wrong one.

I agree, it just screams neglect to me.

 

[purrtykitty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by captodometer There are no laws determining who gets to become a parent. If you have a normal reproductive system and can find a partner of the opposite sex, you can have a child. No questions asked. Doesn't matter if you have the money to care for the child. Probably doesn't even matter if you beat one of your previous children to death. We don't take away the children of adults on welfare, even though the only way the child is likely to get any type of health care is by being taken to an emergency room and waiting 13hrs to be seen: not exactly the standard of conventional modern medical care. Neither do we take away the children of the working poor, who aren't able to afford health insurance any more than the people on welfare. Or the obese children of middle class/wealthy parents: allowing your child to become obese certainly isn't a good medical decision. We don't take away the children of people in poor countries that have little to no health care infrastructure, and rehome them to countries where the medical care is better. And we definitely don't do forced sterilizations to keep any of the people I mentioned from having more children. So where is the outrage for all these children? If the gold standard for being a good parent is providing access to conventional modern medicine, everyone I listed is just as guilty as parents who withhold medical care because of religious beliefs. The reason might be different, but the outcome is the same: sick or dead child. There are hundreds of millions of parents in this world who would provide their children with modern medical care if they were able; by comparison the number of parents who could and don't because of their religion is microscopic. To use religion as the basis of who we will be upset with, and who we won't is an incredible double standard. The outrage should be generated by the fact that most of the world doesn't have access to health care period. And if we as a society did manage to decide that we were going to determine parental rights based upon religion, whose religion are we going to use? Lots of people have religious beliefs and don't belong to a formally organized religious group, just like the couple in this story. And religions that are recognized by some people aren't recognized by others: to some people Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, to others they are cult members. Where do we draw the line? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of God, so when we start making policy decisions based on religion we are skating on thin ice. And it's a slippery slope best not traveled on: the final destination ends up being a modern day Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany, or some other equally objectionable form of religious persecution. The system works well enough the way that it is: most people regardless of income or religion attempt to provide their children with the best medical care possible. The only reason stories like this generate news headlines is because they are a rare occurrence.

People don't choose to be poor...they do choose their religious preference. There are resources to help those that don't have the money to help themselves. Religion, on the other hand, is a different animal. I believe in religious freedom, but I also believe that if you choose to bring another life into existence, then you'd damn well be ready to care for that child's every need.

Sure, there are plenty of cultures that do what we would consider horrible things to children...but when those atrocities happen in the U.S. those people are prosecuted, regardless of whether the act was cultural or religious in nature. The act is prosecuted because it is against the population's moral center. While the U.S. does extend and encourage religious and cultural freedom, a certain amount of conformity to our culture is required in order to live here.

 

[athena123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by captodometer And if we as a society did manage to decide that we were going to determine parental rights based upon religion, whose religion are we going to use? Lots of people have religious beliefs and don't belong to a formally organized religious group, just like the couple in this story. And religions that are recognized by some people aren't recognized by others: to some people Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, to others they are cult members. Where do we draw the line? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of God, so when we start making policy decisions based on religion we are skating on thin ice. And it's a slippery slope best not traveled on: the final destination ends up being a modern day Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany, or some other equally objectionable form of religious persecution. The system works well enough the way that it is: most people regardless of income or religion attempt to provide their children with the best medical care possible. The only reason stories like this generate news headlines is because they are a rare occurrence.

I'm with you on this 110% cap - We cannot and should not ever EVER grant our government the authority to make policy decisions based upon religious belief or lack thereof. NEVER. NO EXCEPTIONS. The only thing we can and SHOULD do is to punish those who cause harm to others because of their beliefs. This reactive approach probably doesn't have a great deal of appeal for those who would prefer more proactive interference, but that is the consequence of personal and religious freedom.

 

[lovely333]

The lord put medical professionals here for a reason.

 

[ratmist]

If she died of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), then her parents may not have known she was diabetic, since DKA is often the first symptom that causes the affected person to come to medical attention. However, the symptoms aren't something that you'd immediately suspect to be life-threatening, especially for people who are not medically trained. I know many parents who wait until their child/children are extremely unwell before taking them to the doctor simply because they don't have health insurance and cannot afford a doctor's bill for something as simple as nausea, vomiting and fatigue. We don't even know what symptoms she definitely had or didn't have. Either way, the list doesn't look that dramatic until you start to add them up as a whole:

• Frequent urination or frequent thirst for a day or more
• Fatigue
• Nausea and vomiting
• Muscular stiffness or aching
• Mental stupor that may progress to coma
• Rapid breathing
• Fruity breath (breath odor)

• Headache
• Decreased consciousness
• Breathing difficulty while lying down
• Low blood pressure
• Decreased appetite
• Abdominal pain

(From here: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Diabetic ketoacidosis)

I think the AP reporters should've gotten more information to prevent these parents being villified as crazy religious freaks willing to sacrifice their daughter for their beliefs. There was no mention whether the parents had medical insurance or the ability to pay for medical treatment.

 

[frocher]

.........

 

[purrtykitty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist I think the AP reporters should've gotten more information to prevent these parents being villified as crazy religious freaks willing to sacrifice their daughter for their beliefs. There was no mention whether the parents had medical insurance or the ability to pay for medical treatment.

I saw their house...it's pretty big and looked very nice. If they couldn't afford medical insurance or doctor bills, then they should not have had that big and nice of a house. There are far too many people with out health insurance who live far above their means. If these same people lived within their income, then it's entirely likely that medical insurance would be affordable. I realize it's important to have shelter and it's nice to have stuff, but not at the expense of your health. If you're dead, who cares how big your house was or how much stuff you had.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher ... Leilani Neumann said she and her husband are not worried about the investigation because "our lives are in God's hands. We know we did not do anything criminal. We know we did the best for our daughter we knew how to do."

Umm, no you didn't. She was sick for weeks and you didn't take her for medical treatment. The fact that someone on the other side of the continent knew that something was drastically wrong speaks volumes to me.

 

[MiCHiE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovely333 The lord put medical professionals here for a reason.

Probably because he was overwhelmed with prayers....

 

[ratmist]

I'm all for giving the parents the benefit of the doubt, but based on the second report, they were really foolish. I don't see how this is much different from the case a while ago about the two vegan parents who let their baby starve to death rather than feed him milk. In my opinion, social services should look into ongoing care or removal of the remaining children. The other children should not have to go through this if/when they need urgent medical care.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist I'm all for giving the parents the benefit of the doubt, but based on the second report, they were really foolish. I don't see how this is much different from the case a while ago about the two vegan parents who let their baby starve to death rather than feed him milk. In my opinion, social services should look into ongoing care or removal of the remaining children. The other children should not have to go through this if/when they need urgent medical care.

I believe they went back and removed the other three children. I read that either late last night or early this morning.

 

[S.S.BlackOrchid]

I know a few people who have similar beliefs about doctors. They seemed to believe that you were less faithful if you went to a doctor. One woman I know had an issue with her ankle but wouldn't see a doctor for it. It kept getting worse, and she couldn't even walk for over a year. She had to crawl around. She got better after a long time of pain, but she could have just gone to a doctor and been ok sooner. I don't think God and doctors are against each other.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.S.BlackOrchid I know a few people who have similar beliefs about doctors. They seemed to believe that you were less faithful if you went to a doctor. One woman I know had an issue with her ankle but wouldn't see a doctor for it. It kept getting worse, and she couldn't even walk for over a year. She had to crawl around. She got better after a long time of pain, but she could have just gone to a doctor and been ok sooner. I don't think God and doctors are against each other.

I honestly wonder about these people sometimes. I don't know where they've picked up the notion that faith is a superior substitute to routine healthcare. I wonder who's told them that, or if they've arrived at this conclusion somehow on their own, and whether it's related to a general lack of healthcare or the ability to pay for healthcare. My brother and I were covered by my mother's health insurance, but we usually couldn't afford the co-pay, so often times my parents waited until they were absolutely certain medical care was required to help us get over most of the childhood diseases we had. And in those situations, they simply prayed over us or with us. After all, kids can often bounce back to health after a few days of feeling bad. When we clearly needed help though, my parents sacrificed whatever they had to in order to meet the copay payments.

 

[Kimmi201]

I saw a video on this stuff in my Death and Dieing Religion class at my college, its crazy these people were out of their mindddd. The case was about this family who has threeee of their seven children die because of this, they would not seek medical help because they believe only prayer will help. Also, one of the younger children died from a simple common cold. I dont know how you can watch your 2 year old die when all you'd have to do was give him some motrin for a few days!

Also, there was a family who had a child die because of this same belief, but they then snapped out of it. They were talking about how they can't believe they did this and they always had doubts but there was tremendous pressure and warnings from their church community.

I agree that the government should definetely step in on such things and should not allow it, but actually the first case was on trial, but they won. sick.

 

[Beauty Mark]

When it comes to the government and making decisions on people's lives, you cannot say the government should have no powers. If we allow the government to stay out of parenting, we can easily allow for child abuse of all kinds, poor diets, genital mutilation, not educating our children, etc. I can umbrella any of that as a religion. If it were a grown person choosing that, I'd find it dumb but as long as they were of sound mind, that's their business

In the US, we have freedom of speech but not necessarily freedom with all of our actions.

 

[athena123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beauty Mark When it comes to the government and making decisions on people's lives, you cannot say the government should have no powers. If we allow the government to stay out of parenting, we can easily allow for child abuse of all kinds, poor diets, genital mutilation, not educating our children, etc. I can umbrella any of that as a religion. If it were a grown person choosing that, I'd find it dumb but as long as they were of sound mind, that's their business In the US, we have freedom of speech but not necessarily freedom with all of our actions.

The government can and certainly SHOULD stay out of our lives as much as possible. The more government is involved with our daily lives, the more problems that very interference, however benevolent, are created. Parents should be responsible for their children. Decisions made about parenting are NOT the role of government, but the role of the parent. The only actions that government should play is in the event that a child is harmed or abused; at which point parents who abuse their children should most certainly be punished. Don't let the few exceptional stories like this play upon your fears geared to sway your sound judgment and place everything in the hands of big brother.

Do you really want to roll back to the medevial ages when church and state were involved with every aspect of your lives? I surely don't.

 

[purrtykitty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by athena123 The government can and certainly SHOULD stay out of our lives as much as possible. The more government is involved with our daily lives, the more problems that very interference, however benevolent, are created. Parents should be responsible for their children. Decisions made about parenting are NOT the role of government, but the role of the parent. The only actions that government should play is in the event that a child is harmed or abused; at which point parents who abuse their children should most certainly be punished. Don't let the few exceptional stories like this play upon your fears geared to sway your sound judgment and place everything in the hands of big brother. Do you really want to roll back to the medevial ages when church and state were involved with every aspect of your lives? I surely don't.

I agree and fortunately the courts in America also agree. The courts grant much deference to parenting and the many styles of parenting. The government's role should be very limited...to enforcing the laws on the books. In order to do that, then citizens, like us, need to be more active in reporting instances of child abuse. There are only a few persons who have an affirmative duty to report child abuse (teachers, doctors, etc...) but think of what could be done if neighbors or relatives anonymously reported. So many children could be helped and saved and tragedies like this wouldn't happen.

 

[Beauty Mark]

Quote:

Decisions made about parenting are NOT the role of government, but the role of the parent. The only actions that government should play is in the event that a child is harmed or abused; at which point parents who abuse their children should most certainly be punished.

I don't advocate the government telling you how to raise your child, like what religion to raise them as, what they learn. That's not what I meant at all. My point is the government, at some level, has to step in when children are getting hurt.

You have to define what "harm" is. Some people will argue that it isn't harmful to beat their children; why else would they do that? It isn't harmful to them. NAMBLA argues pedophilia is okay and natural and not harmful. Is it harmful not provide proper nutrients, at minimal level to a child? Is it harmful to occasionally starve your kids? Leave them without babysitter? Not send them to the doctor?

There has to be some kind of definition, and regardless of it being the government, a group of individuals who have the means to do something about it should be the ones who create and uphold those laws.