I wrote about the Kara Neumann case last year — it was the tragic story of an 11 year old girl in Wisconsin who died of treatable juvenile diabetes because her parents were faith-healing morons. Morons who still claim they did no wrong by neglecting their daughter when she lapsed into unconsciousness, choosing to call on the congregation of their wackaloon church to pray harder, instead of calling a doctor.
The parents are finally going to trial this spring, and it could be an interesting case. They are clearly and self-admittedly guilty of lethal negligence, but Wisconsin law actually has an exemption for people who choose to treat their children with prayer. It’s an evil law, but it is on the books, and that makes this a case where justice and reason are on one side, and narrow legalism and superstition are on the other. I’m not betting on which side will win out, not in America.
Well someone should fix the law instead of having prosecutors thinking they are above it. The prosecutor is doing the right thing in this case, but overall its a dangerous attitude.
I suppose if the prosecutor expects to lose and just put a light on the evil law, that’s a laudable goal.
Youre kidding right? right?
21st century,former first world country? please?
*headdesk*
Isn’t there something unconstitutional about letting a minor die because of the parent’s ignorance? I’d love to see the law struck down.
The article states that the case will essentially depend on the state proving that the parents knew the seriousness of their daughter’s medical condition. The law allowing faith healers exemption from punishment only applies if the condition is not life threatening.
So the state has to prove that the parents were not demented fuckwits. A tall order, IMO.
They should be tried and convicted of child neglect, child abuse, first degree (premeditated) murder and stupidity!
Seems to me there should be one of two outcomes from this:
1. Parents are declared unfit, have their other children removed from them and are required to seek psychological help.
2. Parents are found guilty of criminal neglect and are imprisoned.
I wouldn’t mind 1 happening too much, I do suspect that these people honestly believed they were doing the right thing for their child. Obviously they were wrong and I think they have proven themselves to be not sufficiently responsible to be trusted to care for their remaining children. If they are found innocent but do not have their children removed from their care then something has gone very wrong.
On a side note: Surely the heads of this crazy extremist sect can be prosecuted? I would have thought if nothing else you could get them on providing medical advice without a license?
From the article:
So, it would be be OK to treat a cold with prayer. Juvenile diabetes, not so much.
I can’t see why they weren’t charged with negligent homicide, as I think they were pretty well aware that their child was not just sick, but dying.
I still do not understand why its necessary to pray to an omnipotent god? Doesn’t such a god already know exactly what you want by definition? Or does it take pleasure in watching humans grovel and debase themselves?
And all the parents learned from this I expect is that they must not have prayed hard enough. It is sad enough that children get sick and die, but when they could have been saved but weren’t because of ignorance… It makes me sick. The church they belong to should be charged with accessory to murder.
The law isn’t that unusual. The Supreme Court ruled that parents have the right to pull kids out of school, even if they want to stay and the state has laws that require that they stay until 16, for “religious reasons.” You can keep your kid home and teach them all of your superstitious nonsense rather than take a chance that they are learning “evil-u-tion!” This law allows parents to treat children in non-life threatening situations with their incantations and mumbo-jumbo. Key thing is, a diabetic coma isn’t a “non-life threatening situation.”
In WI there are a LOT of Lutherans, and not your “normal” Lutheran, but the WI Synod Lutheran, which is total bible-believing as a science textbook, 6-day creation myth believing, women don’t belong in Church leadership roles Lutheran.
These killers are gonna walk, and probably wind up with seats on the 50 yard-line at Lambeau Field, where, if there WERE a god, they would then freeze to death.
ps: PACKERS STILL SUCK
I really like how their case hinges on whether they knew the condition was life-threatening. I mean, the child was obviously in bad shape. Why wouldn’t they know how serious it was? Oh yeah, because they didn’t take her to a doctor!
So, basically, their defense is that they’re not just regular religious fanatic idiots, but they’re so fucking stupid that they didn’t believe a barely conscious kid should be taken to a doctor for examination.
That is so terrible. A death the way that girl went must have been incredibly painful and scary, and she probably died thinking God was punishing her for something, not that her parents were belligerent idiots. I hope these people go to jail, and for a very long time, just in case other psychos decide they shouldn’t take their kids to a hospital.
You mean, you have the right to kill your children, provided you have good religious reasons ? Doesn’t that sound a bit… I don’t know… wrong ?
Gosh, and if you read the article linked to it it talks about another set that were charged for allowing their son to die of a UTI… talk about cruelty! Not only are those completely treatable, but they’re incredibly painful and terrible to live with… I can’t imagine actually living with one long enough to die of it. These poor children…
Also, these psychos are asking for money from other christians for their legal defense. See for yourselves: http://helptheneumanns.com. I mean, wow. On the plus side, I figure the address will be good for sending them some nice letters about how wonderful a people they are:
#8, I believe you’re thinking of an omniscient god. And the answer to both questions is probably “yes”. Sigh. Is it too late to have Wisconsin paved over?
I have also written about this case…and I’ve a new post on Contextual Criticism. The Christian Scientists in Wisconsin are trying to change the law in the state – to protect themselves and their own faith-healing practices.
Here’s the link: http://mythandhope.blogspot.com/2009/01/exempting-parents-who-kill-their.html
Good post, PZ.
Jacob
I actually hope this will become a test case for the ethics of belief.
Hey now. It went for Obama.
There used to be an urban myth going around that no matter how deranged his actions and affect, a lunatic could not be forcibly sectioned if the iconography of his delusion was religiously based.
At least, I thought it was an urban myth until I read the craven cop-out above about parents being legally allowed to pray their kids to death.
I’ll let those words speak for themselves.
btw this article is hard to read because the quotes are all over the place and rarely where they are supposed to be.
If I were prosecuting this case (I’m not even a lawyer) I’d look to find out if the parents had visited a doctor since becoming Christian scientists. If they had, the hypocrisy of not taking their child to a doctor when they have seen one themselves would suggest that it’s possible they had rather their child die than pay doctor’s bills. Consciously or unconsciously. That is so cold blooded I can barely imagine it, but if either of the parents visited a doctor since their religious conversion then it would be a strong clue to such a cold blooded motive.
It’s In The Book!!! (H/t, Brother Dave).
No Really. Not only are you permitted to kill your kids, you’re REQUIRED to kill ’em, and get the rest of your community to help, if the kid is, say, insolent or blasphemous.
If they’d refused medical treatment on the basis of fairies or flying saucers, they would have been committed to a psychiatric institution without second thought. Why is belief in a god (which has exactly the same basis in evidence) treated any differently?
If a belief in fairies or flying saucers lead to the subject killing a child, it would be regarded as a psychosis. Furthermore, the treatment given would aim to remove this psychosis. When it comes to a “god” however, any belief, no matter how ridiculous, is somehow regarded as being worthy of “respect”.
Religious beliefs of this type don’t need “respect” or “understanding”; they need chlorpromazine.
@6 – Posted by: pikeamus
I agree that from a retributive point of view a severe sentence for these people – who have a good case for a mental incompetence defence – would perhaps be harsh.
But from a recidivist angle, it seems to me that the deterrent effect of a long sentence could be very effective: other wackaloons need to know that they’ll be firmly dealt with, and they need to be aware that society is not happy with this crap.
Even if it’s just to make them think twice.
I agree with Ian. This is mostly a legislative matter rather than a judicial one.
“if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. Its my job.”
“As a member of this court I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution, no matter how deeply I may cherish them or how mischievous I may deem their disregard.”
-Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter. (Of course he also said “Litigation is the pursuit of practical ends, not a game of chess,” so I think he’d be supportive of the practical end of no more kids dying unnecessarily)
“…not betting on which side will win out, not in America.”
Don’t you mean “I am betting on which side will win out, in America”? I would bet on that outcome. Easy. In America.
J-Dog – Despite the willingness of WELS and LC-MS folks to dwell on their differences, the two are little different (unlike the predominantly Scandinavian-heritage ELCA) Wisconsin has lots of German-heritage Lutherans from both groups who aren’t particularly interested in what science says about their religious doctrines, but they don’t believe in faith healing and the Neumanns, as a part of a group that is fringe by almost everyone else’s definition, aren’t likely to find common cause from any members of these well-established religious groups.
The law that protects the Neumanns from child endangerment statutes had been passed more than a century ago as a result of Mary Baker Eddy’s view, gussied up in religious garb, that it was probably better to be sick at home than let a doctor make things worse. Thankfully, medicine has advanced more than religion has in the past century, so it is time to review the law, not only in Wisconsin, but in all thirty of the states with similar laws.
*facepalm*
“parents are finally going to trial this spring,”
*Parentsjail*
We all know what should happen: the parents thrown in jail for neglecting their child with lethal consequances.
What likely will happen is this: the parents go free, because the law allows for faith-healing as a medical practice, and since the parents are “good christians”, the jury will buy this bullshit hook, line and sinker. In America, blind obedience trumps the life of a child, if the accused are christians. The more christian a person is, the more they can get away with in the name of their faith.
*facepalm*
*headdesk*
What an absolutely horrible way to die. When you don’t have insulin everything gets screwed up, and fast. Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA) is the worst thing I have ever felt. Imagine how tired you felt the sickest you have ever been, add profuse vomiting, oh and don’t forget the acetone smell hitting your nostrils every time you exhale, helping trigger more vomiting. Going into a coma would be a relief.
These people should have their pancreatic beta cells removed as punishment. Perhaps they might do more than pray if it were happening to them?
Jacob-
My understanding is that the Christian Scientists were the ones responsible for the original laws that protected them from prosecution — though JW’s have also been active in trying to get standards of parental responsibility dropped.
It’s no surprise that they are trying to make sure that any rewrite of the statute continues to protect them, but the Church of Christ, Scientist, has been falling on hard times lately, faith healing or not. I don’t expect any reform legislation to expand the right of parents to refuse medical care to their children, but I can see how there might be a change in the way the law draws the line.
I’d like to clarify something I saw in the comments from your (Pharyngula) previous post about this case.
Diabetes, specifically juvenile diabetes in this case, is NOT curable. It is treatable. Helluva difference.
Ever since meeting a 16 year-old years and years ago who had had JD since the age of 6, it’s one disease that gets my attention and my money every time.
I happen to live in Wisconsin, and I want to let everyone know that people of such astounding delinquency are rare; they are fringe crazies. Typically, a Wisconsinite shakes his head when he hears of the news, and many of us felt our face a bit tarnished by those parent’s, but children have the legal standing of private property.
It is strange, but I do not think most people have a problem with the legal protection. Of course they would tell parents to get their child medical treatment for something so simple, but if the parents are so compelled to not, that is their privilege when owning a child.
I am not familiar with the wording of the law, but it is likely a broad protection for some religious practices that may also apply to faith healing. It likely does not specifically protect this case, and the defendants will need to argue how it should. Best of luck with that.
—
Jesus never sent someone to a doctor! Jesus only healed the people he met too. That is not too generous for an omnipotent, omnipresent omni-benevolent being at all.
What tripe! I wonder if Pastor Bob can be sued for fraud.
Christie @ 14: “…I can’t imagine actually living with one long enough to die of it.”
I lost a kidney due to a blocked ureter from a previous procedure. Fifteen years after the procedure, my massively infected kidney basically self-destructed. Panic, stress, hospital, a grim surgeon, and so forth. I’m MUCH better now, thank you, but yes, if I hadn’t insisted on a second opinion after first seeing a so-called urologist who even refused to write me a prescription for pain, I wouldn’t be alive now.
In this country, kids can’t request medical treatment for themselves. Does anyone else think that’s a bit crazy?
children have the legal standing of private property.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ??????
Wordsmith –
Hasn’t there been some success in islet transplants? I don’t know how far along the research path that is but successful islet transplants would be cures for diabetes.
children have the legal standing of private property.
No they don’t.
This is a grey area. The parents genuinely believed that they were doing the best thing for their child. I think that the church leaders are more responsible for persuading the parents to believe that the child didn’t need medical help.
I would have thought if nothing else you could get them on providing medical advice without a license?
As I understand it, in most jurisdictions anyone can “provide medical advice”; they just can’t practice medicine, or hold themselves out to be medical doctors, without a licence. Otherwise alternative therapies would be illegal, as would, say, advising a friend to take some cough medicine for his cough.
(In fact, Milton Friedman makes a very convincing case in Capitalism and Freedom for why we should abolish all professional licensure laws; but that’s another topic of discussion entirely.)
Technicalities aside, I would agree with the consensus on this thread that the child should, if no other recourse was available, have been removed from her parents’ care. Despite my distaste for coercive state action, I would agree that it is legitimately the role of the state to protect the interests of children – who, by definition, are not fully competent autonomous individuals – and that, in extreme cases such as this one, this imperative overrides the imperative to respect parental authority and choice.
I don’t agree, though, that the parents should be prosecuted. Over-use of the criminal law is not, IMO, a good thing. The parents are not likely to be dangerous to society; and, since it’s too late to save the girl’s life, there’s nothing productive to be gained by prosecuting them. To do so would be a simple act of retribution; and “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless”. Rather, one should ask why it was allowed to happen in the first place, and reform laws as necessary to prevent it happening again.
If the law is on the side of the parents, if only technically, then the law should be followed even if the law is wrong. This law should be changed even though it won’t help find justice in this case. Sorry but as Atheists we sometimes have to skirt by on what the law technically says instead of following the spirit of the people who wrote it. We can’t make exceptions on who has to follow the letter of the law and who can’t or else we’re no better than those who broke it. Yeah, it sucks eggs, but there are times that keeping your moral compass straight stinks.
The parents are not likely to be dangerous to society; and, since it’s too late to save the girl’s life, there’s nothing productive to be gained by prosecuting them.?
Not true. It would dissuade other fundie parents from doing the same thing.
T_U_T –
There are somethings that you can’t do with kids, but in some ways, children are less protected by the law than pets are. Parents have a lot of control and the law tends to carve out limitations, usually after an egregious example of child abuse, rather than start over with a new, comprehensive approach.
If the law is on the side of the parents, if only technically, then the law should be followed even if the law is wrong.
Sure, but that’s a big if. At a certain point it would have been clear to anyone that the condition was life threatening, and from that point on it’s no longer legal.
Wasn’t it obvious to these religious morons when Kara was not improving that their freaking god was telling them to get her to a hospital? Oh no, our god was not saying no such thing, but we knew in our deranged minds that our prayers have to be stronger because it is displeased with us. Freaking deranged religion has caused a sweet little girl’s life to be suffered and ended by deranged shit of human slime. How can any reasonable person not understand the obvious harmful effects of this most pernicious fallacy of the human mind?
in some ways, children are less protected by the law than pets are.
What ways would those be?
You don’t see anything productive in letting other parents know that they will be held legally responsible if their child dies from neglect?
Alverant –
The law is on the side of the parents only when it comes to the child abuse statutes. Reckless endangerment is a separate part of the law and gives parents no exemption.
There are somethings that you can’t do with kids, but in some ways, children are less protected by the law than pets are.
I don’t think it is really that bad, but if it were, then the only thing your country would deserve would be MIRVing it into oblivion.
No Free Lunch: Islet cell transplants are still (mostly?) only done in cases where another organ such as a kidney is also being transplanted. The thinking is that immunosupressive drugs have side effects that are much worse than just being a diabetic in halfway decent control on insulin. Oh, and there aren’t a lot of beta cells available even if that weren’t an issue. There is a lot of promising work being done, but it’s always, “just ten years away,” as I have heard for the last 20.
Some chick in Victoria got sent to jail for 18 months for stealing a handbag today….
Parents neglecting their kid to the point of her dying,be it from brain rot by religion or whatever,should not get less.
Walton:
Why don’t you think that children should be protected from assault, battery and negligent homocide caused by their parents? Are children not worthy of the protection of the law?
Why don’t you think that children should be protected from assault, battery and negligent homocide caused by their parents? Are children not worthy of the protection of the law?
They didn’t commit assault or battery. The charge, according to the articles, is reckless manslaughter (the equivalent charge in my jurisdiction would be manslaughter by gross negligence).
But on reflection, you’re probably right. A more important priority, though, should perhaps be ensuring that, if any of the three children still in the parents’ care falls ill, they receive treatment regardless of the parents’ wishes. No court can bring the deceased child back to life; but her siblings can be saved.
Walton @ 40
I see that your thinking is still clouded by religion and have sided with those slime religionists who have suffered their little girl to the depths of religious insanity. Of course they should be prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison. And while in prison, if they should contract a rare and life-threatening disease, treatment should be withheld on the basis that their god told us not to provide it but only pray until their god decides to heal them. How’s that? An eye for an eye? You bet it is, and one in which those morons will readily grasp, too late I hope. I am a person of strong convictions, and never more so than in matters of insane religion and crime. If your imaginary god is a venegeful god as you and your cohorts claim, then this very god demands the same of us humans. Prove me wrong.
You don’t see anything productive in letting other parents know that they will be held legally responsible if their child dies from neglect?
Fair point (for the sake of consistency with how the law currently approaches such cases, at any rate). On reflection, you’re probably right.
(Let no one say that I don’t listen to other people, or that I never change my mind.)
Reminds me of the old joke with the guy on the roof of a building surrounded by a flood.
He’s stuck up there, beset on all sides by rising water, and a fellow in a motorboat comes by. “Jump in! I’ll take you to safety!”
“No,” said the man, “God will protect me.”
Shrugging, the man in the boat putters away.
A helicopter flies over and hovers above him. “Grab the rope, I’ll save you!”
“No,” said the man, “God will protect me.”
The helicopter pilot leaves to find more tractable survivors.
The water is almost at the roof by this point, and the man kneels to pray. Shortly thereafter, he is swept away.
He ends up in heaven and confronts God. “Why didn’t you save me?”
“I send a boat and a helicopter! What more did you need!?”
Prayer doesn’t work. DOING something does.
Holbach @#40: I’ve changed my mind, as I said at posts #53 and #55. To clarify, I am not suggesting that religion is an acceptable pretext for committing acts (or, in this case, omissions) which would otherwise be criminal. (Otherwise we’d have to legalise human sacrifice, which I hope no one would advocate.)
If he has so much power, why did God send the flood in the first place?
The worst thing is that the parents almost certainly had no idea that they were doing, or have done, anything actually wrong. They have been brainwashed by an organisation, with the state’s help, into thinking that prayer is actually useful. So they did what they thought they should do. They were helpless children themselves.
That law needs to be abolished pretty darned quickly, and religious organisations need to be able to be sued for giving out supposedly medical information without a license.
But even then, you can’t legislate for people’s naive stupidity…
Walton, abortion should be illegal, yet letting children die for religious reasons is okay? You’re a moron.
clinteas @ 51
Always liked your apt terminolgy, ‘brain rot by religion”.
Can’t we just start calling this abuse?
Some religious and cultural beliefs say it’s ok to perform things like female circumcisions, but we don’t allow them. If I remember correctly, Rastifarians believe smoking weed gets them closer to their god. We don’t allow these RELATIVELY harmless things, so why should we allow willful negligence of a child’s health to be covered under religion?
“Wisconsin law actually has an exemption for people who choose to treat their children with prayer.”
Gosh, anybody could kill their children with that law if they wanted to.
@siddarth
It’s a joke.
Fundie morons are always claiming that one needs religion to be moral. This is good evidence that one doesn’t.
Xians are no better than anyone else. Some xians, fundies especially are just plain, flat out evil. They celebrate ignorance and sacrifice their children on the altars of their wacko ideology. Sarah Palin sacrificed her own daughter on the altar of abstinence only sex ed.
Lies and violence are always just below the surface of the Death Cults. The facts scream it, You don’t have to be a religious fanatic to be evil, but it helps a lot.
I missed an adverb in my post, number 34. I should have written that children basically have the rights of private property. Their privileges are very similar to the other forms of living properties people are allowed to own. If they misbehave, the parents are liable; parents are required to feed them and not mistreat them, just like they must animals; and children may only make decisions when a parent allows it.
Threatening by law religious crazies of certain varieties also may not work: they already have a persecution complex when no one is bothering them to do more than engage their brains.
If the law worked the way I wanted it to: The people who defended/supported the actions of the PREVIOUS parents who did this should be charged with murder in THIS case. Anyone who defends/supports the actions of THESE parents this time should be charged with murder NEXT time it happens.
Two Words: Jury Nullification:
If the Jury returns a verdict of guilty to the Parents, a president can be set that nullifies the Faith healing law.
From a long term perspective, this could tend to be self-limiting, since it will shave a bit off the fraction of this sub-culture’s next generation which reaches reproductive age.
From a short term perspective, it’s tragic that our culture as a whole can’t find a way that doesn’t involve the wasted time and effort of raising an infant to the teenage years, only to watch them die at the hands of inept religious fanatics.
However, I can see how it might still be necessary at this time. The wall of separation between church and state seems to be effective at reducing fatalities from struggles between creeds in our country, which history suggests would be far greater than the incidental death. From that perspective, this girl is a casualty of the struggle to limit the damage of religious conflict.
On the bright side, this might possibly work as a sharp emotional stimulus helping to reinforce science and discredit religion for some people.
“Insulin is real, in the exact way which your God is not.”
Caladan @ 68
We have to elect a new president to nullify the faith-healing law? Four years is too long to wait,
Two Words: Jury Nullification:
If the Jury returns a verdict of guilty to the Parents, a president can be set that nullifies the Faith healing law.
Fail. Jury nullification doesn’t work that way. It can only be used to find someone NOT guilty for reason of an unjust law. And it can’t be used to create a precedent, it works only for that one time. The idea is that if it keeps happening, the legislators will realize the law is unjust and change it.
I know exactly how to win this case.
Have the parents or a religious leader or someone else of stature who thinks they’re innocent take the stand, and ask the question:
Is it OK for an atheist to sit around and do nothing while their child is gravely ill?
@#70
I think that he/she meant precedent.
Ah yes, the sadistic monster model of god. God wants you to watch your kids die slowly in agony. Really, god should grow up and find something else to amuse itself with.
Their monster god is also apparently not too bright. If the evil secular authorities compel them to treat their dying kids with medical care, how is that the parents fault. Monster Guy should toss a few lightening bolts at the hospital and DA instead.
The counter argument is well known. God gave people brains and free will so they could invent medicine and discover evolution.
10ch.org @ 73
Just trying to instill a little humor in an inadvertant misspelling!
@coyote
I know. I was pointing out what I think is a terrible deficiency in the joke, which is often overlooked. Should have made it clear that I wasn’t disputing the fact that prayer doesn’t work.
It is insane that you can torture and kill children legally because of religion and New Age woo.
Oregon has a Death Cult, Followers of Christ, that has a history of killing their kids. The last one was a toddler who died of a respiratory infection treatable with a few buck worth of common antibiotics.
They also have a Faith Healer Killer immunity act. The state AG estimates that over the last few decades at least 30 of their kids have died needlessly. And they just keep on killing them.
Alverant @ 41: Well said.
I’m constantly amused/frustrated by those who use phrases like “narrow legalism” to dismiss laws with which they personally disagree. It really bespeaks a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of rule of law.
Gavel Down @ 71: The idea is that if [jury nullification] keeps happening, the legislators will realize the law is unjust and change it. Or more immediately, the cops and prosecutors will realize they can’t win convictions and stop making arrests and bringing charges.
Yup, that too.
And where does the church as a Christian authority stand on this issue?
There must be priests…pastors…ministers..bishops…cardinals…uncle tom cobbly and all…professing Christian love and responsibility to family and yet they are all as quite as a grave at midnight!
Not one so called man of god has questioned or suggested that prayer can do many things..apparently…but diabetic coma is probably better left with a secular expert in treating such a malady…
Not one of these jolly friars has dared to say that it is palpably absurd to get away free and easy after allowing a child to suffer and die…because that is what happened!
And as for the cronies in the congregation that did rent a prayer not think it a dangerous ‘eggs all in one basket’ strategy with a desperately ill child…are they all really that ignorant…?
Has there been any reason in that community to believe that prayer would work…has it worked elsewhere and for someone else in the congregation and convinced them it was a legitimate excuse…what and where?
And was it just prayer that caused a change of events…or was it something else..can they prove the point or is it just blind faith and ignorance?
And this is lawful…?
This is a f*cking joke right?
That is barbaric and it has nothing to do with belief…more to do with extreme insanity backed by a court of law…
That is one law that needs trashing…seriously!
A cynic might point out that this will simply make those who prefer prayer-based medicine to modern, scientific-based medicine less fit in a Darwinian sort of way.
It’s still awful, though.
The Neumanns may be idiots but they were also victims of a massive con. (1) Ideally, this Eells scumbag would be indicted with them. I hope other members of the Unleavened Bread Ministries are rethinking whatever he’s told them–especially the ones with kids of their own.
(1) The UBM’s press releases w/r/t the Neumanns are pretty much the not-our-fault/God’s-will crapola you’d expect. It’s no wonder the religious Right supported W; leaders without the slightest inkling of the entire concept of responsibility seem to be normal for them.
Strangest Brew: A very, very good point. Thanks for thinking strategically. Every time something like this happens, we need to hammer on the religious moderates and force them to either defend wackaloonery like that of the Neumanns, or to condemn their fellow religionists. The middle ground is where you gain traction.
Posted by: (No) Free Lunch – January 21, 2009 10:25 AM
Hasn’t there been some success in islet transplants? I don’t know how far along the research path that is but successful islet transplants would be cures for diabetes.
Yes. However, I’m not a physician and wouldn’t even want to speak to the success rate of islet transplants, though I do work in radiology. Islet transplants are in many cases considered experimental and reserved for more severe (Type 1) diabetes that cannot be, or can no longer be, managed with insulin.
I think we have a discussion topic at work this afternoon.
The law should be changed but the parents in this case should not be convicted. Retroactive criminal laws are unconstitutional.
I hope the parents get something medically trivial, but very painful, like kidneystones. Let’s see them decline the morphine.
It would be interesting to see how the law would be applied if someone was praying to Satan for their child to be healed. I wonder if they would get the benefit of the same exemption. Do you only get the exemption if you’re praying to the “right” God?
I cannot begin to describe how horrible it is to go through ketoacidosis. Before I was diagnosed with type one diabetes I was going through stages of it. There was incredible tiredness – to the point where I would fall asleep at the dinner table. There was the blacking out in the middle of normal activities. There was the thirst that no amount of water could cure – I can remember sticking my head under the bathroom faucet late at night in search of “getting enough”. And there was the weight loss. I would eat, but I was rapidly losing weight. But I was brought into the hospital in time. I’m sure I didn’t even get to the absolute worst of it.
With all that being said..I fail to see how the parents could have possibly not understood the signs of what they were seeing. The “we didn’t know she was sick” line just disgusts me. The weight loss alone should have been enough. These parents should be jailed for their decisions. What that poor girl experienced is not something that I would wish on anyone. That is a pretty darn painful way to go – it is long and it is drawn out. They could have stopped it, but instead chose to follow a twisted churches belief system. If their religion means more to them then the health of their children, then perhaps their children should be placed with people who put their well being first.
Different jurisdiction(s) but you can see jury nullification type effects at work here in Britain over right to die cases. People with terminal diseases are going to Switzerland to sip anaesthetic overdose drinks. They usually go when they are in the state when they need help. Those helpers are at risk of prosecution on return because it is an offence to assist a suicide. The Director of Public Prosecutions has recently publically declined to prosecute the parents of a young rugby player rendered paraplegic when a scrum collapsed and who found his life intolerable. His reason was it was ‘not in the public interest’. Translated this means ‘no jury would convict them since I read the opinion polls’.
There was a case a few years ago up here in Scotland, old couple, one in a bad way. They make a pact, one smothers the other then tries to commit suicide but survives. The survivor is prosecuted for murder, the jury refuses in the face of the evidence to convict, the pensioner goes free.
We are as a result inching towards a Right to Die Bill. The only thing standing in the way was standing in the way the last time: 23 Anglican Bishops sitting in the House of Lords (our Senate equivalent) who filibustered the bill. We really do have a sort of theocracy over here.
I’ve always wondered why these things so often play out in a way that doesn’t depend on the belief “If you have insufficient faith, God will torture you to death”, but rather “If you have insufficient faith, God will torture your kid to death.” Could it have something to do with the Christian belief that God allowed his own offspring to be tortured to death, and that this was somehow beneficial to the rest of humanity?
Then again, maybe when an adult dies needlessly of a treatable ailment because of a reliance on faith healing, it doesn’t make the news. Now I’m really depressed by the thought of this kind of thing being an underreported phenomenon.
jeez
I remember seeing a TV show several months ago about some parents who were convicted of killing their infant by starving it to death. Apparently they were rabid vegans who believed that any “animal” products – even a mother’s milk – were unhealthy. They were trying to feed the baby rice or something and it died of malnutrition at the age of about six weeks. No allowance was made for their supposedly sincere belief in the vegan way of life. They both got prison sentences. I bet if they had claimed their eating habits were part of some wacky religious practice, they would have gotten away with it.
I didn’t see this link above (may have missed it).
Please consider joining CHILD, Inc., a legal defense fund for children in these situations:
http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/
They send out a newsletter that is pretty sobering. It’s a good organization that actively fights for these kids.
Gavel Down #46
I have a 10 month old kitten. She’s a bundle of energy and very affectionate. If, by some horrible tragedy, she was paralyzed from the neck down and couldn’t run or play or jump or do all the things she loves to do, it would be the morally responsible thing to put her down. That’s one reason why pets get better legal protection. Their parents are allowed to mercifully end their lives when their lives are no longer worth living. (They can also do it for non-merciful reasons but for this discussion that’s beside the point.)
Too many commenters here appear to long for a just and retributive God. It is dangerous to ask the law to fulfill that role. You forget that the government can make mistakes too, and often on a grander scale with more threat to society than a few parents such as these can. The FDA delaying access to life saving drugs has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, when earlier release of the drugs under an aftermarket monitoring program would have cost some, but fewer lives. The government is a much harsher and more intractable parent. Concerned grandparents or neighbors might have been able to save this child under current law, but they would be powerless against predetermined government intrusion.
How are these parents more negligent than millions around the world such as those is Mexico, India or Pakistan, whose children die to lack of a basic sanitary water supply and waste disposal technology that existed century before the Romans? They go to church or mosque or purchase gold for doweries, instead of burying sewers and digging wells.
The parents of this unfortunate child are no threat to society, and the government has far better things to do than prosecute them, and probably has far better things it should refrain from doing. What recourse against the government did postal worker Thomas Morris have, when the government made it illegal for him to purchase and use drugs based upon his own judgement, when he considered it possible he was sick due to possible anthrax exposure and the government licensed gatekeeper disagreed? The govrnment likes to exempt itself from the very laws it would punish others for.
#95 Alverant – if I’m understanding you right, you are saying that the humane thing to do is to let a child who has a treatable disease die because it’s life is “no longer worth living”?
On the family’s “Help Us!” website, there are several justifications given for their behavior. The most interesting, because it is so unbelievably rediculous, is the comparison of statistics of deaths related to healthcare choices.
The author actually compares the 200,000+ ‘iatrogenic’ deaths per year to the 172 children in the last 20 years who have died from ‘medical neglect,’ and uses this comparison to justify the reasoning that it is more dangerous to bring a child to the hospital than to pray for him/her at home. Nevermind the fact that the percentage of deaths out of total hospital visitors yearly is probably miniscule compared to the percentage of deaths in the ‘I’ll just pray for you’ situations. In addition, the number of ‘iatrogenic’ deaths is inflated – if you read the JAMA article, this includes 106,000 deaths from adverse effects of medication, specifically defined as “nonerror.”
I’m tired of these people twisting reality to gather their masses and fight their cause. The legal system of Wisconsin better see through these manipulations (there are several on the website).
Heavy sigh (I’m Minnesotan).
#96 africangenesis – I’m inclined to disagree. These parents put their faith before their children. And not only do they have more children, but they belong to a whole group of people whose “belief” could potentially harm other children within the church. We look to the government to prevent incidents such as this and such as the ones you have listed above to the best of its capability. Letting these people off, when the court system has the power not to, is not the right way to go. It says to other people who practice this form of christianity that it is okay to ignore serious illnesses in your children.
Government isn’t on trial here. The parents of this child are. What that little girl went through, as I mentioned in my post above, was very painful and very needless. There is no excuse for their actions.
Morally is horribile.
Biological – it’s just natural selection.
This is insane. I find it difficult to accept that people are even discussing whether or not the parents should be prosecuted; it’s a complete no-brainer.
Statements like this one (made by africangenesis) boggle my mind: “Concerned grandparents or neighbors might have been able to save this child under current law, but they would be powerless against predetermined government intrusion.”
Reasonable people may disagree about what constitutes “governmental intrusion” into familial affairs, but surely no rational person could possibly believe that a material and unquestionable risk to a child’s life (as in this scenario) doesn’t warrant such an intrusion. It’s just monstrous to suggest that a parent’s right of determination over a minor child should extend to healthcare choices that will, by any reasonable probability, lead to that child’s death.
Others who suggest that prosecution isn’t warranted because these parents “aren’t a danger to society” also couldn’t be more wrong. The types of beliefs these parents hold ARE a danger to society. Allowing this behavior to go unpunished sends a message of acceptability that we daren’t send.
africangenesis also asks, “How are these parents more negligent than millions around the world such as those is Mexico, India or Pakistan, whose children die to lack of a basic sanitary water supply and waste disposal technology that existed century before the Romans?” To the extent that their children’s death is in their power to prevent, they are in exactly the same moral situation as the Neumanns. In most cases, however, in these countries, the issues you detail are simply too large, the funds insufficient, and the ignorance too great to fault the parents in all cases. Any attempt to create an analogy with the Neumanns is simply abortive. Kara’s condition was medically treatable. The Neumanns had sufficient funds or insurance to care for her and they understood the seriousness of her condition. Despite all of this, they CHOSE not to treat her. Any parent who allows their child to suffer and die as Kara did without even attempting to get medical help is either stupid, wicked, or insane. Any law that condones or permits such evil is an abomination.
“surely no rational person could possibly believe that a material and unquestionable risk to a child’s life (as in this scenario) doesn’t warrant such an intrusion”
Bill@101,
I may be misjudging you, but I suspect that you disagree with the above statement. Let’s say the child was a Kurd in Iraq, facing a material and unquestioned risk to his or her life from a dictator like Saddam. Does it warrant an intrusion by our government? If not, why do you acknowledge a geographical boundary but not the boundary of the family? Why do you respect Saddam’s sovereignty and not the family’s? Was Saddam’s sovereignty more worthy of respect?
Keep in mind that the intrusion you are advocating is after the fact.
Families own their children and may not make good decisions. But when governments presume to own people, they make far worse decisions, such as building large conscript militaries using innocent civilians, that cost millions of lives. Did we learn nothing in the last century?
Wtf? That’s not a similar scenario. It’s not even the same government.
It was parental neglect. They are incapable of caring for their children. End of story.
And I’m inclined to agree with #96 africangenesis. After reading nearly 100 posts on this thread I can tell that I’ll probably get jumped on by the majority (but as a radical atheist I’m kind of used to that).
I’m wondering what happened to separation of church and state? I think religion is a bunch of hooey and I want it out of government. Correspondingly, I think government should stay out of religion. If anyone is stupid enough to join a church that lets its children die from treatable diseases, well that’s their choice. As long as they are not letting MY children die… well survival of the fittest and all that. Spending government funds on prosecuting these parents provides no advantages for you or me, it just wastes time and money. Take the money that would be spent on lawyers, courthouses, jail, etc. and put it toward diabetes research.
No. No they don’t.
Bill Snedden: The types of beliefs these parents hold ARE a danger to society. Allowing this behavior to go unpunished sends a message of acceptability that we daren’t send.
The problem is, simple approaches to stopping this requires scratching a bit off the Wall of Separation; doing so may be argued a bigger danger to society. Allowing this sort of idiocy will lead to some small but certain number of preventable deaths from religious whackaloons among same; eroding the wall leads to a much less certain hazard of a vastly greater number of deaths from religious whackaloons, potentially among the populace as a whole as they fight among themselves or against “persecution”.
Obviously, “no religious whackaloons” would be preferable; how might we achieve some manner of solution without first eroding the Wall, pray tell? =)
Steve C,
Let’s freethink here, question a few more assumptions. I was considering the US government in both cases, although I acknowledge that technically the parents are being prosecuted by a state government. If it is the circumstances which warrant intrusion then intrusion is warranted in both instances.
Tulse, Hopefully you will agree that a woman owns her own body, even when harboring a late term infant which the medical community has agreed can feel pain. We let her abort. She and these parents deserve to be nominated for Darwin awards. This is a reasonable place to draw the line on dangerous government power. It has been said that our children are the chief threat to our freedom, precisely because of short sighted emotional appeals such as this make for bad law compromising our liberties.
This reminds me of a situation that I was involved in regarding a Jehovah’s Witness. Their religion forbids the use of blood or blood products. One of my patients drove racecars for a hobby and I suggested he choose an activity with less likelihood for trauma. This was rejected. Bringing up the issue of blood transfusion he told me he would never sign a consent. This only meant that if the situation should arise I would have to get a court order to force the transfusion against his will. Failure to do so would be actionable if the situation arose. Fortunately nothing ever happened to him, but his wife nearly bled to death from an ulcer. She wasn’t my patient, and survived. His attitude was the same. Her doctor had to get a court order or it would have been negligence. What a waste of time and energy to comply with hypocracy.
africangenesis, what is your stance on murder?
Absolutely.
Whoa, there, Bucky — if it isn’t born, the term is “fetus”, and it isn’t legally a person.
Mice can feel pain — does that mean you can’t legally put out mousetraps? The issue isn’t “pain”, the issue is personhood.
Any irrational and evil activity is legally sanctioned as long as you had some faith? Hitler probably had genuine faith in the “final solution”, so would he have been held responsible under Wisconsin law? Maybe not.
I have to call a Godwin on myself there!
I have to call a Godwin on myself there!
Godwin’s Law says that if you invoke Hitler, you automatically lose the argument. It doesn’t say the invoker of Godwin’s Law wins the argument. Thus you narrowly escape recursivity at the expense of losing the argument.
Tulse and Lore,
I generally oppose murder, but I think it should only be illegal when there is a compelling need to protect society. I try not to confuse the government with moral authority.
In the United States, the fetus is a person in some jurisdictions and circumstances, for instance, the murder of pregnant woman has been prosecuted as a double homicide. I consider abortion a murder that doesn’t ris to the level of compelling state interest, and would even advocate this murder in the case of severe genetic or birth defects or rape.
I catch mice in live traps, and release them to the wild, only if they are too clever to be caught in a reasonable amount of time do I resort to lethal traps, even then, I’ve decided that glue traps are too cruel, the traditional spring traps are quicker and more humane. Poor guys, unfortunately it is the smart ones that bite the dust.
*Not* prosecuting the parents would be a greater threat to church/state separation, in my view. Consider – if they let their child die for any other reason they would be found negligent. Therefore, the government would be treating people differently based on their religious beliefs; in this case it would work in favor of those with such beliefs, but if I were religious I wouldn’t want to see that precedent set.
I’m wondering what happened to separation of church and state? I think religion is a bunch of hooey and I want it out of government.
I’m a Christian, and I wonder the same thing about the separation of church and state. Law should be secular. Religion should (pardon the expression) keep the hell out of it. When religion has been in charge of the state, the result has uniformly been bad for all concerned.
africangenesis, my problem here is that these parents knew that there was a problem with their daughter. Enough of a problem to cause them to try to rally their prayer board around to provide more “healing” for their daughter.
I also call shennanigans on the “we didn’t know, our church didn’t tell us, we’re following our faith” line. When a person goes into DKA, the signs are quite obvious. You would have been able to tell based on how she looked and even how she smelled (people going through DKA often give off a smell ..like fruit or nail polish remover. I had one nurse describe it as ‘old fruit’ before, too).
If we say that it is okay for them to let their daughter die based on their misguided religious beliefs then when does the line get drawn? Can we also shoot children or people out in the street because it is part of our religion? Does the law not get to step in because it is a religious matter? Local law enforcement is put in to protect and serve the public. In this case, the parents failed to protect their daughter and should be tried in the court as thus.
Oh, and as far as these people, I think Wisconsin ought to throw the book at them. (Perhaps to suit their religious persuasion, it could throw a Bible at them. There are some quite massive editions that would be suitable for such purposes.) Neglecting your children and then hiding your ignorance behind your religion is disgusting. The people who stubbornly cling to prayer and deny real hope offered to them remind me of the anecdote about the faithful couple whose house was flooded.
As the waters rose, a man knocked on the door. He’d driven up in an SUV. He offered to take them to safety. They said no, the Lord would protect them. The water rose, and they had to move to the second floor. A man in a dinghy came up to the house and offered to take them to safety. They said no, the Lord would protect them. The water rose, and they got up on the roof. A helicopter came, and the pilot offered to fly them to safety. They said no, the Lord would protect them. The foundations of their house finally gave away, and they drowned.
They arrived in Heaven. When they came before the Lord, they asked him why He didn’t save them.
“What do you mean?” He asked. “I sent an SUV, a boat, and a helicopter.”
While I don’t think the Lord directly dispatches rescuers, the principle is sound. Surely, even a fundamentalist should be able to accept the idea that maybe the Lord wants them to make use of the help that’s already there? And yet so many would rather go all conspiracy-theory about it. *shakes head sadly*
Throw the book at them. And make it a heavy one. And Christians should speak out against behavior like this. There is nothing remotely Christ-like in refusing to get help for your seriously sick child, and then hiding behind the mantle of righteousness like cowards and hypocrites. A child should not have to die to prove how faithful the parent is. If one believes in the Bible literally, God didn’t force Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. So why do faith-healing fundies use that story to justify delaying care for their own children? Why do they read it as “I must test God by jeopardizing my children” rather than as “God doesn’t really want us to hurt our kids”? There’s a million ways to interpret the Bible (so it’s foolish to be literal about it); what makes their way so much better that they’ll let people die over it?
Okay, I’m ranting. I’m just disgusted with parents like these.
They should have just used Kabbalah water to heal the child. Madonna says it is great.
Lore,
We do draw the line someplace. Between negligence and overt killing in noneuthansia cases seems like a good place. Honor killing where the victim has requested protected or renounced the religion seems over the line also. But this case, just seems unimportant, the behavior of these parents had natural consequences, more severe than prison. Only people with the same beliefs are at risk, and even then only in rare circumstances. It turns out that their beliefs are right quite often. Overtreatment in our society also causes excess deaths, it is just harder to attribute them.
africangenesis,
I don’t know. DKA, from my personal experience with it, is a lot like torture. I won’t go into details about what it is like to go through it again, but I do think that in a case like this where the death was long and drawn out the parents should be treated to a few years in prison. At the very least. Negligence is not an excuse to get away with murder.
But I suppose that is where you and I differ on this issue. I look at their actions murder whereas you see it more as simple negligence.
Presuming you’re talking about Cipro, the government has a compelling interest in preventing diseases from becoming resistant to currently available antibiotics. Allowing people to pop antibiotics whenever they want harms us all as a group, hence one of the main reasons they are restricted.
Actually, we in the United States do not let her abort a late-term fetus. Most states in the United States ban late-term abortions unless it is medically necessary, and basically all of the rest of them put up so many procedural hurdles so as to accomplish the same thing.
Yup.
No it is not. This is not Darwin award territory. Stupidity is not inherited. That child could have become an atheist, a skeptic, a scientist, a Nobel prize winner. We will never know.
I’ve been following this case all year and blogged several times about it. There seems to be some momentum here – the judge on the case made a distinction between freedom to believe and freedom to act. A distinction was also made between prayer for illness vs prayer in the face of a critical condition. The law is vague enough to allow these distinctions is seems. However, Wisconsin is the home of the impressive cannibals and human skin craftsman in the country. No telling what will happen. To date, Kara Neumann has not risen from the dead, so prayer has failed miserably thus far.
I want to second Kyle’s plea @ #94 for people to join CHILD, an organization that fights against these ridiculous laws. MOST U.S. STATES, including Minnesota (PZ!) have these child neglect exemptions and many many more religious exemptions besides, including religious loopholes in criminal laws (e.g., homicide, capital murder). Go here: http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/legal.htm for details.
As someone who is permanently disabled as a result of religious parents refusing to provide medical care to me when I was a child, I strongly reject the argument that such neglect must be allowed for the sake of “liberty.”
Children are not the property of their parents. Children have their own rights to life and liberty. No one should have the right to sacrifice Kara Neumann’s life on the altar of her PARENT’S religious beliefs.
Until the late 70s when these loopholes began to infest state law (read “God’s Perfect Child” by Caroline Fraser for a history), no one did have that right. But now, our laws encourage such neglect.
As to where a line should be drawn in a particular case–that’s what the courts are for. Let religious parents explain their actions to a jury of their peers. If the symptoms were misleading, if the treatment is worse than the cure, if the “child” is old enough to reject her own treatment, a jury can sort that out. Don’t give religious parents a free pass *in advance* to neglect or abuse their kids *no matter what*.
Churches use that “get out of jail free” card to pressure members to do the WRONG thing. That’s what happened with my parents. My parents scrupulously followed the law, and got all required medical tests and treatments (job-related) for themselves and their pets (license-related). Sadly, the law told them that medical care for their kids was optional.
DieAnyway:
The government should take no notice of religion. If you can use religion as an excuse for any behavior, no matter how harmful or criminal, you have allowed religion to control government. Laws need to be applied to everyone equally. Child abuse cannot be made acceptable just because you claim your god wants it.
Yes, I am familiar with Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) which said that parents have the right to inflict their religion on their children, no matter what they do that affects the child, so most of the states that don’t have laws like Wisconsin’s that allow some measure of bad choices on the parents’ part would still have to deal with the same problem. I have to agree with William O. Douglas, who dissented, that parents are not the only ones who have a stake in what happens to children. I doubt that the majority of that case would take their logic to the conclusion that parents can kill their children in the name of their religion.
Too bad the parents don’t take responsibility for the death of their daughter. They could have prevented it and refused to. They don’t get to blame God for it. I will unhesitatingly blame them for what they did.
africangenesisNice parting shot about ‘overtreatment’. Of course you know it is inaccurate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you are used to making erroneous claims to defend your argument.
Anything else you want to bring up that is misleading or unrelated to the discussion?
Bureaucratis Minimis @ # 84: Every time something like this happens, we need to hammer on the religious moderates and force them to either defend wackaloonery like that of the Neumanns, or to condemn their fellow religionists.
Not to mention that these cases should be flung in the faces of those who love to lecture us about “the sacredness of all life” and “the right to life”. Why aren’t the Catholic/Baptist/etc “pro-life” churches & politicos howling for state intervention to protect born children?
Pierce – I’ve often wondered that myself. Those that do cry about abortions seem to have no feeling for their fellow man (or those of us who just so happened to go through the birthing process successfully). I cannot begin to understand why unborn people and babies are worthy of saving, but young adults and adults are not.
Lore @ # 128: … why unborn people and babies are worthy of saving, but young adults and adults are not.
My personal hypothesis is that fetuses (and, to a lesser extent, babies) are in some ways blank screens on which one can project idealized “innocence”, whereas those who have developed discernible personalities are less suitable for symbolic enlistment in the believers’ personal psychodramas.
That, and the traditional patriarchal urge to control women’s bodies, of course.
#108 … You can find a judge who will give a court order for a transfusion on an ADULT who refused to sign the consent? Here they are allowed to bleed to death if they are conscious and coherent and refuse transfusions.
It’s not actionable – they had a choice and they chose “no”.
#15:
What the shit??? These people are asking for money? So prayer was good enough for their child’s life, but they’ll take real-life action for MONEY. RAAAAAAGE.
I would point out to any ostensibly christian parent that’s considering keeping their kid from getting competent medical help that christian doctrine forbids human sacrifice. The party line is that jesus was the last sacrifice.
-jcr
Interesting point was brought up on another SciBlog about this case: What if the parents were poor and had no health insurance, and simply could not afford to treat their child even though they really wanted to? Then there would be no case; everyone would just cluck about how sad that is, and how we really ought to deal with our health care system one of these days.
Actually, many hospitals will treat a life-or-death situation, regardless of money. Paying it back may be a bitch, but they will save someone’s life when it’s in danger. County hospitals, and (like it or not) religious hospitals will usually do this. They’ll eat the cost sometimes, or they’ll get some kind of Medicaid/Medicare subsidy.
Or that’s how it’s worked at most of the hospitals my mom has worked in over the past few years.
Some of those for-profit monstrosities, it might be another story. At one of those hospitals where my mom worked, they would literally send a dying person to the county hospital a few blocks away, unless County was too backed up. It might be that some states require any hospital to treat a critical patient if that’s the only hospital available, but IANAL.
Carlie,
If a dying child is brought to an emergency room, the child will be treated.
Our pet libertarian, africangenesis, will be happy to explain how, if the gummint leaves doctors alone, these doctors will be more than happy to treat anyone gratis. (I have had a couple of libertarians try to sell this fairy tale. Let’s see if AG is as stupid as his libertarian brethren.)
Dear Mr Genesis @ 113,
Thank you for auditioning for a role in “Civilized Society”.
We regret to inform you that you have not been successful.
Signed,
Humanity.
These demon worshippers are crazy. They should be institutionalised until they can prove that they are no longer a danger to others.
@112: Godwin’s Law says that if you invoke Hitler, you automatically lose the argument.
No, it doesn’t. It only states that the probability of a Nazi comparison over the course of a discussion rises towards 1.
No free@126,
You should consult Natalie@121, she knows the dangers of overtreatment. Earaches are notorious for being treated with antibiotics despite usually clearing up on their own. Resistent bacterial strains do cause deaths, although specific deaths are not linked to specific overtreatments.
That said, Natalie, Thomas Morris was a black man, intelligent enough save his own life, yet ironically, he was not free enough to save his own life. You assume that letting the people be free to purchase drugs on their own judgement will result in more drug resistance, and I must agree, but at the same time I disagree with this restriction on our freedom. By holding new antibiotics in reserve, the government and medical profession take all the profit out of developing new antibiotics, and there are not many in the development pipeline. I don’t think it is at all obvious that this is the right strategy, rather than just a full scale assault of antibiotic development. We might well have triple drug approaches much as we do against AIDS by now if there was any incentive for development. Thomas Morris’ blood is on the government’s hands, and he is symbolic of hundreds of thousands of others the government has murdered.
Actually, many hospitals will treat a life-or-death situation, regardless of money. Paying it back may be a bitch, but they will save someone’s life when it’s in danger. County hospitals, and (like it or not) religious hospitals will usually do this. They’ll eat the cost sometimes, or they’ll get some kind of Medicaid/Medicare subsidy.
As I understand it, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act 1986 requires hospitals (except certain children’s hospitals and those belonging to the Indian Health Service or Veterans’ Administration) to treat anyone in an emergency situation. It doesn’t provide for them to recoup the cost from anyone.
If a dying child is brought to an emergency room, the child will be treated.
Sure. When the child is at point of death, they will be treated. But whose fault is it that the child has been brought to point of death over a condition that should have been easily manageable? Bring the child in and say their blood sugar is a bit off and see how easy it is to get free treatment. The emergency treatment act really doesn’t address it, and my point is that you can use the same arguments against the poor parents for not providing treatment to keep the kid from going into a diabetic coma as you can against these parents. (Actually, my point is that having choice in health care in this country is largely an illusion.)
Carlie,
Choice in health care will likely decrease for most people. National systems are not as luxurious as the current US system, the are ruled by “cost effectiveness” analyses. For instance, it is not cost effective to give PAP smears more often than once in five years to women who have not been infected with HPV. Yet, under the current system, many women opt to have one every year for their peace of mind. In a national system, your peace of mind doesn’t matter, sometimes even if you are willing to pay for it yourself. You can purchase a lexus rather than a chevy, but for an extra pap smear you may have to leave the country.
africangenesis –
Have you dealt with health insurance companies in the United States before? I don’t mean, see-the-doctor-once-a-year kind of dealing with. I mean, on the phone with them at least once a month trying to talk them into letting you have more insulin and/or test strips.
Many health insurance companies in our current system (if you could call it that) have caps on how much of a certain prescription they will allow each person to have. I have had to fight with insurance companies to obtain more test strips – even though the doctor prescriped more, they didn’t want to shell them out. With out test strips I cannot accurately treat my diabetes. Without proper accuracy I could end up dealing with more expensive side effects in the long run. I have had to purchase them out of pocket before. I have also had to purchase insulin over the counter before. Hurrah for insurance, right? So glad I pay into it so that I can go ahead and pay for things out of pocket anyhow.
I have had to wait a year in order to get in to see a gyno. I usually have to wait at least three months in order to see my current endocrinologist. If I want to see my PCP it takes at least a month to get an appointment. If I want to see a new doctor in the area it will take five months to a year, assuming that they’re even taking new patients. If I go to an ER I can count on having to wait anywhere from 6 to 8 hours.
The current system is fine. As long as you don’t need to use it on a regular basis. Those of us who do have to fight on going battles to get the treatment that our own doctors prescribe for us.
So please. Please tell me about the evils of a national healthcare system. Please tell me how great and wonderful our current system is. I love a good laugh. Your little assumptions about “PAP smears every five years” are real cute.
Not only do hospitals have the duty to treat those who come to the ER, but SCHIP (called BadgerCare in Wisconsin), however much improvement it may need, does cover children whose parents cannot afford insurance. Her parents chose to deny her health care, the insurance excuse is invalid.
Africangenesis once again manages to misrepresent both our current health care payment system and the possible options and declares our broken system to be the best of all best possible worlds, though it might even be better if the government stopped meddling. He would do well to learn about health care systems in other countries from actual documentation rather than from the liars at the WSJ Opinion page, Rush Limbaugh, and others who benefit from our current broken system.
Ah, for the approximately 20% of the US population without health insurance, I’d say any coverage would be considered luxurious. But again, I think this adds more evidence to the theory that libertards lack empathy and espouse a philosophy of “I got mine, f*** the rest of you”.
Lore, I think you’ve got AG pegged there. He’s no doubt a healthy 20 to 30 year old, single white male with adequate insurance to cover his one trip to the doctor every one or two years.
On topic, I’m with Zar (#131) in my rage at hypocrisy of saying that medical conditions can be dealt with via prayer but legal ones need money and professionals (lawyers). Ah, why don’t they simply pray for the legal outcome they want?
Yet curiously their outcomes are significantly better on most measures than a US system that costs vastly more to maintain.
AG @ 139, could please link to some information (preferably of the “straight news” variety, not opinion) about this individual. Google wasn’t much help as the name is quite common.
And how is his being black relevant in any way?
#142
That is a lie.
I live in Canada, if you didn’t know, we have national health care up here.
I get a pap smear every year, I see my doctor on a bi-monthly basis to monitor my various health conditions, I get free flu vaccinations (among others) because I’m in a high risk group.
You’re full of shit, and I demand you leave this thread until you’ve done some fucking research.
africangenesis @ 102:
“I may be misjudging you, but I suspect that you disagree with the above statement.”
And you’d be wrong…
“Let’s say the child was a Kurd in Iraq, facing a material and unquestioned risk to his or her life from a dictator like Saddam. Does it warrant an intrusion by our government?”
No. This discussion is about U.S. law, not international law or the laws of other countries.
“Keep in mind that the intrusion you are advocating is after the fact.”
Not necessarily. Laws that stipulate that parents may not withhold vital medical treatment can be used by medical officials to prevent a child’s death. That they would not always be so used is irrelevant. Prosecuting a parent whose callous neglect caused the death of their child may also serve as a deterrent to other parents who might be similarly inclined.
“Families own their children and may not make good decisions.”
I can only hope that this is a mis-statement. No human being owns another human being. Period. Children are not chattel. Parents have custodial interests in children. They have responsibilities and obligations. They do NOT have carte blanche to abrogate their natural rights, one of which is a right to life.
“But when governments presume to own people, they make far worse decisions, such as building large conscript militaries using innocent civilians, that cost millions of lives. Did we learn nothing in the last century?”
What government is presuming to own anyone? There is no legitimate government, no national sovereignty, absent the consent of the governed. No problem there. But the primary responsibility of the state is to protect me from you and you from me. That includes a legal system which must, necessarily, be involved in weighing where your rights begin and mine end and vice versa. Clearly familial rights are important; child-rearing is a great responsibility and we as a society must recognize some degree of latitude in the choices parents make in raising their children: where they go to school, what values they will be taught, etc. Reasonable people can have disagreements about where the line is drawn for many of these issues, but reasonable, rational individuals simply cannot and should not disagree that such latitude does not extend to the reckless and wanton disregard of a child’s life. A parent’s right to raise their child as they see fit simply does not outweigh the child’s right to continue living and the state has a responsibility to protect minor children from the wicked delusions of their parents.
@AG
You seem to think that if you have government subsidized health care then the government can control all your options. That’s just patently untrue. In a system like England’s, if people want better care than the safety net the government provides there are private clinics where you can pay for better care. It’s a perfect problem for your free market to deal with. It is just a tragedy that we do not have any sort of safety net for US citizens with respect to healthcare, especially with as much money as we pay the government for it. What is it, 50% of personal bankruptcies that are caused by medical debt? And we call the US a first world country.
(No) Free Lunch wrote: “If you can use religion as an excuse for any behavior, no matter how harmful or criminal, you have allowed religion to control government.”
I didn’t say “any behavior”. Only the behavior that is related to the members of that church. I don’t care what they do amongst themselves as long as they don’t impose it on anyone else. And if they try, I expect government to protect me from them. And, I suppose, I expect government to protect them from me. My values are different from theirs. Should I use government to force my values on them? After 8 years of George Bush haven’t we said often enough that we don’t want government forcing us to live by Christian fundamentalist rules? In all fairness, shouldn’t we avoid forcing them to live by our rules?
But I have to admit, part of my reasoning is just to let them show themselves up to the rest of the world for what they really are. “Our God is mighty. Our God is caring. Our God answers prayers”. Oh yeah? Well how come all your kids die when you try to pray away their illnesses? Hey World, look here. This is what you get if you think prayer works. Maybe a bit harsh but I think the religidiots are deserving of a bit of harsh reality.
I am sure USA health statistics would overall be comparable at least in life expectancy to other 1st world countries if these 2 causes of death were approximately the same as the worst of the rest. 1. death by gunshot wound.(for whatever reason) and 2. death in combat or military exercises. These 2 causes of death are relatively very high in the USA and the victims tend to be young, and all the health insurance in the world is unlikely to change them. On the other hand the USA does well in breast cancer in comparison because of the costly screening that goes on. Medical cost overruns in the USA are primarily the result of defensive medical practices, entrepreneurial enterprises that take advantage of high reimbursements for procedures over primary care, and costly desirable-but-elective interventions. Why do wealthy people from all over the world come to the USA for health care if our health care is so bad? Could it be that here wealthy patients have autonomy they don’t have elsewhere and physicians have accountability they don’t have elsewhere? TPFD.
Die Anyway, they imposed their views on a child who was in no position to question them. If adults want to kill themselves, that doesn’t bother me. If they want to kill their child, I think that we, as a nation, have a say. Why shouldn’t a child be protected from religious doctrines that kill? I understand your point, and feel the same urge, I just resist it because I can see another way.
In all fairness, shouldn’t we avoid forcing them to live by our rules?
Sure, but their children need not remain “them” forever. Some of them may grow up and join “us.” That’s why child-welfare laws fall in a different category for me. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting children from the reckless insanity of their parents because children are future citizens, all of our future co-workers, neighbors, etc. Parents do not own their children; they are, in a very real sense, all of our children.
If prayer is a legitimate medical procedure, then someone needs to sue the parents and their congregation for malpractice since they obviously prayed wrong in this case.
re: #153, #154
It’s the same old canard… “but what about the children?”
To heck with ’em. It’s not like the world is short of children. Just ask China. It seems as if nearly everyone here is ok with abortion but suddenly all squishy about children. WTF?
Scenario 1: Sally gets pregnant but she and Joe don’t feel that they can financially or emotionally handle a child at this point. She gets an abortion. Problem solved.
Scenario 2: Sally and Joe have a baby but 6 months later they realize they can’t handle it financially or emotionally. They want to get rid of the baby.
Why can’t they do the same thing they could have done during the period 9 – 15 months previously? ie. “abort” it. Did something magic happen in the meantime? God breathed life into it? It got a soul? Well, I don’t believe that. It’s two parents, deciding which offspring to raise and which not to raise. Their decision, not ours.
I grew up under the purview of a completely socialized health-care system; that of the United States Armed Services. And it was the best health care in the world. Period. Since then I’ve dealt with commercial health care that gave me less choice with lower quality while libertarians drone on and on about how evil socialized medicine would be. Interestingly, military health care is no longer what it once was; since there’s been a hard push for privatization with claims of increased effiiciency and better quality – my son is a Marine, and he and his wife have found the now HMO-driven military care to be a maze of red tape and restrictive options that isn’t much better than what my wife and I have in the civilian world.
Privatization Uber Alles – making things better for everyone. Yeah, right.
It seems as if nearly everyone here is ok with abortion but suddenly all squishy about children. WTF?
I bet you’re a hit at birthday parties. A child is a person, like you. Is repecting your right to life and autonomy “all squishy”?
This isn’t about infanticide. We’re talking about an eleven-year-old.
It is just a tragedy that we do not have any sort of safety net for US citizens with respect to healthcare, especially with as much money as we pay the government for it.
I’m not an American, but surely you do have quite an extensive safety net for the most vulnerable? The Emergency Medicine and Active Labor Act requires emergency rooms to treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay (forcing hospitals to absorb the cost and pass it on to other patients, which is not ideal). Medicaid subsidises the very poor who meet certain eligibility requirements. SCHIP covers the slightly less poor if they are under a certain age.
What you do not do, unlike my country and most others in the developed world, is provide healthcare at the taxpayer’s expense to people who could afford to pay for it privately. In Britain, however much you earn, you can still get NHS treatment. Many people, of course, choose to take out private medical insurance anyway because NHS waiting lists are so long. But there’s no obligation to do so – which I think is absurd. Can you justify why someone earning, say, US$100,000 a year, who chooses not to have private medical insurance, should have a right to be treated at the taxpayer’s expense? Personally, as far as I’m concerned, he made his choice, and he should suffer for it.
Sally and Joe have a baby but 6 months later they realize they can’t handle it financially or emotionally. They want to get rid of the baby.
Why can’t they do the same thing they could have done during the period 9 – 15 months previously? ie. “abort” it.
I think you’re missing the basis for abortion rights: the right of the woman to control her own body.
“Quite extensive” isn’t quite how I would put it (and I’ve never heard it described that way either). Yes, emergency rooms are legally obligated to provide live-saving care to anyone who comes regardless of ability to pay. But the cost of healthcare means that many cases that would never become life-threatening in a sane system where anyone can afford to see a doctor semi-regularly develop to be life-threatening. A large number of people are uninsurable because of past health problems.
As I mentioned before, a very significant number of personal bankruptcies are a direct result of debt due to medical conditions. These are people nowhere near poor enough to qualify for Medicaid (and regrettably cribbing from Wikipedia, 60% of poor families are not even covered by Medicaid). If you’re uninsurable or can’t afford insurance, you’re a medical condition away from bankruptcy (and that’s assuming you’re lucky enough to catch whatever it is in time to live.
Kudos for looking into some of the US programs, though. It just so happens that they don’t apply to everyone, and as things stand (20% of the population uninsured) things look pretty bad.
If said $100,000 a year fellow is a taxpayer himself, then I do not see a problem with this scenario. In fact, as long as we’re assuming he isn’t creative with tax dodging, he pays more taxes proportionally than the lower income people treated under the same system (in the US, anyway). If said person considers the additional cost of private treatment to be worth less than the opportunity cost of the time spent awaiting public treatment, that is his call to make. I would have assumed that would be the Libertarian point of view as well (not to pigeonhole you, I was simply surprised at the line of argument).
As I mentioned before, I live in Wisconsin, and there, I have a privilege of social medicine many others do not have.:
As part of my segregated fees at my university, I may go to the school’s clinic. It is a busy place, and a dozen or so doctors treat some 25,000 people. Appointments sometimes take a while to get, but acute care is always available and I typically have received acute treatment within 45 minutes or so.
So, there it is–a social medicine program run in a US state by a US government that works well and efficiently. I am sure it can happen elsewhere in the US too–okay, maybe not Chicago.
A couple that decides their six-month-old baby is beyond their ability to rear is allowed to have that baby adopted by another family. A pregnant woman cannot simply pass off her embryo to another woman. A six-month-old baby has biological autonomy. A six-week embryo is a part of its mother’s body.
In response to Walton and his safety net concept these currently happening trends are likely to proliferate. 1. urban medical centers moving to the suburbs. 2. creation of specialty hospitals that only deal with heart/orthopedic/urologic/oncology procedures.3. the closing of emergency rooms or creation of hospitals without them (see#2). 4. the closing of rural hospitals. 5. the closing of psychiatric inpatient facilities in tertiary care hospitals. 6. the creation of “urgent care” facilities in suburbs (with low medicaid penetration) that do not deal with any complex multisystems patients (such as the medically uninsurable or impaired elderly). 7.medical students avoiding low pay fields (primary care) and high risk fields (neurosurgery). 8. the continued unsubstantiated belief that osteopathic graduates will willingly fill all underserved positions. and 9. the continued explosion of marketing to fan the flames of medical fear driving the sophisticated American consumer of medical goods and services to demand the newest and costliest of everything at someone elses expense. TPFD.