Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead Getting Medical Help

[VashtiMaiden]

How do you know the praying worked? Never considered that it could be the doctor who cured your brother?

Actually, we didn't go to the doctor.

 

[VashtiMaiden]

Ok, but please, continue going to the doctor after praying.

yeah.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Um.. no. My point is that religious beliefs should not interfere with reality when treating children.

That is an extreme case - the point to which you had responded.

You can't dismiss this incident as saying it's got nothing to do with religion. These people may not represent your idea of what constitutes normal religious people, but my point is that their inaction was a direct result of a belief that a supernatural entity can answer prayers.

I disagree. This is about two people who have mental problems. Unless you can show that faith typically leads to this type of behavior, it is not logical to assign this as a faith problem. It is a mental issue, pure and simple.

If the treatment is unclear, has no consensus, has a low success rate, etc, then a parent has the right to withhold treatment.

At what odds?

However, there are clear cut scenarios, such as this incident,

What odds are "clear cut", and whose odds?

Yes, but don't you agree that these rare cases can be prevented if there are laws which allow the government to interfere and treat the child?

Yes and I made that pretty clear in my post.

I think that's a crazy comparison. How bout looking at how many lives are directly saved by treatment in hospitals, and how many lives are directly saved by prayer alone (ie, none)?

First of all, to say that none are saved by prayer is a faith statement. You can test all that you want but you can never rule out the divine with logic. And you are only assigning value based on a treatment-cure scenario. There are other contributions that have value. And for the record, churches do save lives as well - many many lives. Many times the last stop that saves a person from the grave is religious transformation. In fact the former pastor of Tsu's church was a MIT Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry who was driven to drink by his profession. He worked on the Star Wars systems and eventually couldn't take the pressure. He ended up a gutter drunk who only escaped his death trap through religion. And as is apparent, he went on to join the ministry and was a much happier person for doing so than he had ever been before.

 

[siddharth]

I disagree. This is about two people who have mental problems. Unless you can show that faith typically leads to this type of behavior, it is not logical to assign this as a faith problem. It is a mental issue, pure and simple.

I disagree as well :)

Remember that a lot of people of this particular religion believe in a deity who resurrected himself after death. These people are only extending that belief to the child. I am attributing this partly to faith, because their inaction was a direct result of an aspect of faith. (ie, god answers prayers, and prayer cures the sick).

At what odds?

What odds are "clear cut", and whose odds?

"Clear cut" is when available scientific evidence shows that there is a successful treatment available, where the biological cause of the ailment is understood, and the reason the treatment works is known, and when there is no scientific evidence behind the alternative choice.

Yes and I made that pretty clear in my post.

Ok, I must have not seen that. In fact, after reading your posts, I thought you were arguing the contrary. Thanks for clearing that up.

First of all, to say that none are saved by prayer is a faith statement. You can test all that you want but you can never rule out the divine with logic. And you are only assigning value based on a treatment-cure scenario.

To say none are saved by prayer is a statement based on scientific evidence. You can't rule out an invisible dragon with logic either.

There are other contributions that have value. And for the record, churches do save lives as well - many many lives.

I'm not questioning this. As I said in the previous post, I'm questioning the use of prayer alone to attempt to treat a potentially fatal ailment in a child, when there's medicine which clearly works. In my opinion, this is a form of child abuse, and there should be laws which prevent and discourage these scenarios from happening.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is an old church joke about this sort of thing.

There was a great flood. A man of great faith was warned by the police that he needed to evacuate, to which he replied, "Don't worry. I have faith that God will save me!"

The waters rose and eventually he had nowhere left to go but to the roof of his house. As he sat there, some people in a boat came by and offered him a ride to safety. He yelled to them: "Don't worry. I have faith that God will save me!"

The waters continued to rise and he was now standing on the peak of his roof and knee-deep in water. A helicopter came by and dropped him a rope. He refuse the rope while yelling to the helicopter pilot: "Don't worry, I have faith. God will save me!"

Within the hour he had drowned.

Being quite angry about all of this [dying a horrible death and all], he went to God to complain: I lived a good life. I went to church, I followed your commandments, I helped others when I could, and to the end I had faith. Why did you abandon me?

Abandon you? God replied. I sent the police, a boat, and a helicopter, what more did you need??

 

[EL]

Actually, we didn't go to the doctor.

So you're saying your brother was near dying and you didn't take him to a doctor?
If so, I think you should be put in prison.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I disagree as well :)

Remember that a lot of people of this particular religion believe in a deity who resurrected himself after death. These people are only extending that belief to the child. I am attributing this partly to faith, because their inaction was a direct result of an aspect of faith. (ie, prayer cures the sick).

But there is no basis for the belief that they have. Nowhere does Christianity teach of self-resurrection. It is like blaming physicists for crackpot theories. And again, unless you can show that religion in the US leads to this sort of behavior generally, your statement is unfounded. It is not my opinion. It is a fact.

"Clear cut" is when available scientific evidence shows that there is a successful treatment available, where the biological cause of the ailment is understood, and the reason the treatment works is known, and when there is no scientific evidence behind the alternative choice.

At what odds? Nothing is certain even in medicine; especially in medicine!

To say none are saved by prayer is a statement based on scientific evidence. You can't rule out an invisible dragon with logic either.

Science does not address issues of dieties. To use science for something that by definition can't be tested is fallacious. Science can never rule out the existence of God or divine intervention, so faith and prayer can always be logically justified though personal experience. You assume that people have no reason to have faith, but I don't know of anyone who believes in invisible dragons.

I'm not questioning this. As I said in the previous post, I'm questioning the use of prayer to attempt to treat a potentially fatal ailment in a child, when there's medicine which clearly works.

What odds are "clearly"?

 

[VashtiMaiden]

So you're saying your brother was near dying and you didn't take him to a doctor?
If so, I think you should be put in prison.

It was in the middle of the night actually, and no doctors available.

 

[Cyrus]

It was in the middle of the night actually, and no doctors available.

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

 

[siddharth]

But there is no basis for the belief that they have. Nowhere does Christianity teach of self-resurrection. It is like blaming physicists for crackpot theories.

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.

At what odds? Nothing is certain even in medicine; especially in medicine!

What odds are "clearly"?

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?

Science does not address issues of dieties. To use science for something that by definition can't be tested is fallacious. Science can never rule out the existence of God or divine intervention, so faith and prayer can always be logically justified though personal experience.

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

 

[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?