Parents pick prayer over docs; girl dies

[snuffy65 1]

Law has long disagreed with this. Providing food, Water and shelter classifies as both abuse and neglect, and if the product of the environment lived, it would probably be feral at best.

By your rationale, locking an infant or toddler in a shack (not heated or cooled) in the mountains, or desert, or wherever... and leaving them there -- forgetting they exist -- provided there's Water and food within reach, is acceptable parenting? Or at least fulfills the responsibilities of a parent?

My comment about only food,water, and shelter maybe a bit vague. Intentionally hurting a child like sacrifices, starvation, mutilations, and anything a parent does to harm the child should be illegal and the parents should be dealt with.

However, these people did not treat an illness with modern medicine. Yes it was stupid of them, but this family was choosing whether to save a child by defying their god which in turn would damn both the parents and the child to hell.

Again this sounds stupid to alot of people but its what they believe. Theres religions that would starve their children before they would feed them meat. Theres religions that have some kind of restriction that could potentially hurt or kill a child.

People are asking how far can religions go before being stop? Well if these parents were prosecuted how far could the state go to interfere with the church?

[BJean 16]

Being the parenting police must feel pretty good in a discussion like this. But as with everything else, where will those parenting police choose to draw the line? How far will people go when they decide that what they think or believe is in the best interests of a child that isn't their own?

How exactly do you expect to make this happen? Or is everything retroactive? How can you ensure that each and every child is being raised safely?

There are no manuels that the government puts out on how one must raise a child. There are certain protections that allow us to intervene if we believe that a parent's behavior is endangering a child. But those are after the fact.

We say that we have the freedom in this country to believe and embrace whatever religion we choose and that no one can interfere with those beliefs. We allow religions to operate tax free.

What gives us the right to tell parents that they MUST believe in using conventional medicine when a child becomes ill? Even if you aren't Christian Scientist or Seventh Day Aventist or other faith that shuns much of conventional medicine, there are some doctors who should not be practicing medicine that could scare you off if you we exposed to them. Who are we to tell each other that we must take our children to a doctor or hospital? Exactly what are the parameters that you would like to have drawn up for us to go by? And I don't mean after the illness or injury has already happened.

I'm one of those who believes that we have too many laws in this country. We people need to take responsibility for ourselves and stop expecting the government to do it. We need to work with each other when we have problems like this, not condemn each other. People who have drug problems (although not the dealers) and mental health problems shouldn't be in jail. Jails should be for hardened criminals.

I know it isn't as simple as I'm attempting to make it. I am just trying to bring a little different perspective to this discussion. I really believe that this is a very gray area subject - it isn't black and white even if we'd like to think that it is that simple.

[Gone4Now 4]

Being the parenting police must feel pretty good in a discussion like this. But as with everything else, where will those parenting police choose to draw the line? How far will people go when they decide that what they think or believe is in the best interests of a child that isn't their own?

How exactly do you expect to make this happen? Or is everything retroactive? How can you ensure that each and every child is being raised safely?

There are no manuels that the government puts out on how one must raise a child. There are certain protections that allow us to intervene if we believe that a parent's behavior is endangering a child. But those are after the fact.

We say that we have the freedom in this country to believe and embrace whatever religion we choose and that no one can interfere with those beliefs. We allow religions to operate tax free.

What gives us the right to tell parents that they MUST believe in using conventional medicine when a child becomes ill? Even if you aren't Christian Scientist or Seventh Day Aventist or other faith that shuns much of conventional medicine, there are some doctors who should not be practicing medicine that could scare you off if you we exposed to them. Who are we to tell each other that we must take our children to a doctor or hospital? Exactly what are the parameters that you would like to have drawn up for us to go by? And I don't mean after the illness or injury has already happened.

I'm one of those who believes that we have too many laws in this country. We people need to take responsibility for ourselves and stop expecting the government to do it. We need to work with each other when we have problems like this, not condemn each other. People who have drug problems (although not the dealers) and mental health problems shouldn't be in jail. Jails should be for hardened criminals.

I know it isn't as simple as I'm attempting to make it. I am just trying to bring a little different perspective to this discussion. I really believe that this is a very gray area subject - it isn't black and white even if we'd like to think that it is that simple.

I understand the point you're trying to make. The bottom line, for me, was that this child had no choice.

The parents' rights to choose a religion aren't in question. It's the neglect of the child that is.

I think it's also important to note that this child was taken to the doctor to get her immunizations that were mandatory for school.

That's a flag that in THIS case the parents were willing to "damn their souls" in order to comply with the law. Why didn't they when the child was not getting better?

I do not think they meant to kill their child, but I believe that what they did was neglect and should be punishable.

[luluc 6]

Being the parenting police must feel pretty good in a discussion like this. But as with everything else, where will those parenting police choose to draw the line? How far will people go when they decide that what they think or believe is in the best interests of a child that isn't their own?

How exactly do you expect to make this happen? Or is everything retroactive? How can you ensure that each and every child is being raised safely?

There are no manuels that the government puts out on how one must raise a child. There are certain protections that allow us to intervene if we believe that a parent's behavior is endangering a child. But those are after the fact.

We say that we have the freedom in this country to believe and embrace whatever religion we choose and that no one can interfere with those beliefs. We allow religions to operate tax free.

What gives us the right to tell parents that they MUST believe in using conventional medicine when a child becomes ill? Even if you aren't Christian Scientist or Seventh Day Aventist or other faith that shuns much of conventional medicine, there are some doctors who should not be practicing medicine that could scare you off if you we exposed to them. Who are we to tell each other that we must take our children to a doctor or hospital? Exactly what are the parameters that you would like to have drawn up for us to go by? And I don't mean after the illness or injury has already happened.

I'm one of those who believes that we have too many laws in this country. We people need to take responsibility for ourselves and stop expecting the government to do it. We need to work with each other when we have problems like this, not condemn each other. People who have drug problems (although not the dealers) and mental health problems shouldn't be in jail. Jails should be for hardened criminals.

I know it isn't as simple as I'm attempting to make it. I am just trying to bring a little different perspective to this discussion. I really believe that this is a very gray area subject - it isn't black and white even if we'd like to think that it is that simple.

BJean - I do you see your point, I'm not a fan of anymore Gov't dictating how I should live my life...I do however, view sitting by seeing a child die as neglect. Neglect of the parents and family that were around this child that "could possibly" have intervened - and sought medical attention. "How" is this punnished?? - I think that's more the debate VS religoius freedom.

I don't have children - I am active in multiple Animal Shelter / Rescue Groups - and their are "Animal Police" that will take a dog from ones home if they are viewed to be neglected in terms of Shelter / Nutrition / Abuse / Disease...I don't see why it would be a crime to intervene on a Child if any of the above were to be brought to the attention of the authorities.

Wkly DH has to talk me out from wanting to pick up a stray (been bit - have scars), and it breaks my heart I can't scoop up the dog and take it for medical attention before it's run over....Can you visualize a child in the same circumstances?

I think the parents should have their day in court - and let "this society" decide their fate? If they're that "faithful"....they'll be reunited w/the other children -

[gadgetlady 4]

In my mind a parent only needs to provide food Water and shelter to their child.

Wow. Just wow.

If doctors found that something that would save your childs life, but would also damn your child to hell, which would you choose?

I can't imagine such a scenario, so I can't logically answer the question. What a doctor does to a child can't damn a child to hell.

But again, what if people had a weird religion that said God will provide all nourishment and therefore we don't have to feed our children? Would that fall under the free exercise of religion or would it fall under neglect. I place it under neglect.

[gadgetlady 4]

Remember the joke about the believer and the flood? He prays for help from God, and a truck comes...guy says no-God will save me. Flood waters rise and he's on his roof...a boat comes. No, God will save me. On his tippy toes....a helicopter comes. No, God will save me. He drowns, gets to Heaven and asked God what happened. God says, "I sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter!"

How coincidental. I've been thinking about that joke since I started reading this discussion.

[gadgetlady 4]

Kind of true, I was thinking of birth control vs. religion.

Isn't it Catholic that do not believe in forms of birth control? It's a medical intervention, but what if a woman needs it (I do) to regulate hormones & periods. I would become anemic if I didn't use them. So if I was Catholic, does that mean I couldn't use them? That's something I always wondered about.

I believe that the Catholic Church has exemptions for things like this, that would interfere with your health if you didn't take them. But I'm not sure because I'm not Catholic.

And what about abortions? This does not reflect my personal ideals, but what if they said.. if you stay pregnant, the baby will kill you.. do to irregular circumstances.

In every case where abortion has been illegal, there has been an exception if the physical life of the mother is threatened. It is taking one life to save another.

[gadgetlady 4]

Theres religions that would starve their children before they would feed them meat. Theres religions that have some kind of restriction that could potentially hurt or kill a child.

People are asking how far can religions go before being stop? Well if these parents were prosecuted how far could the state go to interfere with the church?

Here's the problem. The child DIED. The child didn't have the opportunity to protest her lack of medical treatment, and you can't reverse death.

I'm all for parents' rights, especially as it impacts religious freedom. Feed your children a wacky vegetarian diet, teach them they have to pray only while underwater, make them wear funny headdresses to honor your god, whatever. But I draw the line at death. If a wacky belief that you have causes your child to die, that is neglect at the very least.

[gadgetlady 4]

How exactly do you expect to make this happen? Or is everything retroactive? How can you ensure that each and every child is being raised safely?

I believe the government has to presume that parents will always do what is in the best interest of their children. I am a BIG believer in freedom, especially parental freedom. We're not going to have OSHA coming in to the home to check and make sure everything is up to snuff.

But when a child dies, then there is a question as to what happened. If the parents are prosecuted, it will serve as a warning to other like-minded parents, that if they ignore the physical health of their child they might be held liable in the case of that child's death.

[gadgetlady 4]

Abortion is another issue (thread), & Gadget will eloquently state her view on this

LOL! How did you know???

Essentially, I believe this is the same issue. Do we, as parents, OWN our children? Can we do whatever we want with their little bodies, to the point of killing them or allowing them to die? Of course not! They are in our care, but we don't own them by any stretch of the imagination. This is why I am so opposed to abortion as well. We do not have the right to decide for another person that their life is not worthy or up to snuff and therefore they should die. We also have a duty to ensure that those in our care are properly treated.

[BJean 16]

luluc: I know exactly how you feel. It certainly does break your heart to see anyone or any animal neglected or abused.

The problem I see is that we often won't know about a case like this until after it has already happened. I guess we could hand down a mandate to all churches that they must afford children medical care, with no exceptions. Do you think that would work? Because our intention should be to save children, not punish parents. Therefore, we would need to know about this kind of "neglect" before the child became endangered.

I used to date a wonderful man who was a Judge and a Christian Scientist. He had a little boy from his first marriage, who became congested with a cold. He fought his wife and her parents tooth and nail because he didn't believe that his son should be taken to the doctor. I found it very strange. He was a very intelligent and successful man and I was very young and seeing his dispair over the possibility of his son being harmed by medical attention, opened my thinking a little to consider his beliefs on the subject as having some possibility of being rational even though on the surface it made no sense to me.

He and his wife wound up divorced because of their religious differences. The little boy is a healthy young man today. Having known someone personally who has strong religious convictions about medical treatment has given me a little different perspective, I think.

I do not condone or think that it is right to withhold medical care for an ailing child. But I do think that we have to be very careful about passing laws that govern people's beliefs.

[anonemouse 1]

luluc: I know exactly how you feel. It certainly does break your heart to see anyone or any animal neglected or abused.

The problem I see is that we often won't know about a case like this until after it has already happened. I guess we could hand down a mandate to all churches that they must afford children medical care, with no exceptions. Do you think that would work? Because our intention should be to save children, not punish parents. Therefore, we would need to know about this kind of "neglect" before the child became endangered.

I used to date a wonderful man who was a Judge and a Christian Scientist. He had a little boy from his first marriage, who became congested with a cold. He fought his wife and her parents tooth and nail because he didn't believe that his son should be taken to the doctor. I found it very strange. He was a very intelligent and successful man and I was very young and seeing his dispair over the possibility of his son being harmed by medical attention, opened my thinking a little to consider his beliefs on the subject as having some possibility of being rational even though on the surface it made no sense to me.

He and his wife wound up divorced because of their religious differences. The little boy is a healthy young man today. Having known someone personally who has strong religious convictions about medical treatment has given me a little different perspective, I think.

I do not condone or think that it is right to withhold medical care for an ailing child. But I do think that we have to be very careful about passing laws that govern people's beliefs.

As much as I would like to see a law passed - and enforced - that required all parents to take their children to the doctor, I doubt it will happen. But I do think that there should be some sort of punishment in place if something happens to a child as a result of his or her parent's refusal to seek medical care. The best analogy that comes to my mind at the moment is car insurance laws. Many states have laws that state that all car owners must have insurance. Now, most policemen don't just pull people over randomly to check to see if they have insurance, but if something happens and they get pulled over anyway - or if they're in an accident - the insurance gets checked and the driver is punished if he doesn't have it. So, I don't think police should be randomly checking to see if you're taking your children to the doctor. But if a child dies of an illness or some other treatable problem, I do think that parents should face consequences if they refused to have medical intervention.

[snuffy65 1]

Here's the problem. The child DIED. The child didn't have the opportunity to protest her lack of medical treatment, and you can't reverse death.

I'm all for parents' rights, especially as it impacts religious freedom. Feed your children a wacky vegetarian diet, teach them they have to pray only while underwater, make them wear funny headdresses to honor your god, whatever. But I draw the line at death. If a wacky belief that you have causes your child to die, that is neglect at the very least.

Are you going to arrest jehovas witness parents when their children die due to no blood transfusions?

[gadgetlady 4]

The best analogy that comes to my mind at the moment is car insurance laws. Many states have laws that state that all car owners must have insurance. Now, most policemen don't just pull people over randomly to check to see if they have insurance, but if something happens and they get pulled over anyway - or if they're in an accident - the insurance gets checked and the driver is punished if he doesn't have it. So, I don't think police should be randomly checking to see if you're taking your children to the doctor. But if a child dies of an illness or some other treatable problem, I do think that parents should face consequences if they refused to have medical intervention.

Great analogy, laurend. Perfect.

[snuffy65 1]

If a wacky belief that you have causes your child to die, that is neglect at the very least.

Ah, so now some people's religion are wacky? Hmm, lets make the government decide which religions are "wacky". that sounds like a good idea.