Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead Getting Medical Help

[Moridin]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html

An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday.

Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.

The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said.They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said.

The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.

This is quite disturbing.

 

[lisab]

How sad!

 

[BobG]

Yes, it is.

Regardless, her parents did their best to care for her, at least within the context of their own knowledge levels and beliefs.

The solution, banning people of certain religions from having children, would not be a great solution.

 

[Moridin]

How about increased information about public health and what to do when your child is sick?

 

[binzing]

Religion strikes again! This is why I side with atheists, or atleast people who aren't total fanatics.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The most advanced country on Earth, and someone dies for lack of medical attention, terrible. Religion can be really awful sometimes.

How about increased information about public health and what to do when your child is sick?

Surely even the Amish would know to take someone to hospital if they were really sick though?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Before the religion bashing begins (too late?), please note that these people were essentially making up their own religion and rules.

The family does not attend an organized church or participate in an organized religion, Vergin said. "They have a little Bible study of a few people."

 

[jhicks]

As cruel as it sounds, there's a good chance that that child would have grown up to propagate her parents' zealotry. On the flip side, binzing, some of the most atrocious acts in the history of the world have been committed by atheists. Religion or no religion, there are terrible people that are misguided by their beliefs.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Before the religion bashing begins (too late?), please note that these people were essentially making up their own religion and rules.

It's still religion, and I was bashing religion generically meself. Belief of any type can be dangerous, I mean look at Scientology, that's not even a religion over here, and nor is it likely to be. Replace religion with crazy half baked ideas, if it's less offensive.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not that I'm condoning the situation in the article, but I heard a very thought-provoking counter-argument to this. It was on some court TV show (possibly Ally McBeal), but don't let that dissuade you from giving it some thought.

Truth be told, it was about Jehovah's witnesses and blood transfusions, but the common issue is that of a choice made by the person involved (or in the case of a minor, their guardians) about what procedures they will subject themselves to.

Paraphrase brings:

You (addressing the listener) have heard of some of the most modern treatments for any number of ailments out there - gene therapy, maybe chemo, stem cell research, perhaps storing umbilical cord blood - or perhaps even freezing your own fertilized eggs so that if yoyu get some disease and a donor is needed years in the future, the eggs can be brought back to life, not as a person but to be source of donor cells.

Some of these you will accept, but some you might not. Some might stretch the limits of what you consider ethical. Would you freeze fertilized eggs, leaving them in limbo, not bringing them to life unless you needed them for their cells?

These techniques are new, and the ethics and laws around them are still in flux. There are pros and cons, and there are argument on both sides as to how much evidence is enough evidence that any given treatment is ethical and is safe.

And there is, somewhere in there, a boundary that every individual sets for themselves that they will not cross, even if it means they won't live. You all have set this boundary based on your personal beliefs and comfort, ethics and the medical industry.



We have merely set our limit in a different place.

 

[Moridin]

As cruel as it sounds, there's a good chance that that child would have grown up to propagate her parents' zealotry. On the flip side, binzing, some of the most atrocious acts in the history of the world have been committed by atheists. Religion or no religion, there are terrible people that are misguided by their beliefs.

By atheists (and a-unicornists, a-fairyologists, ...), but because of what? Blind devotion to their leaders and irrational ideas unsupported by the evidence. Actually, every single totalitarian dictator in the history of humanity have been a aunicornist. Does that mean that aunicornism is intrinsically tied to genocide?

 

[Moridin]

We have merely set our limit in a different place.

So you mean that there exists a set of facts that support that it ought to be considered a valid counter argument? If so, you just contradicted yourself.

 

[Moonbear]

Before the religion bashing begins (too late?), please note that these people were essentially making up their own religion and rules.

Where does one draw the line that something is not a legitimate religious practice but rather a delusional psychiatric condition? Do we, as a society, have to sit back and say, "They call it a religion so it must be a religion and we have to let their children die for this," even if it appears to all the rest of us that they are insane and not able to make rational choices?

 

[jhicks]

By atheists (and a-unicornists, a-fairyologists, ...), but because of what? Blind devotion to their leaders and irrational ideas unsupported by the evidence. Actually, every single totalitarian dictator in the history of humanity have been a aunicornist. Does that mean that aunicornism is intrinsically tied to genocide?

You're arguing against a point I wasn't making. I was countering binzing's assertion that somehow atheists are any less prone to infringing upon the basic rights of others, not saying that atheists are somehow worse than theists/deists.

I'd prefer not to see Godwin's Law manifest itself so early in this thread!

 

[Saladsamurai]

I'll just go ahead and say it, "em hem... These people are stupid. They should be bludgeoned to death. And they deserve whatever repercussions (if any) that they have coming to them."

 

[Andre]

Something similar happened here, a famous Dutch performer/actress, Sylvia Millecam died of cancer, refused regular medicare and went to the woowoo's.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'd prefer not to see Godwin's Law manifest itself so early in this thread!

It hasn't.

Hitler was technically a Catholic, he observed the holidays, cultivated close ties with the Catholic faith and his own state faith. Saying that though I think he foresaw a time when religion in his country would be abolished, so I'm not sure quite how practising he was. He was "buried" in a religious ceremony supposedly though according to his wishes.

By the way that's not a confirmation of Godwyn's law I haven't compared anything to anyone.

 

[Moridin]

Apparently, this phenomena is quite frequent.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1206156310185280.xml&coll=7

The case of a 15-month-old Oregon City girl who died for lack of medical treatment could become the first test of a state law that disallows faith healing at the expense of a child's life.

Ava Worthington died March 2 at home from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and infection, according to Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner. He said both conditions could have been prevented or treated with antibiotics.

Child-abuse detectives recently referred investigative findings to prosecutors, who are evaluating the case in light of a law passed in 1999 after several faith-healing deaths of children.

"Kids were dying. Kids were suffering," he said. "Kids who have no choice over these things."

"If prosecuted, Ava Worthington's parents would be the first members of Oregon City's Followers of Christ, a fundamentalist Christian denomination, to face criminal charges for failing to seek medical treatment for a gravely ill child."

 

[DaveC426913]

I'll just go ahead and say it, "em hem... These people are stupid. They should be bludgeoned to death. And they deserve whatever repercussions (if any) that they have coming to them."

The point is that we (yes, you and me) all make our own personal decisions about what we will and won't put up with. Woe betide the fool that tells us we can't. These people demand the same right to make the same decision the rest of us do.

Note that nowhere in here is there any need to bring up religion; it is not relevant. We all make decisions about medical procedures and what we're willing to risk - and expect they'll be respected without us having to justify our worldview to others' satisfaction.

Anyone who drives a car takes risks, and they don't expect they'll have to justify them.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, I'm not condoning the situation, I'm merely pointing out that - in an arena where an individual has the right and responsibility to make a decision based on their own beliefs, ethics and understanding of the world, knowing full well they will live with the consequences - it's all a matter of scale.

My decision is very stringent, yours is liberal. Both of us can live with our decisions. The only stupid opinion here seems to be to have an opinion that someone else is making the wrong decision for themselves.


How can atheists - who often fight for the right to not be bound by how others think they should behave - not extend that right to others?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Where does one draw the line that something is not a legitimate religious practice but rather a delusional psychiatric condition? Do we, as a society, have to sit back and say, "They call it a religion so it must be a religion and we have to let their children die for this," even if it appears to all the rest of us that they are insane and not able to make rational choices?

That's just it. It's not religion, it's insanity. And no, of course we should never tolerate child abuse. I don't see this as a religious thing, done by religious people. It was a crazy thing, done by crazy people.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Again, I'm not condoning the situation, I'm merely pointout that - in an arena where an individual has the right and responsibility to make a decision based on their own beliefs, ethics and understadning of the world, knowing full well they will live with the consequences - it's all a matter of scale. My decision is very stringent, yours is liberal.

The only stupid opinion here seems to be to have an opinion that someone else is making the wrong decision for themselves.How can atheists, who fight for the right to not be bound by how others think they should behave, not extend that right to others?

Atheists don't say that, they are still bound by the secular laws of their country. I think most countries enable the authorities to act in spite of someone's wishes. I think this is a case where such a law would actually make sense, in cases of "child abuse".

Don't forget the law is the application of practical ethics.

 

[Moonbear]

Atheists don't say that, they are still bound by the secular laws of their country. I think most countries enable the authorities to act in spite of someone's wishes. I think this is a case where such a law would actually make sense, in cases of "child abuse".

Don't forget the law is the application of practical ethics.

Indeed, any time we intervene in a case of child abuse or child neglect, we are going against the wishes of the parents and their attitudes on how to raise their own child.

 

[Andre]

That's just it. It's not religion, it's insanity.

I think you would need extreme religious indoctrination at childhood to understand how this works. You'd learn to believe that these illnesses are tests of the deity about your faith. If your believe/trust is strong enough, you would be fine, the deity could either chose to cure you or alternately let you die and allow you to go to heaven, walhalla, Nirvana, Olympus or whatever eternal after life is named. So you should not interfere with his test and go see a doctor, risking eternal burning in hell, underground, hades, whatever. So better believe very in deity very strongly.

 

[russ_watters]

Regardless, her parents did their best to care for her, at least within the context of their own knowledge levels and beliefs.

That isn't true. This is, unfortunately, not uncommon in the US and as is often the case, I expect these parents will be tried and convicted of neglegent homicide.

There is lots of precedent and the issue is clear: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3DA133CF933A15757C0A96F948260

 

[DaveC426913]

Indeed, any time we intervene in a case of child abuse or child neglect, we are going against the wishes of the parents and their attitudes on how to raise their own child.

Yes, that is a good point.

There is quite a bit of room for error in the tug-of-war between a parents' rights to raise their children (or even have them) and societies right/responsibility to step in.

Buuuuut I suppose "even if it results in death" is pretty hard to defend.

 

[russ_watters]

Again, I'm not condoning the situation, I'm merely pointing out that - in an arena where an individual has the right and responsibility to make a decision based on their own beliefs, ethics and understanding of the world, knowing full well they will live with the consequences - it's all a matter of scale.

That's true, but it is completely irrelevant to this case. The person who died was a child who does not have the responsibility to make such decisions. The decision was made by their parents.

You are certainly allowed to make certain decisions that could cause your own death. But the constitution protects others from being harmed by your bad decisions.

 

[humanino]

You are certainly allowed to make certain decisions that could cause your own death. But the constitution protects others from being harmed by your bad decisions.

Can the parents be sued ? Should they have been removed from their kid in the first place !?

May I just point out, those people vote right ?

 

[binzing]

Its similar to people that smoke in their cars with their kids or pets in the car at the same time. The child or pet has no choice.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Its similar to people that smoke in their cars with their kids or pets in the car at the same time. The child or pet has no choice.

It's not really, smoking in your car at the same time as your child/dog is in there at least means they can open the window. And it won't end up with them dead directly.

It's more like using your child/dog as bait to catch great whites.

 

[BobG]

That's true, but it is completely irrelevant to this case. The person who died was a child who does not have the responsibility to make such decisions. The decision was made by their parents.

You are certainly allowed to make certain decisions that could cause your own death. But the constitution protects others from being harmed by your bad decisions.

1) A person is restricted from some decisions about their own death, especially if they'll require assistance from someone else in following through on those decisions.

2) The constitution only protects a person from being harmed by another's decision after they've actually been born.

3) The constitution doesn't prevent society from killing someone as punishment.

4) You can't force someone to pursue all possible avenues of treatment for a terminal illness, regardless of cost, when the chance of success is small.

5) You can't force hospitals to provide all possible avenues of treatment for a terminal illness when the patient has no means to pay.

6) Even Congress can't force a man to his wife alive even when the capability exists to do so indefinitely.

Philosophically, there is no hard and fast rule that runs consistently through the laws.

 

[binzing]

Last time I checked, infants and small kids can't open windows, and dogs don't have hands to even try. It is similar.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

1) A person is restricted from some decisions about their own death, especially if they'll require assistance from someone else in following through on those decisions.

2) The constitution only protects a person from being harmed by another's decision after they've actually been born.

Yes not sure what you mean, but of course.

3) The constitution doesn't prevent society from killing someone as punishment.

A child?

4) You can't force someone to pursue all possible avenues of treatment for a terminal illness, regardless of cost, when the chance of success is small.

You can if its a child I'm sure, and the illness wasn't terminal with medical help.

5) You can't force hospitals to provide all possible avenues of treatment for a terminal illness when the patient has no means to pay.

You can but that's another thread.

6) Even Congress can't force a man to his wife alive even when the capability exists to do so indefinitely.

No but they can in cases of child abuse force the family to keep the child alive by simple medical methods such as insulin injections.

Philosophically, there is no hard and fast rule that runs consistently through the laws.

No, but then in the real world, there must be laws that although not hard and fast apply very well to situations where a child is in danger of abuse by wilful neglect or otherwise.

Last time I checked, infants and small kids can't open windows, and dogs don't have hands to even try. It is similar.

No but the parents can. It's not even close. You are in fact trying to say that putting a child in the back of the car and smoking is equivalent to letting them die of diabetes because they believed the lord would save them. It's more akin to dropping a child off a cliff because God should save them than it is to that and that isn't even close.

 

[BobG]

Last time I checked, infants and small kids can't open windows, and dogs don't have hands to even try. It is similar.

Heh, yet my beagle once rolled the window up, forgetting to pull her head inside first. All while I'm driving down a busy highway wondering "What the heck?!" I was glad the driver's buttons over rode all of the other window buttons.

Uh, totally off topic, but ...

 

[binzing]

With the exception of a few inquisitive animals. (Bob's beagle included)

 

[Moridin]

Ah, the plot thickens!

Child fatalities from religion-motivated medical neglect

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate deaths of children from families in which faith healing was practiced in lieu of medical care and to determine if such deaths were preventable. DESIGN: Cases of child fatality in faith-healing sects were reviewed. Probability of survival for each was then estimated based on expected survival rates for children with similar disorders who receive medical care. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-two children who died between 1975 and 1995 and were identified by referral or record search. Criteria for inclusion were evidence that parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals and documentation sufficient to determine the cause of death. RESULTS: One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. Eighteen more had expected survival rates of >50%. All but 3 of the remainder would likely have had some benefit from clinical help. CONCLUSIONS: When faith healing is used to the exclusion of medical treatment, the number of preventable child fatalities and the associated suffering are substantial and warrant public concern. Existing laws may be inadequate to protect children from this form of medical neglect.

 

[Moonbear]

1) A person is restricted from some decisions about their own death, especially if they'll require assistance from someone else in following through on those decisions.

2) The constitution only protects a person from being harmed by another's decision after they've actually been born.

3) The constitution doesn't prevent society from killing someone as punishment.

4) You can't force someone to pursue all possible avenues of treatment for a terminal illness, regardless of cost, when the chance of success is small.

5) You can't force hospitals to provide all possible avenues of treatment for a terminal illness when the patient has no means to pay.

6) Even Congress can't force a man to his wife alive even when the capability exists to do so indefinitely.

Philosophically, there is no hard and fast rule that runs consistently through the laws.

This wasn't a case where the treatment was risky, or where the chances of recovery were low if treatment were given. This is a case where treatment is simple, readily available, and allows the patient to live a long, normal life.

 

[russ_watters]

1) A person is restricted from some decisions about their own death, especially if they'll require assistance from someone else in following through on those decisions.

2) The constitution only protects a person from being harmed by another's decision after they've actually been born.

3) The constitution doesn't prevent society from killing someone as punishment.

4) You can't force someone to pursue all possible avenues of treatment for a terminal illness, regardless of cost, when the chance of success is small.

5) You can't force hospitals to provide all possible avenues of treatment for a terminal illness when the patient has no means to pay.

6) Even Congress can't force a man to his wife alive even when the capability exists to do so indefinitely.

Philosophically, there is no hard and fast rule that runs consistently through the laws.

I'm aware of all of those things - but none are relevant to the case in the OP. I'm not really sure what your point is...

 

[russ_watters]

Can the parents be sued ?

I don't think there is anyone who could sue them, though I suppose if the child had lived she may have been able to do it. Perhaps the grandparents could have sued on the child's behalf, but it's too late now. I suppose when child services challenges custody, it is similar to a lawsuit, but again, unless someone notices the problem, child services is never called.

Should they have been removed from their kid in the first place !?

Unfortunately, there isn't really any way to know how bad parents are going to be until they do it. There are plenty of cases where kids are removed from their parents due to this type of abuse (there was one in Philly where a neighbor noticed a big tumor on the neck of a kid and called the police...), but unfortunately, no one found out what was going on until it was too late in this case.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

I'm aware of all of those things - but none are relevant to the case in the OP. I'm not really sure what your point is...

I'm pretty sure the second one is.

 

[Evo]

Are they going to be prosecuted for homicide in the child's death? Or are they going to be commited to a mental institution? It has to be one or the other. You just can't kill somone and say, "oh, well we prayed".

What would the ruling be if they had hit someone with their car and instead of calling an ambulance, and saved the person's life, had just prayed that the person would miraculously stop bleeding to death and that person died as a result of their refusal to call for help?

It would be very scary to let this kind of thing go unpunished. Anyone could just let someone die and use the excuse that they prayed to avoid charges.

These parents are obviously sick. Why haven't the other children be taken into protective custody and why aren't the parents under psychiatric evaluation? What is wrong with our system?

 

[Astronuc]

This is, unfortunately, not uncommon in the US and as is often the case, I expect these parents will be tried and convicted of neglegent homicide.

It would seem to me to be a case of negligent homicide, in which the parents deprived the child in their care of necessary medical attention.

 

[Moonbear]

These parents are obviously sick. Why haven't the other children be taken into protective custody and why aren't the parents under psychiatric evaluation? What is wrong with our system?

Indeed, that is what I think is needed more than just putting them in prison. If they not only neglected the child like that, but are still expecting if they keep praying the child might be resurrected, then this is really indicative of a mental illness (how two people with similar illness wound up together, I don't know, but it sure sounds like it). If these beliefs somehow came from their interactions with others in their small Bible study group, it seems those people should be questioned a bit too...it may just be this couple who took things way too far, or there may be a small subculture of child neglect among this group of people.

 

[chroot]

A critical distinction that does not appear to have been brought up yet is that between the parents' religious beliefs and the child's religious beliefs.

There are three stances:

1) Children inherit and must adhere to their gaurdians' religious beliefs until they are of legal age to no longer need guardianship.

3) Children are regarded as able to make decisions regarding their own practice of religion, regardless of what their parents believe.

2) Children are too young to make choices about religion at all, and thus religious arguments should never be applied to children in the first place.

The only possible ways that one can consider it 'reasonable' for a 11 year-old girl to die for lack of medical treatment are a) a belief in the automatic inheritance of religion, or b) because the child him/herself was given the choice and chose against it.

Now, I'll make it no secret that I think the automatic inheritance of religious beliefs should be criminal. No one should ever be forced to adhere to anyone else's religious thought, regardless of age.

Let's be honest: an 11 year-old is certainly aware enough of the world to understand a doctor's explanation of her condition, the necessary treatment, and the enormous number of successfully treated people. It is impossible to believe that a 11 year-old, on the verge of death after suffering for months, would voluntarily decline medical attention after it were explained.

Anyone who makes apologies for these people must believe that one does not have authority over one's own body until one is a legal adult. That belief is entirely incompatible with the concept of child abuse, of course. If you believe that parents have dominion over the bodies of their children in the context of medical care, you also necessarily believe that parents have dominion over the bodies of their children in every other disgusting way. It's a slippery slope.

Bottom line: each individual has a right to control what happens with his or her own body, regardless of age. Any other belief is idiocy. This is basic human rights. It's not even worthy of a discussion.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

Let's be honest: an 11 year-old is certainly aware enough of the world to understand a doctor's explanation of her condition, the necessary treatment, and the enormous number of successfully treated people. It is impossible to believe that a 11 year-old, on the verge of death after suffering for months, would voluntarily decline medical attention after it were explained.

Whoa chroot. Did you read the article? She hadn't been to a doctor since she was three and apparently was not aware of her condition.

The parents told investigators their daughter last saw a doctor when she was 3 to get some shots, Vergin said. The girl had attended public school during the first semester but didn't return for the second semester.

 

[chroot]

You're telling me that an 11 year-old girl was not aware that she deathly ill for months, nor was she aware that such things as doctors and hospitals existed? Give me a break.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

You're telling me that an 11 year-old girl was not aware that she deathly ill for months, nor was she aware that such things as doctors and hospitals existed? Give me a break.

- Warren

Yes, these types of families keep their children away from such knowledge or contact. She wasn't attending school. All she knew was what her parents were telling her. And in a weakend state and brainwashed, do you think even if she had somehow found out that there was anything she could do that she would have been capable of doing it? Do you think she had internet access or even a phone?

 

[chroot]

Then it's child abuse, pure and simple. The parents knew that other options existed, yet purposefully withheld them from the child, so the child could not make an informed decision about her own body. Throw 'em in jail.

- Warren

 

[DaveC426913]

Anyone who makes apologies for these people must believe that one does not have authority over one's own body until one is a legal adult. That belief is entirely incompatible with the concept of child abuse, of course. If you believe that parents have dominion over the bodies of their children in the context of medical care, you also necessarily believe that parents have dominion over the bodies of their children in every other disgusting way. It's a slippery slope.

Bottom line: each individual has a right to control what happens with his or her own body, regardless of age. Any other belief is idiocy. This is basic human rights. It's not even worthy of a discussion.

Ah yes. You speak of the Great Tragedy of '89, when tens of thousands of children died setting off giant firecrackers while playing in heavy traffic because the children insisted their parents had no dominion over what risks they could subject their bodies to.


Oh wait. That never happened. Because parents are responsible for their children.

 

[chroot]

Because parents are responsible for their children.

No. Parents are responsible for providing the best possible environment for their children to survive to adulthood, which includes things like education and supervision. A child, like all people, is ultimately the only person with any right to make decisions about his or her own body. Any other system of belief results in contradictions, and thus is not rational.

- Warren