Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 256 of 286 (462493)
04-04-2008 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2008 2:06 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Correction... It was not reprehensible. But now it is.
Just to clarify...your definition of "reprehensible" rests on whether something is considered illegal or not illegal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2008 2:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by molbiogirl, posted 04-04-2008 12:43 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 257 of 286 (462494)
04-04-2008 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2008 6:07 PM


Re: It's about protecting the rights of minors
Catholic Scientist writes:
If you drop a rock on my head then that is the action. However, if a bird drops a rock towards my head, and you do not push me out of the way, then that is an inaction.
It seems pretty simple to me.
If someone wants to harm a themself, I can see stopping them. But if someone wants to not prevent something from naturally happening to them, then I think you have less of 'right' to make them prevent it.
Does that really not make sense?
No. Look, your whole "action v inaction" argument just doesn't make sense. You're saying that Madeline's parents did not do anything (an "inaction") and as such, they cannot be held responsible for the child's death. The rest of us (as well as the parents themselves) are saying that they did do something (or at least they claimed to do have done something). They prayed.
Basically what I'm trying to tell you is that you cannot, on one hand, claim that they are not responsible because they did nothing. And then on the other hand claim that doing nothing is a legitimate excuse...because by your own argument, with the exception of religion, it doesn't hold under any other circumstances as a valid excuse.
If you argue that they prayed, then you cannot argue that they did nothing.
If you argue that they did nothing, then you cannot argue that praying is a legitimate excuse.
You want to have it both ways, but in doing as such you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. You are simultaneously arguing for and against your own position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2008 6:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2008 10:10 AM FliesOnly has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 258 of 286 (462498)
04-04-2008 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Silent H
04-03-2008 7:26 PM


No Government Required
Silent H writes:
On the first premise, if a child wants to die and you prevent it, you have removed their choice. You can call it removing it to a later date if you want, but its the same thing, removing.
No, it's not the same thing. One is removed permantly (dying), the other only temporarily (delaying). One has the possible option of being reinstated at another time, the other does not. This is hardly "the same thing".
On the second premise, you switch from the child making a decision, to someone else. That second premise should have been stated "Not preventing a minor from killing themself..." in order to remain consistent. And the ending to that statement cannot be "removes their personal choice completely".
No. There are 4 possible choices the way you're describing thing. I choose the obvious one for my side, and the obvious one against so to contrast the two. You chose the 1 obvious for your side, and the one that subtley agrees with your side, ignoring the other two choices. Like this:
1. Preventing a minor from killing themself. (someone else making the decision)
2. Preventing a minor from living. (someone else making the decision)
3. Not preventing a minor from killing themself. (minor making the decision)
4. Not preventing a minor from living. (minor making the decision)
The two bolded choices were the two I contrasted. It's now obvious which ones are consistent to compare with one another.
This as ever, means nothing. Your argument still lies all ahead of you. Who are these authorities, and who determines what makes an individual "proper" as an authority?
...
Okay, leaving aside the problems that raises, the fact is that our gov'ts are democracies which rely on majority rule.
...
Last time I checked, Canada has a gov't based on majority rule... including Ontario.
...
As stated, gov't is critical to your position. And as such its nature becomes critical. For example, if the gov't is comprised only of a panel of religious scholars, with a single figure as pre-eminent tie breaker, a lot of different determinations for what counts as valid will fall out of that system.
...
Laws are good for preventing certain kinds of activities, but have never ended belief systems and their practices. That usually requires social movements, not legal ones. Either that or genocide.
...
And I have seen no discussion of reality as you suggest our gov'ts are not based on majority, and laws punishing parents will simply make them come around to your way of thinking.
Stile in MSG 251 writes:
If the word "government" is really bothering you, you can remove it entirely. How parents are punished, and at what level is not a fundamental part of my argument. My argument is simply that they should be punished, if we agree that EVERYONE should have the equal right to decide what to do with their own life as a priority.
From Message 251 it's clear to see that any discussion of how a government runs has no effect on my position. I will concede any point about governments and their runnings to you. Choose whatever government you'd like. It changes nothing in my argument. My argument is simply that these parents should be punished. I still do not see why they can't be punished in the same way any other criminal is punished, but even that is irrelevent. I'll repeat my position again, at he bottom of this post, so you can see how the word "government" or any indication of how these people should be punished is not included. My focus is that these parents should be punished.
Silent H writes:
It appears what you are trying to say is that the only valid concern is extension of physical life. And so the only valid healthcare choice or methods are those which have had scientific evidence, or some other form of testing, showing their utility to extend physical life.
Stile in MSG 251 writes:
Legitimate attempts for preserving life are those attempts that have been shown to be legitimate methods. The easiest and most productive method of showing something to be valid so far is the scientific method. However, it is not the only one. If you can show your method of care to be valid (that is "a part of reality") then it should be included as a "legitimate attempt".
If all you have to show are hopes, desires, appeals to authority or appeals to tradition then your method is not valid, and should not be considered a "legitimate attempt".
..and..
I do not tell parents they must use modern medicine. I tell them they must use valid methods of care that they can show are valid. Modern medicine has the added bonus that others have already completed this task for parents. If they would like to use an alternative they must do the leg-work themselves. Without showing that their method is a valid method in reality, their "method" is nothing more than their personal whims.
From Message 251 it's clear to see that I mention nothing about life being physical or spiritual. It can be either and the argument stands as written.
Silent H writes:
That, unfortunately, is advancing your own personal belief system as if that would be the will of the majority... in other words the gov't. Which is of course what I was trying to get at in the beginning.
Stile in MSG 251 writes:
You are correct. My method does inherently advance one set of claims. My method inherently advances equality, rationality and reality. If you seriously think that advancing inequality, irrationality or imagination should be a valid method, please support your position.
If you have a more balanced method to provide fair treatment, or if you can show why fair treatment concerning people's "choice to live their lives the way they'd like to" is invalid, please support your position.
If you can see that parents (two people) might not find certain methods "valid", then it is possible for a community, and in fact a majority, to find them "invalid". And in this case I mean not just valid in potential for extending life, but valid as desirable for extending life.
As explained, my position does not depend at all on what people "find" as in what they feel or desire or trust. My position depends on what people can show. Personal whims are irrelevent.
Silent H writes:
Stile writes:
My method inherently advances equality, rationality and reality.
I'm not seeing any of those three being advanced.
By definition the child is not being treated equally under your system. It is being prevented from choice until reaching age of majority and then allowed equality.
Bolding is mine.
And the position that these parents should not be punished never allows for equality. Which position do you think is more rational? And, since all my methods of caring for children require to be shown as a valid part of reality, we have reality covered as well.
Again, here's my position:
Stile in MSG 225 writes:
1. All people have an equal right to choose to live their life the way they desire.
2. In the case of minors, they are possibly too weak and/or immature to make these decisions themselves. Therefore, parents/guardians make those choices for them. However, when a parent/guardian chooses to use an un-validated method to care for their children, when validated methods are available, and this puts the child's "right to choose to live their life the way they desire" at risk (for example... they die) then the parent should be punished.
Message 225
Note how there is no mention of "government" or how the parents will be punished. I'm confident that this part of the argument does not require support for any reasonable reader. If you feel it does, I will gladly concede the point entirely for the sake of remaining on topic for my position. It has absolutely no bearing whatsover on the fact that these parents should be punished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Silent H, posted 04-03-2008 7:26 PM Silent H has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 286 (462502)
04-04-2008 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by FliesOnly
04-04-2008 8:34 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm more worried about them eroding people's religious freedom.
You keep using this excuse. Can you show me where in our Constitution it says that religious freedom allows you to kill your child?
The parents didn’t kill their child, the child died naturally from diabetes.
If you are a Christian Scientist and think that medical treatment is a sin, or if you’re an Orthodox Humanist and think that medical treatment goes against the good of the species, then I don’t think the government should force you to give medical treatment to your child because they are interfering with your religious freedom and the sovereignty of your family.
I mentioned the Reynolds v United States case in a previous post in which the SCOTUS said "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."
I think the government should be able to interfere with some religious practices but I don’t think they should be interfering with this one in particular.
If these people are right, then the government would be doing a terrible thing to them. If they are wrong, the government is still doing a bad thing to them in removing their religious freedom and family sovereignty.
The repercussion of allowing it is the death of this young girl. But she died from natural, albeit preventable, causes. Had this happened 500 years ago, it would be a non-issue. But now that insulin has been invented, we should be able to force people to take it? I don’t think so.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Correction... It was not reprehensible. But now it is.
Just to clarify...your definition of "reprehensible" rests on whether something is considered illegal or not illegal?
No, it rests on whether or not people think it is reprehensible (which when they do usually results in them being illegal). There is no absolute standard of reprehensibility, its all relative to the time and place and the whims of the people.
Some think that forcing this girl to take insulin is reprehensible. Some think that NOT forcing her is. But we can’t say for sure. I think we should leave it up to the family to decide when the issue is cloudy like this.
Something like beating the child to death, we can agree is reprehensible, and the government should step in and stop it. But something like this, in which 44 of 50 states allow it, isn't certainly reprehensible or not.
No. Look, your whole "action v inaction" argument just doesn't make sense.
The argument is in response to claims like yours that these parents killed their child, which they didn’t.
If you argue that they prayed, then you cannot argue that they did nothing.
If you argue that they did nothing, then you cannot argue that praying is a legitimate excuse.
They didn’t do anything to kill their child. They let nature, or their god, take its course and offered prayer that she would live. So they didn’t do “nothing”, but they didn’t do "something that killed her".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by FliesOnly, posted 04-04-2008 8:34 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by molbiogirl, posted 04-04-2008 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 262 by FliesOnly, posted 04-04-2008 3:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 260 of 286 (462512)
04-04-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by FliesOnly
04-04-2008 8:20 AM


Just to clarify...your definition of "reprehensible" rests on whether something is considered illegal or not illegal?
Obviously.
Which is kind of funny.
According to Merriam-Webster and American Heritage ...
Reprehensible:
(MW) Deserving of reproof, rebuke, or censure; blameworthy.
(AH) Deserving rebuke or censure; blameworthy. See synonyms at blameworthy.
For a guy who wants to get the government out of our lives, CS sure likes to rely on governmental definitions of what is "deserving of rebuke".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by FliesOnly, posted 04-04-2008 8:20 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 261 of 286 (462513)
04-04-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by New Cat's Eye
04-04-2008 10:10 AM


I think the government should be able to interfere with some religious practices but I don’t think they should be interfering with this one in particular.
Bingo.
And you haven't any rational way of deciding which is which.
If religious justification is sufficient for avoiding negligent homicide in this case, then why isn't it sufficient for all other crimes (physical child abuse/incest/home surgery/etc.)?
And no more "cause I say so" type answers, CS.
Let's hear a hard-and-fast rule how one distinguishes between the two: the criminal and the not-criminal.
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2008 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 262 of 286 (462530)
04-04-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by New Cat's Eye
04-04-2008 10:10 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
The parents didn’t kill their child, the child died naturally from diabetes.
But your honor...I didn't kill my daughter...the baseball bat I hit her with killed her".
Oh wait, hitting her is an "action" but letting her painfully die from a easily treatable ailment is a "non-action". What a crock.
And there's the rub Catholic Scientists...diabetes is completely treatable. One does not have to die from the disease.
Here's a question for which I do not know the answer. Does anyone in the family wear glasses? Just curious. Wouldn't it be friggin hilarious of one of them did. It would kind of shoot down your whole argument, no?
Catholic Scientist writes:
If you are a Christian Scientist and think that medical treatment is a sin, or if you’re an Orthodox Humanist and think that medical treatment goes against the good of the species, then I don’t think the government should force you to give medical treatment to your child because they are interfering with your religious freedom and the sovereignty of your family.
What if I'm an atheist, but just tired of having my diabetic kid around?
Catholic Scientist writes:
I think the government should be able to interfere with some religious practices but I don’t think they should be interfering with this one in particular.
I can't believe what I'm reading. Honestly, I am stunned. What could possibly need intervention more than stopping someone from killing their child? What should the Government to be able to interfere with, if not stopping this sort of thing?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Some think that forcing this girl to take insulin is reprehensible. Some think that NOT forcing her is. But we can’t say for sure. I think we should leave it up to the family to decide when the issue is cloudy like this.
Well, I think we can say for sure. Religion can not be given a free pass at being allowed to kill kids. It's reprehensible that these parents watched their child slowly, over the period of many days, suffer and then die. It's reprehensible that in the year 2008 ANY parent would, on purely religious grounds, allow a sick child to die. There is no excuse. The 1st amendment does not give religion a free pass, like you seem to think it does. There is no religious freedom to kill your kids.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Something like beating the child to death, we can agree is reprehensible, and the government should step in and stop it. But something like this, in which 44 of 50 states allow it, isn't certainly reprehensible or not.
So 44 out of 50 States have somehow allowed their legislature to pass something as stupid as a law that lets you kill your kids. Big deal. You do know that people don't "vote" for these laws...correct? I'd be interested in knowing how many citizens of the 44 asinine states even KNOW that such a law is on the books. Most people find out about them only after they hear about something as tragic as this case. It's no excuse. Just because some religious nut-job gets a stupid, reprehensible law like this passed, still does not take away from a persons Constitutional right to life.
Catholic Scientist writes:
The argument is in response to claims like yours that these parents killed their child, which they didn’t.
Ummmm...yes they did. This is 2008. Like I've said in previous threads....unless these people lived completely out of modern society, then they have no excuse.
Catholic Scientist writes:
They didn’t do anything to kill their child. They let nature, or their god, take its course and offered prayer that she would live.
Can you cite an documented cases where prayer worked? Can you give examples where we know for a fact that a fatal aliment was "cured" by prayer?
They "they look nature take it's course" only works if they let "nature" (or God) solve their every problem.
Catholic Scientist writes:
So they didn’t do “nothing”, but they didn’t do "something that killed her".
In doing "nothing" they did "something" that lead directly to her death. They signed her death warrant. They killed her.
Edited by FliesOnly, : Forgot to address something

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2008 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 263 of 286 (464787)
04-29-2008 10:23 AM


Oh thank goodness.
Madeline's parents have been charged with second degree murder!
Journal Sentinel

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Taz, posted 04-29-2008 11:03 AM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 265 by FliesOnly, posted 04-29-2008 3:35 PM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 266 by Stile, posted 04-29-2008 8:52 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 264 of 286 (464791)
04-29-2008 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by molbiogirl
04-29-2008 10:23 AM


Re: Oh thank goodness.
Whatdoyouknow, there is a god after all.
I know this sounds weird, but I've been emotionally disturbed for the past couple months because of this case. I haven't been able to get my mind off Madeline. It's one thing for one person to have to go through pain and misery because of an untreatable illness. It's another to have to suffer the pain and misery of a completely treatable illness just because some people are so delusional as to think god will heal them. It's disturbing that something like this is allowed to happen right in our own backyard in the 21st century.
Not too long ago, hitting your wife and children wasn't considered "abuse". You were just setting them straight. It's a crime nowadays. I can only hope that in the not-too-distant future force faith healing will be seen as a crime as well.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by molbiogirl, posted 04-29-2008 10:23 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 265 of 286 (464822)
04-29-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by molbiogirl
04-29-2008 10:23 AM


Re: Oh thank goodness.
With hope, the case will be won and will set precedent to revoke such stupid laws. It's sad situation, but these religious exemptions need to be removed...they're ridiculous and deadly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by molbiogirl, posted 04-29-2008 10:23 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 266 of 286 (464838)
04-29-2008 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by molbiogirl
04-29-2008 10:23 AM


Re: Oh thank goodness.
Great news.
Do you (or anyone else) know how this sort of thing works? This district attorney that made the charges, is it personally from them? Or is it like "the state" prosecuting? Or how does that work? I don't really know much about law-workings.
A few notes on the article
The Article writes:
The Neumanns have said they don't believe in any organized religion or faith but believe that healing comes through prayer.
I hope this doesn't change anything. I wonder if this is some sort of pressure they're getting so as to not be classified as "Christians"? Or did they always claim to be non-organized? Maybe it was just the media, or maybe I was biased, but I thought they were fundamental-christians? Or, at least, could easily be classified as such.
The document (police report) also states: "Neumann said his family never gets sick and if they would, prayer and God would heal them."
"I asked Kara if she loved Jesus and she shook her head yes."
...I think it's rather obvious which religion they follow from even just the article, anyway.
Dale Neumann told investigators that "given the same set of circumstances with another child, he would not waiver in his faith and confidence in the healing power of prayer," according to the interview statement.
I just find that really, really sad. I thought pride was a sin, I don't know what else to call this sort of "faith".
In our nation, we have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. We also give parents leeway in matters of child rearing. However, neither is absolute. In this case, it was necessary to weigh freedom of religion and parenting rights against the state's interests in protecting children.
Seems to be almost exactly the same debate we've had in this thread. It will be interesting to see how the case unfolds. I don't see either side changing their stance, but at least it will give an insight to the current state (and maybe future position) of the law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by molbiogirl, posted 04-29-2008 10:23 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by molbiogirl, posted 04-29-2008 9:11 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 267 of 286 (464839)
04-29-2008 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Stile
04-29-2008 8:52 PM


Re: Oh thank goodness.
Or is it like "the state" prosecuting?
Yup. It will be Wisconsin v. the Neumanns.
I don't see either side changing their stance, but at least it will give an insight to the current state (and maybe future position) of the law.
Unless they plead out.
Here's another charming tidbit:
One relative told police that the girl’s mother believed she “died because the devil is trying to stop Leilani from starting her own ministry,” the complaint said.
Object not found!
Good news, tho.
These idjits were charged too.
In March, an Oregon couple who belong to a church that preaches against medical care and believes in treating illness with prayer were charged with manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in the death of their 15-month-old daughter. The toddler died March 2 of bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection that could have been treated with antibiotics, the state medical examiner's office said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Stile, posted 04-29-2008 8:52 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 268 of 286 (464976)
05-01-2008 4:47 PM


Happened across an excellent site re: religious exemption laws.
http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_1.html
Turns out South Dakota & Colorado repealed their religious exemption laws! And Virginia & Mississippi are the only two states that never passed one.
All red states. Go figger.
And then there's this.
48 states have religious exemptions from immunizations. Mississippi and West Virginia are the only states that require all children to be immunized without exception for religious belief.
The majority of states have religious exemptions from metabolic testing of newborns. Such tests detect disorders that will cause mental retardation and other handicaps unless they are treated.
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, and Pennsylvania have religious exemptions from prophylactic eyedrops for newborns. The eyedrops prevent blindness of infants who have been infected with venereal diseases carried by their mothers.
Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have religious exemptions from testing children for lead-levels in their blood.
California allows public school teachers to refuse testing for tuberculosis on religious grounds. Ohio has a religious exemption from testing and treatment for tuberculosis. It lets parents use “a recognized method of religious healing” instead of medical care for a child sick with tuberculosis.
California, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and some other states offer religious exemptions from physical examinations of school children.
Connecticut, New Jersey, Oregon, West Virginia, and some other states have religious exemptions from hearing tests for newborns.
Oregon and Pennsylvania have religious exemptions from bicycle helmets.
Oregon has a religious exemption from Vitamin K that is given to newborns to prevent spontaneous hemorrhage.
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio have statutes excusing students with religious objections from studying about disease in school.
Delaware, Wyoming, and other states have laws with religious exemptions for both children and adults from medical examination, testing, treatment, and vaccination during public health emergencies.
My favorites? Bike helmets and studying about disease.
Oops! Almost forgot! There's this too:
Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have religious exemptions in their civil codes on child abuse or neglect, largely because of a federal government policy from 1974 to 1983 requiring states to pass such exemptions in order to get federal funding for child protection work.
The states are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Additionally, Tennessee exempts caretakers who withhold medical care from being adjudicated as negligent if they rely instead on non-medical “remedial treatment” that is “legally recognized or legally permitted.”
Eighteen states have religious defenses to felony crimes against children: Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
Twelve states have religious defenses to misdemeanors: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, and South Dakota. Missouri exempts parents from the misdemeanor charges of endangerment and nonsupport if they provide “nonmedical remedial treatment recognized and permitted under the laws of this state” instead of medical care.
Florida has a religious exemption only in the civil code, but the Florida Supreme Court nevertheless held that it caused confusion about criminal liability and required overturning a felony conviction of Christian Scientists for letting their daughter die of untreated diabetes. Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992)
States with a religious defense to the most serious crimes against children include:
Iowa and Ohio with religious defenses to manslaughter
West Virginia with religious defenses to murder of a child and child neglect resulting in death
Arkansas with a religious defense to capital murder
Oregon with a religious defense to homicide by abuse
The scope of the religious exemption laws varies widely. Some protect only a right to pray or a right to rely exclusively on prayer only when the illness is trivial.
For example, Rhode Island’s religious defense to “cruelty to or neglect of a child” allows parents to rely on prayer, but adds that it does not “exempt a parent or guardian from having committed the offense of cruelty or neglect if the child is harmed.” Rhode Island General Laws 11-9-5(b)
Delaware's religious exemption in the civil code is only to termination of parental rights, rather than to abuse or neglect, and does not prevent courts from terminating parental rights of parents relying on faith healing when necessary to protect the child's welfare. See Delaware Code Title 13 1103(5)(c).
Many state laws contain ambiguities that have been interpreted variously by courts. Some church officials have advised members that the exemption laws confer the right to withhold medical care no matter how sick the child is and even that the laws were passed because legislators understood prayer to be as effective as medicine.
Man. You gotta wonder who got to Ford.

  
roger
Junior Member (Idle past 5546 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 269 of 286 (494931)
01-20-2009 5:08 AM


No one would actually be depriving the parents in this case of their religious liberty by removing the child and treating it.
There is actually no issue because there is no intrusion onto those parents to follow their religion for themselves, to practice, and to refuse mainstream medical care for themselves if they find themselves in that situation.
The only thing being asserted is that they cannot make that judgement call for a child, regardless of whether it is their biological one or no relative of theirs.
The intrusion on their liberty is actually non-existent.

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 6:48 AM roger has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 270 of 286 (494937)
01-20-2009 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by roger
01-20-2009 5:08 AM


Hi Roger, welcome to EvC.
The problem is that fundies of all stripes actually believe that their beliefs are just as important as that of non funfy beliefs and that to prevent them from livng in accordance to these belefs is a violation of their human rights.
They honestly (one assumes) that they believe that they are doing right by thier child. They are not bad people, just so emeshed in thier collective delusion that to them it is reality.
And kids die.
Chalk one up to thier god of choice.
Edited by Larni, : Quick stab a any old god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by roger, posted 01-20-2009 5:08 AM roger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2009 4:23 PM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024