Child Abuse or Parental Rights?

[mwfanelli2]

A family prayed while their daughter slowly died in front of them from easily treatable diabetes.

"Her mother, Leilani Neumann, told The Associated Press that she never expected her daughter, whom she called Kara, to die. The family believes in the Bible, and it says healing comes from God, but they are not crazy, religious people, she said."

"She had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness, he said... But Leilani Neumann said her daughter, a straight A student, was in good health until recently."

Should the parents be punished for their crimes (uh oh, bias!) or should we just chalk up the death to the rights of parents to raise their their kids their way? This is a big argument on another web site.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html

[JETA]

One thing is unclear to me. Were they so stupid they didn't know she was seriously sick or did they know and think God was going to heal her?

This is horribly tragic & I feel physically sick after reading the article. I say abuse.

[jorgemonkey]

I believe that God does heal people. I also believe that he gives people knowledge & the ability to save peoples lives (aka doctors). He works in mysterious ways, and a lot of times he works through other people to answer prayers.

If it wasn't for the doctors that we had at the hospital last weekend when my wife was giving birth, we probably would have lost the baby, but he is 100% fine because of the emergency C-section they gave my wife. That right there to me is an answer to one of my prayers.

[SmartWombat]

It's interesting to look at the various quotes in related stories, and the positions that various postings take on this.


"The family does not attend an organized church or participate in an organized religion"
Does it matter how organized it is ?

"The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected"
Yes, that's faith !

"People are very sincere about their beliefs. But we can be sincerely wrong."
So what defines the right and wrong beliefs ?

"she did not know her daughter was terminally ill"
Would it have made a difference to their belief or actions ?

"The family believes in the Bible, and it says healing comes from God"
But how is it delivered from God, through doctors, perhaps ?

"they were being investigated, which is sad since they don’t investigate the people who put their trust in doctors whose family members die by the hundreds of thousands from medical mistakes every year"
Is this biased ?

"participated in a Web site that shares stories of healing maladies ranging from brain tumors to worn vehicle tires"
What is this trying to do ?

"Hold the physician in honor, for he is essential to you, and God it was who established his profession. From God the doctor has his wisdom"
Selective scriptural quotation as a tool of the Catholic church ?
Is this a position being taken against the UBM ?

"We are not commanded in scripture to send people to the doctor but to meet their needs through prayer and faith"
Selective scriptural choice by the UBM against the Catholic church ?


At the moment the ethicists can't make up their minds, it seems it depends on whether her parents knew she was ill, and on that hinges whether this case becomes a prosecution for neglect.

[mjs1973]

What would people think of this situation if there was no mention of religion or the Bible?? Not stating an opinion either way, just food for thought.

[mwfanelli2]

What would people think of this situation if there was no mention of religion or the Bible?? Not stating an opinion either way, just food for thought.

Personally, I would feel the same way. Religion was their excuse but it could have been anything else: drugs or alcohol abuse, mysterious aliens riding behind a comet, mental illness, general neglect, etc.

As a few others have said, believing in God is one thing, expecting a miracle directly sent down by God is quite another. If they treated their own illnesses that way, not going for medical help, that's fine. But they took another life, one that was totally dependent on them, thanks to a warped sense of faith.

[Mr Yuck]

So there was a big flood coming to a guy's neighborhood in a valley, the police came by and told him he should leave and they'd give him a ride to a shuttle to high ground.

"Nah, God will protect me"

So the next day, the water was up to the porch, and a sheriff boat came by and offered him a ride to high ground.

"Nah, God will save me"

Next day: he's sitting on his roof and a helicopter comes by and offers him a way out to high ground....

"Nah, God will save me"

Next day, he drowns.

He gets to Heaven and asks God why he wasn't saved.

God says, "I sent you a car, a boat and a helicopter"


it's not the religion, it's the fact that humans are stupid.

[brmill26]

What would people think of this situation if there was no mention of religion or the Bible?? Not stating an opinion either way, just food for thought.

Well, ignoring what people think and looking at what the law says, the reason religion and, specifically, the Bible are important is b/c of the protections Americans are afforded under the Constitution. The Bible is important b/c Constitution (as interpreted in many Supreme Court cases) only protects "legitimate" religions and practices. Easy examples are such as, "Heroine is my religion, so it's legal for me to use b/c that's how I worship" - wrong, still illegal. Or, "God told me to stab _____ person in the head," sorry, still murder. But, "legitimate" religious beliefs are protected, within limits. Refusal of medical care is certainly one of those rights. However...

This is an interesting story because it runs right along that edge b/t religion, personal freedom, and parental rights, and also right on the edge of child abuse, negligence, and ignorance.

I don't know on which side of that line it should fall, and I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. One thing to keep in mind is that in America, you ALWAYS have a right to refuse medical treatment. But the question here is how far does that right extend to parents (and religion comes in as the reason) vs. their legal responsibility to care for their children? Yikes.

Edit: And if you're wondering how far the parental control of medical decisions affecting their children extends, the Supreme Court has upheld laws that require parental notification and/or consent before allowing a minor to get an abortion (so long as the State also creates an alternative method by which the minor may go before a judge who may determine her maturity and/or that there is a medical necessity). The point being, parental control of a child's medical care is very extensive.

[Frog]

It reminds me of when I was diagnosed with type I diabeties when I was 11 years old.
Some Christian Scientists down the street told my mother we'd all go to hell if I used medical doctors and medicine to control it. Guess I wouldn't be sending this post if my mother had followed their advice.
I don't know the answer, though. I'm sure these people are sincere in their belief but then so was Jim Jones.

[JSPhoto]

Abuse plain and simple, it's no different than someone who kills claiming God or the devil made them do it, and just like those people it's all in their head, their own perception of things...... and a good case for lethal injection of the "parents"...... maybe God will save them.......somehow I doubt it though. Religion kills more people than car accidents, smoking and all diseases each year.....

[Medley]

Things of this nature aren't new, by any stretch of the imagination. They offend our sense of dignity and morals, and perhaps that is as it should be. But consider: Three major health reform proposals, two of them bipartisan, were introduced in the last legislative session in Wisconsin ( where Michael's story is based ) but none were even brought to the floor for a vote.

My home state (Oregon) is no better. Two weeks ago, a six year old died of pneumonia as her parents held a 4 day prayer vigil, but refused any medical treatment. As of this writing, no charges have been filed. Yet last year, Oregon voters turned down a bid to increase the cigarette tax specifically to fund child health care.

Meanwhile, we as a nation have spent one and a half TRILLION dollars on a five year old war. That's $1500000000000.00. How many children don't have adequate health care that could have?

When you get right down to it, the truth is that trusting children's health to little more than a prayer isn't that uncommon at all. We just pretend not to notice. It doesn't affect our kids, so why get involved, right?

Funny that the complacence disappears when the question is framed around religion, instead of politics.

- Joe U.

[adina]

Weeelllll.....

Let's say they questioned this woman, and she told them they have no insurance, and couldn't afford to go to the dr. Would that make this any less newsworthy? Or newsworthy for a different reason?

It's very very sad, they lost a child that could have been saved with a simple trip to the dr. But is not taking that trip because of religous beliefs any more of an outrage than vast number of people who don't take that trip because they can't afford it?

If you take religion out of equation, does it change things?

Is it abuse? I don't know...but it is certainly neglect, and child endangerment.

[adina]

btw...I am at the dr so frequently with my kids I should have a punch card. Especially this winter.

[adina]

btw2...do crazy, religious people ever know they are crazy religious people?

[mwfanelli2]

Weeelllll.....

Let's say they questioned this woman, and she told them they have no insurance, and couldn't afford to go to the dr. Would that make this any less newsworthy? Or newsworthy for a different reason?

It's very very sad, they lost a child that could have been saved with a simple trip to the dr. But is not taking that trip because of religous beliefs any more of an outrage than vast number of people who don't take that trip because they can't afford it?

Well, I am one of those people without health insurance and with low wages (part time teacher). Yes, I rarely go to doctors and don't get all the tests and drugs I need because of the expense. I count on luck to avoid the whole health issue tumbling down on top of me.

However, that is MY choice, voluntary or not, for MY health. If I had a kid, I'd find the money somehow even if it meant living in a parked car. When another life depends on you doing what is needed, the rules of the game change radically.

[adina]

However, that is MY choice, voluntary or not, for MY health. If I had a kid, I'd find the money somehow even if it meant living in a parked car. When another life depends on you doing what is needed, the rules of the game change radically.

Yes, they do change. Especially when that person is too young to know the risks involved. As a parent, it's your job to know those risks, or at least try to make the best decision you can based on the information available to you.

Which is why I'd say neglect or endangerment. They didn't deliberatly keep her from the dr knowing that medicine would save her. They honestly believed God would heal her. But God's healing could have been meant to come from an insulin shot. I don't believe we are giving the ability to think and learn, but not meant to use it. God would have giving us the brains of a cow if we weren't meant to use them, imo.

I didn't have insurance when I was pregant with my first. Everything went competely fine, no issues at all. But we paid thousands of dollars just in case. Because I knew that having medical expertise avaible and not needing it was a way better option than not having it and needing it.

Should they have taken her to the dr? Yes, they should have. I don't care what the reasoning is, this was a child that could have easily lived instead of died.

[Medley]

The reasoning is federal and state law. Sec. 113 (42 U.S.C. 5106i) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) Amendments of 1996 allows parents to withhold medical care from their children based on religious beliefs. Section 113 states:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed:

1) as establishing a Federal requirement that a parent or legal guardian provide a child any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian; and

2) to require that a State find, or to prohibit a State from finding, abuse or neglect in cases in which a parent or legal guardian relies solely or partially upon spiritual means rather than medical treatment, in accordance with the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian.

This indicates that the question of a religious exemption lies with the individual states.

Wisconsin Statute 948.03 (Physical abuse of a child) subsection (6) (TREATMENT THROUGH PRAYER (emphasis theirs)) states:

A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing permitted under s. 48.981 (3) (c) 4. or 448.03 (6) in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.

So in point of law at both the federal level, and that of the state in question, the answer is: Parental Rights.

Not saying it's right or it's wrong. It's law.

- Joe U.

[armywife1984]

THis is a touchy subject, what is a parents rights, what is the childs rights, what is the law...

Thankfully I will never be put in this situation. I do not believe God will stick his hand down and shield a child, that does not mean that i dont believe that God has not sent down the means to save a child, i do. He has sent us Doctors and the knowlage to save ourselfs from many things. Thankfully I also have insurnce so i can get the treatment that my family needs.

It is a parents choice and a parents beliefs on how to raise their child. I dont think a parent should endanger their child especialy when the means to save the child are easily avalible. But sometimes their belifes are what is the danger. Frog brings up Christian Science. They believe that God will heal them, that is their right, but should they be able to endanger children that are ignorant of any other means of being???

Neglect/ abuse in this case is still that. Take religion out of the equation and the authorities would put these parents in jail faster then you can blink. Murder is murder reguardless , abuse is still abuse reguardless. I think they should be charged with neglect at the very lest and jailed. I call this murder or manslaughter. They let their child die. What mother or father could stand by and let this happen. It makes me so angery when parents stand by and do nothing.
Army

[Medley]

That's my point Army. These people can't be charged with anything and jailed, because they don't meet the legal definition. And the only reason they don't meet the legal definition is that the law allows for this religious exemption. Wisconsin law does allow the state to intervene by placing the child in temporary state custody and ordering that medication be administered. However, once the child dies- well, that was the parent's right.

Fortunately, the Oregon case is a bit different. In 1999, Oregon removed the legal shield of religious exemption. In the case I mentioned earlier, where the child died of bronchial pneumonia (the child was not six, she fifteen months old, my mistake), the parents have now been indicted and charged with second degree manslaughter, and criminal mistreatment. I'm still irked that the parents were booked and released, and I'm further irked that it has taken the state almost a month to indict the couple- the law was changed nine years ago. But at least Oregon is attempting to hold the parents responsible. This is the first time charges have been brought since the law was changed. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

- Joe U.

[mwfanelli2]

This is interesting. If I were a witch and put my child in the middle of a pentagram to cure her, I'd be in jail in a second, law or not. If I laid her out on a stone slab and did naked chants around her body with my buddies, I'd be arrested in a second, law or not. But a Christian can pretty much murder their children at will, scream "parental rights", and are shielded from the law.

Although the Constitution prohibts the establishment of a religion, the law still informally defines "acceptable" religions, or should I say, "the one acceptable religion." Sickening.

[brmill26]

mwfanelli - it's not just Christians, but any legitimate religion with "legitimate beliefs." Yes, these are interpreted by a court. Satanism would not be considered a "legitimate religion," however, nor would Christianity be considered the only one. A perfect example of where the religious exemptions come into play on an almost daily basis is for Native Americans. If you find it sickening that the laws of this nation reflect the morals of Christianity, then I'm sorry, but you'll have to move to somewhere in middle Asia to truly avoid it. Last I checked, they don't have it so well over there. Personally, I think that even if you don't believe in it, you should appreciate the freedoms and protections its influence has afforded you.

Back to the child, one thing to keep in mind is under legal history, in many respects, a child IS his parent. IE, the parent stands in the child's shoes for many things in law. Minors, legally (with exceptions), cannot make decisions about themselves or otherwise. Thus, the parent's decision IS the minor's decision regarding medical care. Thus, from a purely legal point of view, you cannot prosecute someone for the decision he makes about himself.

So hopefully that helps clear up a little bit as to why the law works like that. Now, of course, due to cases like this and many others, the legal framework has been modified and there are many exceptions which depend, largely, on how "progressive" your state law is.

Personally, I prefer passive laws in cases like this to affirmative ones, and if you're pro-individual freedom, you should too.

[another view]

Frog brings up Christian Science. They believe that God will heal them, that is their right, but should they be able to endanger children that are ignorant of any other means of being???

I've wondered that - maybe not quite phrased exactly that way - for a long time. I've known a lot of Christian Scientists over the years, and can't ever remember coming across any of them like Frog describes. I suppose in every religion there are extremes... Many of them have things like aspirin and Pepto Bismal, but there are plenty of "old school" followers out there that just don't believe that anything like that would be necessary. The whole premise of the religion is a bit different than just waiting for God or anyone else to perform a miracle out of nowhere.

I don't believe religion should be forced on anyone, but a person's own children in a crisis is an extreme case. Fortunately, I don't know anyone personally who has ever been faced with this situation. I suppose it would be hard for them to answer what they'd do, but even harder to know what they would do in a situation like that. A lot of people - not relating just to Christian Scientists, religion or anything in life in particular - have trouble putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak. In general, I've found many of that group to be more grounded to their own beliefs than many others whose minds change like the weather.

[Medley]

mwfanelli - it's not just Christians, but any legitimate religion with "legitimate beliefs." Yes, these are interpreted by a court. Satanism would not be considered a "legitimate religion," however, nor would Christianity be considered the only one. A perfect example of where the religious exemptions come into play on an almost daily basis is for Native Americans. If you find it sickening that the laws of this nation reflect the morals of Christianity, then I'm sorry, but you'll have to move to somewhere in middle Asia to truly avoid it. Last I checked, they don't have it so well over there. Personally, I think that even if you don't believe in it, you should appreciate the freedoms and protections its influence has afforded you.

Back to the child, one thing to keep in mind is under legal history, in many respects, a child IS his parent. IE, the parent stands in the child's shoes for many things in law. Minors, legally (with exceptions), cannot make decisions about themselves or otherwise. Thus, the parent's decision IS the minor's decision regarding medical care. Thus, from a purely legal point of view, you cannot prosecute someone for the decision he makes about himself.

So hopefully that helps clear up a little bit as to why the law works like that. Now, of course, due to cases like this and many others, the legal framework has been modified and there are many exceptions which depend, largely, on how "progressive" your state law is.

Personally, I prefer passive laws in cases like this to affirmative ones, and if you're pro-individual freedom, you should too.

I guess if you were to give me a label Brad, it would most probably be pro- common sense. First of all, I don't necessarily agree that morals and religion are mutually inclusive. As a child, I grew up being allowed to make my own decisions regarding religion and church. I feel fortunate for that, because I think it has allowed me to be more respectful and tolerant toward all religions (well, most of them anyway- but let's not go there....). As a young man I did attend the services of several different denominations, mostly to try to answer my questions of theology. More often than ot, what I found were people so entrenched in their one perspective that they were unwilling (or unable) to view a question from any other viewpoint. So it would take visit to several churches to get a variety of viewpoints to any given question. Mostly, from both my viewpoint and (I presume) from the of the congregation, I was considered to be an outsider looking in.

Certainly, it can be said that I am without the faith to accept any one set of teachings as gospel. But does the fact that I chose to stand back and observe, rather than actively accept any one set of ideals mean that I am without morals? I choose to think that being able to tell right from wrong is a pretty basic skillset that has more to do with one's own sense of self than any religious teachings- ie. common sense.

Given my background, I think it's fair to say that I can truly see both viewpoints in this debate. Wether or not I agree with either one is another matter. I think that there are aspects of each viewpoint I that can agree with, as well as aspects of both that I disagree with.

What tips the scales for me one way or the other, then, is the application of common sense. Look at both viewpoints, consider the options, and decide within oneself which outcome is 'right' and which one is 'wrong'.

Being able to enact laws and legislate that is a tedious process, as I'm sure you are well aware. I'm thankful that my state has an initiative process. Anyone who can obtain enough valid signatures for a proposition can put a ballot measure to a popular vote, and majority rules. While I'm sure that gives those in the legal profession a lot of headaches, to me it's about as close to common sense as the legislative process gets.

So if Oregon's laws don't seem to be "pro-individual freedom", then please understand that the way we arrive at them is all about personal choice. Laws enacted by the people, for the people. One voice, one vote. When did that become "progressive"?

- Joe U.

[mwfanelli2]

mwfanelli - it's not just Christians, but any legitimate religion with "legitimate beliefs." Yes, these are interpreted by a court. Satanism would not be considered a "legitimate religion," however, nor would Christianity be considered the only one.

First, Wikken and Satanism are two different things. In fact, as far as legitamacy goes, Wikken is older than Christianity. Lawyers determine which are "real" religions and which are not? That's an American ideal, is it? Hey, let ME determine which are real, let Larry down the block determine which are real. Having Christians judge the validity of a religion is like putting me in charge of a Chocolate Shoppe's (cool spelling) inventory. ALL religion is based on the supernatural, NONE are "real."

Look in Section 1 of today's USA Today. The Supreme Court is hearing a case against a Utah municipality that allowed the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a public park but not a similiar structure, of the Summum Church, with their seven aphorisms in the same park. Why? Because politicians decide which religions are "real" and which are not. The circuit court rulled against the town but they appealed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...31-court_N.htm

A perfect example of where the religious exemptions come into play on an almost daily basis is for Native Americans. If you find it sickening that the laws of this nation reflect the morals of Christianity, then I'm sorry, but you'll have to move to somewhere in middle Asia to truly avoid it.

I don't have to movebecause the Constitution of the United States protects my rights to worship ANY WAY I WANT. Just because people pervert the meaning of religious freedom doesn't make it right or patriotic.

Last I checked, they don't have it so well over there. Personally, I think that even if you don't believe in it, you should appreciate the freedoms and protections its influence has afforded you.

Uh... I should be grateful for the freedoms that lawyers allow me to have? No wonder this country is going down the tubes. Partiotism is not about cool slogans, singing the national anthem, wearing flag pins, or displaying the star and stripes. Its about defending the very basis of this country: the Constitution. "Love It or Leave It" is a very sad leftover from the Vietnam era that was bankrupt then and is bankrupt now. It's a statement of defeat.

Back to the child, one thing to keep in mind is under legal history, in many respects, a child IS his parent. IE, the parent stands in the child's shoes for many things in law. Minors, legally (with exceptions), cannot make decisions about themselves or otherwise. Thus, the parent's decision IS the minor's decision regarding medical care. Thus, from a purely legal point of view, you cannot prosecute someone for the decision he makes about himself.

Yes, that is what the law says. My question is, is this the way it really should be? Should it be changed or do we allow child abuse to continue under the guise of "real" Christain religion?

Personally, I prefer passive laws in cases like this to affirmative ones, and if you're pro-individual freedom, you should too.

You know as well as I do that this is NOT about personal freedoms. A child is not able to make their own choices for obvious reasons (most of the time). Parents should not be able to dictate that their child must die to satisfy some sort of supernatural nonsense. Maybe we should all the personal freedom for a parent to put a bullet in their child's head, abuse and beat their child when naughty, sell the kid for prostitution. After all, as you say, "Thus, from a purely legal point of view, you cannot prosecute someone for the decision he makes about himself."

[brmill26]

Medley - I'm not saying at all that religion = moral, or vice versa. I was simply pointing out that the laws of the US are, historically, based upon the morals of Christianity. That's all.

For the record, I love popular referendum and I wish my state had it... but our state government will never release that power from their hands. Oregon, as I'm sure you're aware, is an extremely "progressive" state in terms of the legal landscape. And do note that I'm using quotes to denote that as a categorical term that others use... it's not necessarily my opinion as to whether it's right, wrong, or whatever.

However, to be technical, any law which tells a parent how he must (or must not) deal with his child is, by definition, a limitation of personal freedom. Whether or not one interprets such a limitation as "good / right" or "bad / wrong" depends on his political and moral beliefs. If a majority of the population of Oregon believes that it is better to require a parent to seek medical care for his child than to allow him to rely on his religious beliefs - fine, the people have spoken. That's the great thing about states. In my state, I can tell you that the populous would be highly offended even by the mere idea that the state, by law, could compel them to act against their religious beliefs.

I don't have to move because the Constitution of the United States protects my rights to worship ANY WAY I WANT. Just because people pervert the meaning of religious freedom doesn't make it right or patriotic.

If you read my initial post in this thread, you know that statement is patently false, and rather ironically, the way you interpret "religious freedom" to take that meaning is actually a perversion in itself.

The rest of your post was a fairly unreasonable extension of my post on legal history - not my personal beliefs. Clearly I, or any reasonable person, would never argue for a parental right to shoot children. I'm not going to argue with the unreasonable.