Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

Yeah, randman. You'd sue the responsible parties. The doctors. TB mentioned that earlier.Curiously, randman neglected to address his point.Allow me to be blunt, randman:Those who kill their daughters in the name of religion (aka "honor killings") should be protected here in the U.S.?To wit: Dead In Dallas Honor KillingsIntentionally killing someone and killing someone thru neglect/failure to act are both felonies in this country.Unless, of course, you are "religious" and related to your victim.What say you, rand my man?A cost of freedom?(And don't just pull "well-it's-just-different" outta your hat again. How is it "different"?)Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

Religious freedom to sit by and watch your kid die a very slow and painful death that took a course of a whole month? Do you have any idea the kind of suffering and pain a person of type one diabetes goes through if she isn't medically treated? This sounds more to me like a sadistic act of torture than freedom of religion.But then again, you don't really care for these children do you?

This case hit a particular nerve in me. For one of my senior projects in college, I decided to do an extensive research into the history of child abuse in this country and society's reaction to them. During my research, I ran across many cases of child abuse that seemed more like cases of torture in the dark ages than what we would expect in a modern society.There was one case where a teenager got pregnant out of wedlock so her parents decided to put the newly born baby into the barn and only allowed the mother to feed him a few times a day and no other contact. It wasn't until the child was 5 that authority was alerted to this and took the child away. Since the child had absolutely no human contact for the first 5 years of his life, he had no idea how to react to certain stimuli that would seem very basic for the rest of us. This was a particular interest to many sociologists and psychologists because this child didn't even know how to react to pain. He didn't cry or yell out.I have a friend whose parents adopted a kid from China a few years back. While they were packing up in the hotel getting ready to leave China with the kid, the mother accidently closed and locked the suitcase with the kid's finger stuck in there. He didn't cry out in pain or anything. He just stood there. When they finally realized this, they opened up the suitcase and brought him to a doctor. The kid's finger was freakin' broken! and he didn't react to the pain at all.Neglect can have very real negative impact on kids' lives.There was particularly another case where a couple decided to raise their son in a box in the basement for some religious reason. The kid was finally rescued by authority when he was around 9 or so. In therapy, his psychologist found that he was actually quite a pleasant kid for someone who went through that many years of neglect. That is he was a pleasant kid until he was finally told that other kids weren't raised in a box like he was. He stopped talking after that.Most of the cases I ran into were in the name of religious freedom, like randman suggested. Most of them didn't involve some aggressive beatings or sexual abuse like most people think. The kids were simply neglected.We as a society have reacted to these cases by having social workers keeping their eyes open for abuse cases. But we can only go so far because apparently religious people are still sanctified by the law to maim or kill their kids for religious reasons. The so-called moral right have done little to help these kids.Yes, randman was right when he said 99% of the people out there wouldn't do this. But using percentage in this case is almost like using a lie. This is like saying 99% of the people in Europe weren't sent to death camps by the nazis so what they did must be ok. I don't care if only 1 child a year dies from neglect, that's 1 child a year the moral right could have saved if they didn't have this ego thing going. But no, in the name of religious freedom religious people are allowed to maim and kill their children and are protected by the law to do so.These children are helpless. They need our protection, not our neglect.I just find it downright comedic that this evil liberal atheist is emotionally disturbed by these acts of sadistic torture of helpless little children in the wealthiest country in the world while the moral right christians have nothing to say and continue to support a law that protects these unfit parents and allow them to continue to torture their children like this.A single insulin shot would have saved this child. I mean, if these parents didn't want her, just give her to me. I'll be happy to take her in and treat her as my flesh and blood. They didn't have to kill her like that.

I've tried to read through this and respond several times, but I've had to go away and come back several times, because I'm just so upset and angry, both about this story and your reaction to it randman.I find it shocking and appalling beyond belief that you or anyone should defend the terrible actions of these idiot "parents". You can talk about religious freedom all you like, but the truth is that there are restrictions on freedom in modern society. Freedom of speech famously does not include the right to shout fire in a crowded room. The value of such a freedom is judged as not being worth the awful consequences it brings. The same principle rather obviously applies here.The consequence of the expression of this staggeringly trivial element of religious freedom is the death of Madeline Neumann. If you think that her slow and torturous death, protracted over several days, is an acceptable price to pay for this wretched scrap of religious dogma, then shame on you. How many children must die in agony before you would say "too much, the freedom is not worth the cost"? I do not ask that even one single child should die to defend my beliefs. That you do is fucking sick and monstrous. Shame on you. So the freedom that we are arguing must be sacrificed is a very minor one, affecting only a tiny handful of people. If the reward for such an enforced sacrifice is that a single child is saved, then it will be worth it. Your talk of freedom is sickening. Where was Madeline Neumann's freedom to live? That you do not possess the basic moral capacity to see this is shocking and frightening. I worry for those around you if you really have such difficulty telling right from wrong.The Constitution is no defence in a case like this, for the very same reason that I mentioned before; we do not enjoy the freedom to deprive others of their freedoms. That is why we do not have the freedom to shout fire in a crowded room and that is why we do not have the freedom to stand idly by and watch as a child dies of an easily preventable disease. It is the Wisconsin law that is unconstitutional, since it allows those of religious conviction to commit a terrible crime, for which any other person would rightly be prosecuted. So it is somehow acceptable to allow another person to die through one's inaction? Pathetic. If this is so acceptable, why do you think there are negligence laws at all? The decision of those scumbag "parents" directly led to their daughter's death. They had the option of saving her life at any time, but they chose not to bother, for fear of compromising their beliefs in a very trivial way. That's just wrong. It might be slightly less evil than actively murdering Madeline but such equivocation is of minor importance when discussing the avoidable death of an innocent little girl. So the religious should just be allowed to opt out of the law as it suits them? I wonder how that sits with your precious constitution. I agree. But that isn't actually the issue under discussion here. What we are talking here is whether parents have the right to impose death upon their children. If some fruitcake wants to refuse medical treatment on religious grounds, then let them. What no sane society could ever accept, is that parents should be able to impose death upon their own children, for any reason, religious or not.From your earlier post; Damn right I am. You have it in a fucking nutshell. I wish to impose my belief that it is wrong to stand by and watch a child die a needless death upon society. I also wish to impose my opinion that it is wrong to batter a child to death with a hammer upon society. Murder, rape, assault, these are all things that I consider wrong, and I wish to impose my view on this upon others. Fortunately, quite a lot of other people agree with me on these points and our mutual will is imposed upon others, thank god.I expect that when they finally get their useless asses into gear, the Wisconsin legislature will strike this piece of crap exception from the records. I believe this because I have family in Wisconsin, so I know for a fact that not all of its citizens have as little regard for the sanctity of human life as you do. Not all of them think that their beliefs are so damn important that innocent children must die to preserve them. Shame on you randman, shame.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hello TB, I hope you can hold off on the anger in your reply. I must defend randman on this topic, despite being rather strongly irreligious, and extremely pro-medicine. As an explanation of my reaction, I am disturbed at this nation's push toward intolerance using children as the crowbar and axe, to get through our constitution.You have your life and your own children. Other people have their life and their children. In a free and tolerant society, each of you has the right to pursue the concept of a good life for your family. With that in mind, you should be paying attention to your own life, and stop prying into the lives of others. Yes, even (and perhaps especially) if what they do is not understandable and so upsetting to you.I think it is arrogant to act like such people do not care for their children, or do not understand such suffering. They have a completely different worldview, which creates a different concept of how maladies should be treated. And indeed, what other kinds of maladies are brought on if certain treatments are performed. That does not mean they do not care, or do not understand suffering. You are incorrectly equating caring abstention of a procedure with indifferent neglect.If these people only did this to their kids and never to themselves, one might have a point. But they do this to themselves just the same. This is a different way of looking at the world, but they really do care. Is it in line with most modern concepts of healthcare? No. But their ability to practice what they want within their family, means that others get to practice what they want within their family... regardless of whether it is "modern" or "popular".Randman is correct in pointing out that modern medicine is not perfect. Things still go wrong. And no, you do not get to just sue doctors... as if that possibility creates an argument in this case. You ask if the girl would have been saved by one shot of insulin. I don't know. Do you? We can guess that likely she would have. But what if she didn't? That really does happen. So what if they did it and she died anyway, or slipped into a coma? No, there would be no suing the doctors in such a scenario, as there would have been no malpractice or reason to assume it. What would we say then? Our way was better?I think people that choose to live "naturally", or for whatever reason do not avail themselves of modern medicine, are much more likely to suffer from things that they do not have to suffer from. However, we will all suffer and we will all die. Medicine will not stop that. The question is how we decide to live. Some choose to live free of medical intervention, again for whatever reason. How can I or you say that that is wrong?This tragedy... which I am sure is just as tragic for that family, and perhaps more so, than for all the voyeurs... becomes an event for that family to consider. Perhaps it will change the way they view medicine, or faith as a healing art. Or perhaps they will view the death as a natural part of life. Are they wrong?If we allow children to be used this way, to advocate one worldview over another, then I don't see where this stops... ever. The natural progression will be to end abortions for sure, but that would just be one further step, once the state is the body viewed as owner and caretaker of children... the arbiter of right and wrong.Let's take a converse view of this situation. What if Xian scientist types suddenly swarmed to the majority in this nation? Would you want them crying and screaming about what you have done to your children, in order to prolong their mortal lives? Would you want them to have the power to change what you can do for your kids, or for yourself?As odious as these decisions may be to you, the legal precedent is correct. Freedom for one family, means freedom for all families. States running families means only that the personal tragedy of today, can become the nationally enforced tragedy of tomorrow.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Sacrificing freedom for security, one gets nor deserves either. That others may ignorantly (to my mind) doom their own children, means that mine cannot be doomed, over my objections, by the state. Neither I nor randman are asking that any child should die at all. That is a piece of rhetorical propaganda on your part... shame on you.However, if one wanted to view this issue in such a context, then you most certainly DO ask that children die to defend your beliefs. There is no question that medical intervention, at the very least inoculations, will definitely kill a number of children. This is without malpractice occurring. One may point that the numbers of dead children might be different, but children will die all the same. That about says it all. The parents did not overtly kill their child. Their child was dying all on her own. They believed they were saving her, and that medical intervention would only add to her problems, perhaps beyond this visible one. This then is a discussion of quality of life.It is obtuse of you to claim that randman did not find it shocking, and indeed myself if you decide to label anyone who does not agree with you in that manner. I certainly find such ignorance, or concepts of extradimensional care, shocking. But my shock or disgust with another worldview does not create an argument regarding the protection of personal freedom in this nation.It is also obtuse of you to suggest that this is a case of right and wrong, that you know what that is, that people who disagree with you do not, and that the state should be a part in making such ethical decisions... I would assume as long as it agrees with you. Yet, my guess is that if society wished to impose the converse belief upon you, you'd scream bloody murder about freedom and rights.By the way they did not simply stand by and watch. They were delivering aid in a way they understood. Its practical efficacy can certainly be questioned, but what such people are doing can't be. That's what having a different worldview can entail, different choices with different results that others may not like.The idea that your way means no dead kids, is really arrogant, and about just as delusional.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm sure we've all heard the joke about the sincere Christian who while watching the water rise around his home during a flood turns down all offers of assistance, each time saying that he puts his trust in God. God is surprised to see him at the Pearly Gates, exclaiming, "What are you doing here? I sent two boats and a helicopter!"I believe in freedom, especially religious freedom, but faith can drive people to irrational actions. As Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winning scientist) is purported to have said, "Good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."I can't understand the defense of any practices, religious or not, that cause the deaths of children. Everyone must concede that there have to be limits to religious freedom. Just try inventing a religion that doesn't believe in paying taxes. And one only has to consider that we would never permit the religious practice of child sacrifice of ancient Aztecs. Once you've decided a line must be drawn against some religious practices, no matter how sincere, then it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that medical care for treatable conditions can never be denied, and that courts, not parents, should decide.This unfortunately puts parents at odds with both the legal establishment and law enforcement, with all the messy outcomes that such entails, including incarceration, fleeing jurisdictions, etc. But we as a society cannot ignore our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, regardless of their unfortunate choice of parents.--Percy

OK, this is getting to the point of being utterly ridiculous. Where do you draw the line, Silent H? Are you proposing that we, as a Society, should have no rules or limitations placed on our "freedoms"? Fuck it, why have any laws whatsoever? Live and let live, baby. "Your neighbor pissing you off?" Shoot the fucker. "Your wife burn dinner?" Flog the bitch. You're pathetic Silent H. Ya know...the whole concept of someones different "Worldview" as an excuse to do what ever the hell they want is getting a bit old and tiresome. After all, my "Worldview" tells me that these parents are criminally negligent and solely responsible for the preventable death of the daughter, and as such they should be sterilized and placed in prison for the remainder of their lives. So why can't I have my way, Silent H...it is, after all, my "Worldview"? Not true. If, as an atheist, I let my kid die in this manner, I'd be prosecuted in a heart beat. Because in this example, it was not a choice made by the child. She did not volunteer to have assholes as parents...it was "forced" upon her by her parents doing the "Mommy-Daddy Dance" some time ago. I'd be willing to bet that their remorse is something along the lines of..."oh well...it's what God wanted...she's with baby Jesus now". I believe that you are incorrect here. I have not yet had the time available to look for case studies...but I'd be surprised to learn that this sort of thing has not happened in the past, and that the parents were charged. I can only hope that it also happens in this case. I will look into it, when I have some free time. Again...total bull shit. We have limitations (and rightfully so) placed upon our Constitutional Rights. I cannot scream "FIRE" in a movie theater. Nor can I kill my child in the name of Thor. To equate what these parents did with Constitutional freedoms is a patently stupid argument.

Security? What the fuck did killing this little girl have to do with protecting our Security? Oh wait...I see...you're gonna off on how it's securing us from the evil actions of "The State". But are there not already numerous restrictions placed upon us by "The State"? No, Silent H, it is most definitely not rhetorical propaganda. Supporting the notion that religious freedoms should allow you to kill your child...will lead directly to the death of children. How do you see that as rhetorical propaganda? Yes...and there can be legal consequences to such actions. People can be held responsible.Regardless of any potential legalities though, can you not see a fundamental difference between trying to help, but failing, as opposed to knowingly letting someone die by withholding lifesaving assistance? Ummm...yes they did. Here we go again with the whole stupid "Worldview" crap. Why is someones "Worldview" able to trump murder? How do you figure this, Silent H? Where did Granny Magda say that her way would result in no dead kids? You're just making this shit up as you go along, so you can impress us all with your superior intellect and understanding of "Worldviews", as well as demonstrating how you want nothing more than to protect us all from the most evil of empires...The State. What a crock.Look, it's quite simple. These parents killed their child in the name of Religion. If you honestly want to protect that right, then I truly feel for you. But don't turn this into some big Constitutional issue, cuz it's not one. It's a case of parents neglecting their child to the point of death, and should be treated as such. Otherwise, why even have a Constitution? It won't be needed in a society where everything is allowed, for fear on trampling on someones "Worldview".

I’m afraid I’d have to agree with Silent H on this.Yelling fire in a burning theater is the proper course of action. Likewise, denying ones child life saving medical intervention to save its immortal soul is also the proper course of action.I don’t believe that there is a soul in a living person, yet alone a dead one, but it’s not my call. To make it my call, I would have to assume that religious beliefs are actionable evidences of incompetence. And personally I likely would. I’d grab the kid and deliver up its soul to the nearest hospital in a heart beat. But by the same token, I know a number of folks who are tempted to (with much more at stake from their vantage) haul my kids off to the nearest scum filled font for baptism.Government should act to moderate personal behavior, not to enforce it. Where I have the luxury of claiming to respect the beliefs of others as a platitude, I surely don’t want my government to.Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

---

KindlyWhen I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

Please refrain from posting while feeling particularly passionate.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Many times in our lives we hand ourselves over to the care of another. We consent to the government building an army so that it can do the hard work of protecting us and our interests. We had ourselves to doctors, giving trust in them that they will treat us to the best of their ability - even so far as removing our heart from our chests in some circumstances...that's a lot of trust. The doctor is given a role of responsibility, not just personal responsibility but a stewardship over the individual in their care. If they neglect their responsibility by withholding vital medication, or by not following standard procedure to determine easily determinable allergies - then they know that society will hold them accountable for their inaction or negligence.If our government sends the entire army thousands of miles away, when a neighbour is amassing an army on our borders - the government will be called to pay for their negligence even if our neighbours do nothing.By becoming a parent we become stewards of those children (and this seems to be a common theme in Christian rhetoric incidentally). We have a responsibility to feed, clothe and educate them. Religious freedom even allows you to teach the child your moral values and religious beliefs.However, like the doctor is allowed to pray before going into surgery, they are not allowed to pray in lieu of surgery.
The politician can pray before war, but they should not pray in lieu of ordering the deployment of units.
The parent is allowed to pray for the well being of the child, but they cannot pray in lieu of providing welfare.So where should we draw the line of religious freedom? As with any freedoms they have to be balanced. Whichever freedom is more important should on balance win out. A child's right to life should massively overbalance a parent's religious right to neglect a sick or injured child.Need I point out that

quote:

---

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

It appears that children don't deserve equal protection, if it means the parent's religious rights to neglect will be infringed. However, here is a secular case. In this case a mother was not given correct medical advice (due to problems with the healthcare system), and her child died of malnutrition after the mother fed her with breast milk after an operation that could reduce breast milk nutritional value.The mother was acting in good faith - she was told breast milk was the best way to feed her child, but a jury found her guilty of criminally negligent homicide.And yet, the parents in the OP article might even escape facing a jury!? If sincere secular beliefs of a mother aren't mitigating factors in absolving her of her responsibility to her child, why do sincere religious beliefs have the potential to receive a 'get out of facing a jury free' card?And yes, the state this happened in, New York, does have a religious exemption.If this imbalance seems right, or just, or moral to you - I submit it is very likely your moral compass needs sending back for repairs.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Where do you draw the line?If this situation was okay for their own child, is it then okay for them to prevent insulin getting to other people's children? They only want to "save their immortal souls", right?. If you agree this is no longer okay, then "because they believe it would save her immortal soul" is not a good enough defense.Other people have other ideas. That's why we have laws to protect individuals. This child was an individual. We have laws to protect her. The parents are free to use their religous beliefs all they'ed like, as long as they don't interfere with her individual rights.Her individual rights were tossed aside because these parents believe it would save her immortal soul.What other rights should be tossed aside because parents believe it will save their children's immortal souls? A child's right to food? Water? Shelter?Should it be okay for a parent to drown their child in the bathtub because they believe it would save her immortal soul? If not, then "because they believe it would save her immortal soul" is not a good enough defense.Should it be okay for a parent to kill their neighbour because they believe it would save her immortal soul? If not, then "because they believe it would save her immortal soul" is not a good enough defense.How old should a child be before the individual rights of their soul is their's to decide?Who else's individual rights should be tossed aside because parents believe it will save immortal souls?We have laws against breaking the arm of your child because the parent is angry with them.
We have laws against breaking the arm of your child because the parent think they should.
We have laws against breaking the arm of your child because the parent believes they should on religious grounds.
We have laws against breaking the arm of your child because the parent believes they should in order to save the child's immortal soul.You don't seem to argue against any of those laws.Why do you argue that letting your child die is okay when breaking their arm is not?Perhaps you think "denying medical attention" is different for some reason.
We can change my example of "breaking their arm" to something like dropping them off in an unknown deep forest and praying for them to get out on their own. Or do you think that's a good thing to do as well? Certainly God can show the way home for a child more easily then He can create insulin in their veins.

H, I'm surprised and disappointed that you are choosing to take this position. Nonetheless, I'm a little bit calmer now, so I'll try to reign in the less-than-civil tone of my reply to randman. Nice way to mangle the quote. Here's what Franklin actually said. Bolding mine of course. Just how essential do you believe the freedom to treat seriously ill children with prayer to be exactly? Also, as FliesOnly has pointed out, this exemption in law offers no-one outside of the lunatic fringe of religious belief any freedom or security at all. If an atheist treated a seriously ill child using homoeopathy and that child died, they would be subject to prosecution.Freedoms are balanced in any society. We all trade off some of our freedom to do as we please, in the name of the common good. This particular facet of religious freedom is, in my opinion, a small price to pay in order to safeguard children against the delusions of their parents. There is no comparison between the accidental deaths of those receiving medical treatment and the completely avoidable death of Madeline Neumann. Perhaps I should be more precise. I do not ask that even one single child should needlessly die to defend my beliefs. That some people should die as a result of medical intervention is a sad inevitability, but one that is unavoidable if many, many more are to be saved by medicine. The children who die as a result of treatment must be weighed against the successes of modern medicine. All we have to way Madeline Neumann and others lives against is the free expression of a delusional belief in the fictitious power of prayer. Directly causing the death of a person by omission of action is illegal in Wisconsin I believe. This would be illegal for an atheist, but legal in a case like this. If you believe that causing harm to others by negligence is somehow acceptable, are you opposed to anyone being prosecuted for neglect? What if the parents withheld food from a child? They would not be actively killing the child, they would be causing its death by omission of action. That is why neglect is usually illegal; unless you are religious and completely mad to boot. Indeed, this exemption seems to be squarely aimed at one of the loopiest sections of society, hardly a good idea for child protection. OK, let's agree that we all find it shocking. I am just very surprised that some of still see fit to support the disastrous actions of such "parents". Of course this is a case of right and wrong. That people may disagree about it does not mean that it is not a moral issue. If we are honest, we all believe that we are right and that anyone who disagrees with us is wrong. It's called having an opinion. If I voiced mine a little to stridently earlier, that is because I tried to calm down before posting several times, but found myself unable to.It ought to be obvious that the state does take part in turning morality into law. That is right and proper. Of course I don't want to be the final arbiter of what laws should be passed; the US is a democracy and I am a democrat. If the will of the people should fail to coincide with my own view, that is just too bad for me. In this case however, I do think that the majority view is that sick children should receive medical aid, even if their parents are fucking crazy. Converse belief? What are you talking about? They were choosing to treat their child with nothing more than their own private convictions. That is unethical, since sensible people do not rely on their convictions in such cases, preferring instead to rely on the collective efforts of rigorous evidence based medicine.Of course the parents actions can be understood by bearing in mind the fact that they are deluded. Peter Sutcliffe, AKA the Yorkshire Ripper was deluded too. He claimed that God told him to murder prostitutes. Should we defend his world-view on religious grounds? Perhaps it is only criminal negligence that can be excused in this fashion. My way would mean that no clearly avoidable deaths need be tolerated. I am only asking that all citizens of Wisconsin, and other states that have similar exemptions, be extended the same privilege, whether they be the children of believers or atheists; the right to life. You seeming suggestion that this be trumped by the parent's right to religious freedom is absurd. Children are simply to young to make such decisions for themselves, and in choosing to deny Madeline treatment, the Neumanns robbed her of the opportunity to grow up and potentially disagree with them. I think it's sad that you want such cases to go unpunished.Edited by Granny Magda, : Typo and minor language change.

---

Mutate and Survive

1. It is unknown how many are healed by prayer. All we hear about are the failures due to foolishness or failure to resort to other means if prayer fails.2. Unfortunately, the lucrative drug industry and the medical profession finds it more profitable to look for cures than to find them.Consider
the following perhaps one can put this controversy in it's proper perspective relative to modern medical methodology in the US (that is, especially the US):