Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead Getting Medical Help

[VashtiMaiden]

Please do not think that because your parents decided to pray for your brother that it made him get better.

I believe, it is bec. of FAITH.

 

[Cyrus]

I believe, it is bec. of FAITH.

That has nothing to do with what I said at all dear.

 

[Cyrus]

There *is* basis for their belief that their prayers will be answered in their religion. In fact, that's the whole point of praying! I gave the resurrection example to point out that people can believe a person came back from the dead. It doesn't take a big leap of faith to extend that to others. The initial premise of resurrection and of healing by prayer has a basis in religion.



Why is this relevant to this issue? There will *always* be some uncertainty regarding any medical treatment, and no treatment is 100 percent effective.

The point is, when the efficacy of the treatment is based on scientific evidence and is known to work, while the alternate is prayer which has no scientific evidence, isn't this scenario clear enough where the parent is guilty of neglect?



Replace God with invisible dragon, and my point is made.

You leave my invisible dragon alone

Hes going to shoot fire on your butt you heathen.

 

[russ_watters]

These particular beliefs are a pseudo-logical extension of the basic religious faiths. I have difficulty considering such people to be insane - the faith is just a matter of degree. And I know, personally, two people who practice such a religion, and the religion aside, they are quite logical people (and great engineers!). As you can imagine, everyone in a religion like that is touched by an untimely death. One of them had a sister die in childbirth a few years ago when she likely could have been saved had she given birth in a hospital instead of at home.

Vashtimaiden, you may believe that prayer helped in this one case, but the evidence is unequivocable that a policy of prayer alone results in more deaths.

And I'd like to remind everyone that this is not a strictly religious issue. You may have forgotten, but we had this discussion a year ago when a couple of vegitarians starved their son to death (Remember - I titled the thread "Killer Hippies Convicted of Murder" - you all loved that one). And then there's alternative medicine (we have an open thread on homeopathy right now). The human failings common to these events are the same human failings present in everyone: the capacity for irrational behavior/beliefs and self delusion. It's all just a matter of degree.

 

[Gokul43201]

...so faith and prayer can always be logically justified though personal experience.

Oxymoron!

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

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

Thread closed.

The compassionate thing to do would be to lock all these dangerous "believers" up in prisons. It wouldn't be the moral thing to do though.

What is wise and what is moral or legal are not always the same thing.

On a religious note, I'm starting to realize why the Papalcy tried to keep religion out of the hands of the peasantry. John Wyclife was a monster!

I believe, it is bec. of FAITH.

The operative word is believe, the descriptive term for that is faith. You are fully entitled to believe anything, but it does not impinge upon whether it is true or not. That is at heart why all religion at some level is somewhat irrational, not insane, not totally irrational but somewhat irrational, that is a tenet of faith mentioned in The Bible, and part of faith.

 

[VashtiMaiden]

That has nothing to do with what I said at all dear.

My brother is near to death, you know, and there is no doctors available since it is in the middle of the night when it happened...>.>... and we never go to the doctor unless it is necessary.

 

[lisab]

Long thread, don't know if this was posted or not:

Grilled cheesus.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Grilled cheesus.

Careful I'm a reformed Alfredoist and although I believe Cheesus was a Pizza delivery man. I do not believe he worked for Dominoes (PBUT) nor that he was stoned to death for being half an hour late.

 

[Moridin]

Atheist Sees Image of Big Bang in Piece of Toast

(ACPA-london) Excitement is growing in the Northern England town of Huddlesfield following the news that a local man saw an image of the Big-Bang in a piece of toast. Atheist Donald Chapman, 36, told local newspaper, "The Huddlesfield Express" that he was sitting down to eat breakfast when an unusual toast pattern caught his eye.

"I was just about to spread the butter when I noticed what was a fairly typical small hole in the bread surrounded by a burnt black ring. However the direction and splatter patterns of the crumbs and the changing shades emanating outwards from this black hole were very clearly similar to the chaotic-dynamic non-linear patterns that one would expect following the Big-Bang". "It's the beginning of the world" he added excitedly. Images of the actual Big Bang toast are copyrighted by Don Chapman so we can only show this image which is a US Govt public domain picture

Ever since news of the discovery made national headlines, local hoteliers have been overwhelmed by an influx of atheists from all over the country who have flocked to Huddlesfield to catch a glimpse of the scientific relic. "I have always been an Atheist and to see my life choices validated on a piece of toast is truly astounding" said one guest at the Huddlesfield Arms hotel.

 

[BobG]

Interesting arguments.

How about if it wasn't religiously motivated?

How about groups who consider their cultural and spiritual health to be more important than a single individual's physical health. By that, I don't mean the parents/group are living in a modern world, but only rejecting medical technology - they reject any association with modern technology, including medical technology, because the modern world would provide more of a spiritual threat to them than any benefits they might gain.

Where they look at other tribes that have interacted with the modern world and seen the young folks either stay home as alcoholics or disappear into the modern world forever - effectively dead as far as their old culture is concerned. It might be an entirely rational choice to decide they would preserve their own culture and traditions as best they knew how rather than accepting any interaction with the more modern world around them, even if it shortens the life of many in the tribe.

On the one hand, the average life span is shortened, childhood mortality is large, malnutrition is always a threat in the bad years. On the other hand, no one in their tribe ever has to watch American Idol or Fear Factor or the Playboy Channel. In fact, they don't even have to watch Bill O'Reilly! On the one hand, they learn life is about the people they love and helping each other. On the other hand, none of them can perform Newton's method of iteration.

A group deciding to have as little interaction with the modern world as possible isn't completely irrational. I'm not sure how this fits in with a coffee shop owner in Wisconsin, since they're obviously living and doing business right in the middle of the modern world. I still think there's a few subjective quality of life issues that just aren't so clear cut.

 

[Moonbear]

Dave was making the point that the parents likely believed they were doing the right thing. Are we to allow the government to determine what is and is not right in these matters? Does that pose any potential problems? I don't think parents have the right to "faith" their children to death, but where do we draw the line, and who draws it?

This is my question too, and the primary one that I think a case like this raises. I think it's very easy to look at this individual case and say, yes, this clearly crossed that line, wherever it was drawn, from freedom to practice one's religion to prosecutable child neglect. And, I think we can easily point to individual cases where one's religious practices present no harm to anyone and no intervention by anyone is appropriate. But, somewhere between no harm and great harm, there needs to be a definable threshold for a law to be enacted and an acceptable balance presented between one's right to practice one's religion and protection of a minor's rights to life.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

To be frank if there isn't a law already there should be one. There's a blanket law over here, religion gets about the same short shrift as personal freedoms to raise there kids how they see fit. If you're too stupid to realize that your kid needs help or too ignorant then tough IMO. The law is there to keep your kids alive if your not fit to do so yourself, end of story.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is my question too, and the primary one that I think a case like this raises. I think it's very easy to look at this individual case and say, yes, this clearly crossed that line, wherever it was drawn, from freedom to practice one's religion to prosecutable child neglect. And, I think we can easily point to individual cases where one's religious practices present no harm to anyone and no intervention by anyone is appropriate. But, somewhere between no harm and great harm, there needs to be a definable threshold for a law to be enacted and an acceptable balance presented between one's right to practice one's religion and protection of a minor's rights to life.

This is what I'm sayin'...

Perhaps the lynch mobs could just hold their horses for a bit.

 

[DaveC426913]

The law is there to keep your kids alive if your not fit to do so yourself, end of story.

The only question I asked is: where do you draw the line?

If "the law" decided that fertilized eggs could be frozen for later regen as a donor, and the law decided this would keep your kids alive, would that entitle the law to force you into that avenue of treatment?

No.

There is grey area here.

 

[Andre]

You might ask what's the objective of society with this kind of situation, rather than revenge, it's basically preventing things like this to happen (again) and protect people/children to become victim of malpractice.

Anyway, The question is if convicting the parents with any kind of legal punishment will have such an effect on the extreme religious groupthinkers, where social status might be measured against the strongest faith. You really need to know the mechanism of this brain washing to judge what to do.

 

[ShawnD]

And, I think we can easily point to individual cases where one's religious practices present no harm to anyone and no intervention by anyone is appropriate. But, somewhere between no harm and great harm, there needs to be a definable threshold for a law to be enacted and an acceptable balance presented between one's right to practice one's religion and protection of a minor's rights to life.

The current after-the-fact approach is about as government involved as we can get without severely restricting freedom. Drawing a parallel to that vegan couple that murdered their child through malnutrition, what would the government preventative measure be for something like that? We already have a food pyramid, but can it really be enforced by law? Should police do random searched of school lunches to ensure a balanced diet? Not getting medical treatment is basically the same thing. The government can do literally nothing to prevent this, although jail time may be needed if it can proven that someone had clear intentions of killing another person.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The only question I asked is: where do you draw the line?

If "the law" decided that fertilized eggs could be frozen for later regen as a donor, and the law decided this would keep your kids alive, would that entitle the law to force you into that avenue of treatment?

No.

There is grey area here.

That's not covered by the child protection act over here. There are separate laws for a persons right to freeze and use their embryos. So the question is unanswerable.

 

[Gokul43201]

Precedent:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ok&vol=/appeals/1988/&invol=1988okcr109

Kevin Eugene Funkhouser and Jamie Ann Funkhouser, appellants, were jointly charged, tried and convicted by a jury in McClain County District Court Case Nos. CRF-83-126 and CRF-83-127 for Manslaughter in the Second Degree. Both appellants received two (2) year sentences.

..

Kevin Eugene Funkhouser and Jamie Ann Funkhouser were jointly charged, tried and convicted by a jury in McClain County District Court Case Nos. CRF-83-126 and CRF-83-127 of Manslaughter in the Second Degree. Both appellants received two (2) year sentences. From these sentences the appellants appeal.

On July 15, 1983, Benjamin Keith Funkhouser, the appellants' three month old son died at home from complications arising from pneumonia. The appellants, although knowing Benjamin was ill, did not seek medical help. Instead, the parents relied on prayer and divine intervention to heal their child. The parents are members of The Church of The New Born that relies on divine intervention for healing sickness to the exclusion of medical assistance.

The church bases its belief on James 5:14-15 of the Holy Bible. Pursuant to scripture, the elders of the church prayed for Benjamin and annointed him with oil one week prior to his death, and they visited again three days before he died.

I can't tell if the church elders were charged too.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just read another article on this - the father of the girl was an ex-cop!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gy_FocuLcPyslOqVeaOFan8yo7eQD8VLUSO01

The girl's father, Dale Neumann, a former police officer, said he started CPR "as soon as the breath of life left" his daughter's body.

I just can't figure out the psyche of the father. Did he lose faith in his prayer, when his daughter stopped breathing? Did he have "unshakeable" confidence up until that moment? What caused him to switch loyalty from prayer to medical procedure? Or was he never really confident that his prayers would be answered?

 

[Evo]

Just read another article on this - the father of the girl was an ex-cop!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gy_FocuLcPyslOqVeaOFan8yo7eQD8VLUSO01



I just can't figure out the psyche of the father. Did he lose faith in his prayer, when his daughter stopped breathing? Did he have "unshakeable" confidence up until that moment? What caused him to switch loyalty from prayer to medical procedure? Or was he never really confident that his prayers would be answered?

That is so horrible, so sad. How can anyone refuse to do whatever is necessary for their child's welfare?

Surely they knew that their child's condition was easily treatable, but chose to ignore it.

 

[B. Elliott]

Parents Pick Prayer Over Docs; Girl Dies

I just read this on livescience.com when a question popped into my head. Could the parents be held responsible for the childs death by refusing to take her to a doctor? Or better yet, should they?

WESTON, Wis. (AP) — Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor.

An autopsy showed Madeline Neumann died Sunday of diabetic ketoacidosis, a condition that left too little insulin in her body, Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said.

She had probably been ill for about a month, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness, the chief said Wednesday, noting that he expects to complete the investigation by Friday and forward the results to the district attorney.

The girl's mother, Leilani Neumann, said that she and her family believe in the Bible and that healing comes from God, but that they do not belong to an organized religion or faith, are not fanatics and have nothing against doctors.

http://www.livescience.com/health/08...yer-death.html

 

[Poop-Loops]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224472

Sorry.

 

[Danger]

I haven't even read the other thread regarding this subject, and I don't know an awful lot about Yankee law... but I'm thinking that the least that they could be charged with is negligent homicide.
I'm not sure what the exact term is. It's what we call 'criminal negligence causing death'.

 

[russ_watters]

I just read this on livescience.com when a question popped into my head. Could the parents be held responsible for the childs death by refusing to take her to a doctor? Or better yet, should they?

The other thread has already been linked, but in any case, the answer to the questioni is a firm: they will be. In the US, praying instead of taking a dying child to a doctor is murder.

 

[B. Elliott]

The other thread has already been linked, but in any case, the answer to the questioni is a firm: they will be. In the US, praying instead of taking a dying child to a doctor is murder.

Thanks for linking to this thread Russ... I completely looked over the original. The Times link you posted is reassuring because I was afraid with this being a religious issue, that any attorney wouldn't touch the case with a 10' pole. Following a religion is one thing, but if it involves throwing logic out the window along with putting someone elses life on the line, just because of ones belief... big no-no. A very big one.

 

[Moonbear]

Thanks for linking to this thread Russ... I completely looked over the original. The Times link you posted is reassuring because I was afraid with this being a religious issue, that any attorney wouldn't touch the case with a 10' pole. Following a religion is one thing, but if it involves throwing logic out the window along with putting someone elses life on the line, just because of ones belief... big no-no. A very big one.

I think the general attitude is that if you think prayer will help, by all means do it...on the way to the doctor, while seeing the doctor, after returning home from the doctor, etc. If your belief is that God decides who lives and dies, then you can give God the chance to work through your doctor, and if it's not meant to be, then nothing the doctor does will help. This allows one to practice their faith without endangering a child by refusing to seek medical attention.

 

[Noone]

-.-' Problem's like that happen everyday, and never gain the full public view, and when they do, there is a bigger reason why it has...

This is a classic example how the lack of understanding of what a person desire's or wishes to be done onto one's self

Think of it this way... if that child was 23 years old had a car a nice house, a great job, then she became termaly ill, would she do the actions that her parents done? Or would she have made her own choice to fight to live... But at the age of 23 she would not be a child, and she would be able to think for her self and deside if going to the doctor is worth it for her, and her family(mainly the cost of money) But her father and mother made those choice's for her, which were made in the interests of the parent's and not the child, so therefore that's why the actions that they took is a crime... but they would lack the point of view of see'ing that from the action's they took... so to them it was fate by god, by the eye's of man and logic, would be act negligence. therefore by the point of view of the court system, they would be held acountable for there action's. Even if the child were to say that she wants to die or doesn't want to go to the doctor, those thoughts could or would be created by the comment's and information that there parents have told there child. (Mainly by saying that don't worry you don't need to go to the doctor "god" will heal you.) dang near brain washing...just forget the logical outcome of the illness that you have...God got's a magical band aid for you :D

But one thing that is true, money is also a key factor in effecting the judgment of the parent's in any illness...But if people want to lisson to there own voice in there head and say its some other one... i respect what they say, make or think is true...but they and everyone should respect that of which is other's people's point of view, mainly because they would like there own point of view respected.

So i would just use there own ways to show them that what they have choosen is not correct choice for your child or for you...

Do onto other's as you want done onto your self... Only work's if you don't lie to your self... So the mother would put her self in the child's spot, would she want someone els making all the choice's for her? the answer is no, would she want someone els effecting what she thinks is true and not true, and making here point of view no longer her's but brain washed into something els? Answer is also no... but yet she done such onto her own child... this is an example how people of the faith still do not understand what the true faith is all about... Sorry if it seem's the word brain washing is to harsh.. but the word was created in china, as a method of raisen there kid's to the parent's or goverment's point of view... so it seem's like it matche's the action that the parent's have done...
Lovely world...-.-'

 

[Moridin]

The interface between religion and psychosis

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to explore the interface between religion and psychosis, and to comment on its relevance in clinical practice. METHOD: The context of religious psychotic phenomena is briefly discussed, leading to an examination of the biological substrates of religious experiences, the hypothesized process of religious psychotic symptom formation, and the clinical implications when assessing religious delusions. A PubMED search was conducted to identify original research and review articles of relevance to the discussion. RESULTS: Religion is an enduring theme in psychosis, the understanding of which can be assisted by distinguishing between religion as a culture and religiosity as pathology. There are strong arguments for the involvement of temporolimbic instability in the generation of religious psychotic symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosis can be conceptualized as the manifestation of aberrant perceptual and/or integrative processes. The prevalence of religion as a psychotic theme may be explained by its central cultural role, the implication of temporolimbic overactivity in the pathogenesis of some cases of psychosis, and the tendency to interpret intense or discrepant perceptual events as spiritual. In the clinical setting, the determination of religious delusions can be challenging at times. In addition to seeking advice on unfamiliar religions, a thorough assessment of the dimensions of religious beliefs and symptoms of neurocognitive dysfunction can be useful.

[See disclaimer below]

|
|
|
V

 

[Evo]

I would add a disclaimer that this would apply in the sense of someone already being prone to psychosis may focus on religion, something they may view as powerful, or forbidden, etc...

I would not say that a belief in religion necessarily leads to psychosis. Anyway, my company is here and I can't finish this thought.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm going to add to that disclaimer to make it perfectly clear that religious psychosis is NOT the same as being religious. People who have certain mental illnesses can have unusual expressions of religiosity...this is not the same...not even close...to the way religions are practiced among normal people.

Within the context of this story, however, it is possible that the more extreme components of this couple's beliefs may indeed have arisen from a psychiatric break of some sort...in particular, their belief that they can pray to have their daughter resurrected. This is well outside the norm of religious beliefs and practices. Of course, this also could be a simple manifestation of their grief...denial that their daughter is really gone.

 

[Gokul43201]

Reviving an old story...

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.

I haven't even read the other thread regarding this subject, and I don't know an awful lot about Yankee law... but I'm thinking that the least that they could be charged with is negligent homicide.
I'm not sure what the exact term is. It's what we call 'criminal negligence causing death'.

The parents were indeed charged and the trial has just begun.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/45214542.html

Neumann, 41, and her husband, Dale, have been charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the death of their daughter, Madeline Kara Neumann. Dale Neumann's trial is set for July.

The couple sought to heal the 11-year-old through prayer and ignored the pleas of friends and relatives who urged them to take Kara to a doctor as she became increasingly weak and eventually lapsed into a coma over Easter weekend last year.

She died about 3:30 p.m. on Easter Sunday, moments after a neighbor called 911.
...
...the prosecutor was forced to stop his opening statement when Leilani Neumann slumped and put her head into her arms on the defense table. Her husband and other supporters helped her from the courtroom.

She wobbled and appeared dazed.

Her attorney, Gene Linehan, told Circuit Judge Vincent Howard that she had a "total mental and emotional breakdown" and reported she had no feeling in her arms and legs.

"It's pretty clear to me at this point she can't participate in her defense," Linehan said.

Howard ordered an immediate medical evaluation, performed by an area ambulance crew.

Neumann apparently agreed to the limited medical help, then returned to the courtroom in a wheelchair.

Interesting that Neumann agreed to medical help and a wheelchair when it came to her own health.

 

[OAQfirst]

Maybe if they pray hard enough, they will be acquitted?

 

[russ_watters]

Reviving an old story...

And another one making the news now...similar, but with the notable difference that the kid isn't dead yet:

MINNEAPOLIS - A Minnesota couple who refused chemotherapy for their 13-year-old son were ordered yesterday to have the boy reevaluated to see if he would still benefit from the cancer treatment - or if it might already be too late.
Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser had been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20090516_Judge__Minn__boy__13__must_see_cancer_doctor.html

 

[arunbg]

I wonder what the minimum sentence would be if they are convicted.
Would it be enough incentive for them to abandon theirs beliefs?

 

[rootX]

I wonder what the minimum sentence would be if they are convicted.
Would it be enough incentive for them to abandon theirs beliefs?

I think it's not about making them abandon their beliefs .. but
1) just to prevent these kind of incidents from happening in the future
2) punish them for their negligence which resulted in homicide (but they have already punished enough for this assuming that they loved their child).

Perfect punishment would be making them volunteer (like spreading awareness .. etc) so that other people don't make same mistakes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I wonder what the minimum sentence would be if they are convicted.
Would it be enough incentive for them to abandon theirs beliefs?

For some people, it could end up strengthening their beliefs. Also, consider this: To abandon their beliefs now would be to admit to themselves that they caused their child's death. Which do you think is easier: To live with the idea that their child died needlessly and by their hand, or to seek a deeper spiritual connection that justifies the death?

There is also the possibility that these events will be viewed as the fulfillment of some spiritual destiny.

Recall that according to Biblical teachings, Abraham was asked to sacrifice his child for God. An Angel stopped him just in time as he began to thrust the knife. This story is told as an example of Abraham's great faith.

 

[arunbg]

For some people, it could end up strengthening their beliefs. Also, consider this: To abandon their beliefs now would be to admit to themselves that they caused their child's death. Which do you think is easier: To live with the idea that their child died needlessly and by their hand, or to seek a deeper spiritual connection that justifies the death?

Exactly the point I am trying to make. Spending time in the slammer is not going to make them change their views. I don't even think it would deter like-minded individuals from doing the same. And as you say, if the incident only strengthens their belief, the only point in the punishment would be to keep them from influencing other people, and also maybe build awareness among sane folk to watch out for these kind of people.

I strongly believe they need some form of counseling too, preferably from someone from the church, who they would listen too.

Otherwise when their term gets over, what is going to prevent them from resuming where they left off with renewed enthusiasm? Maybe lead other people along the same path.

 

[vorcil]

this really P***es me off
I hate people who do things like this.

 

[Gokul43201]

Also, consider this: To abandon their beliefs now would be to admit to themselves that they caused their child's death.

Well, if the mother is now admitting herself to medical tests and using a wheelchair (instead of a prayer), would that not indicate that she is already abandoning at least some of these beliefs?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, if the mother is now admitting herself to medical tests and using a wheelchair (instead of a prayer), would that not indicate that she is already abandoning at least some of these beliefs?

I don't know. It depends on the specifics of their beliefs and the circumstances.

Tsu once had blood splashed in her eyes as the ER crew removed the clothing of a patient. While it was acceptable for the patient to receive emergency treatment of various sorts, it was against her religion to submit to an AIDS test. We were left hoping that she wasn't HIV positive.