Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead Getting Medical Help

[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

 

[Evo]

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

Yes, it is child abuse.

 

[DaveC426913]

Question re: child abuse.

Is there any consaideration in the criteria for child abuse that accounts for whether the parents felt that they were doing the right thing or not.

Certainly if the parents could not defend their actions as loving and considerate, then there's an obvious case for abuse. But I don't know if this is such a clear-cut case of abuse. The parents honestly felt that they were doing the right thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

No. Parents are responsible for providing the best possible environment for their children

but 'Best' is a subjective term.

A child, like all people, is ultimately the only person with any right to make decisions about his or her own body.

This is not true. Though I grant that you think it should be.

Any other system of belief results in contradictions, and thus is not rational.

That is not exactly a compelling criteria when it comes to real life, now is it?

 

[Evo]

Question re: child abuse.

Is there any consaideration in the criteria for child abuse that accounts for whether the parents felt that they were doing the right thing or not.

Certainly if the parents could not defend their actions as loving and considerate, then there's an obvious case for abuse. But I don't know if this is such a clear-cut case of abuse. The parents honestly felt that they were doing the right thing.

The parents are crazy. If they thought the child was inhabited by demons and the only way to save her was to cut off all of her limbs and set her on fire, you're ok with that because they had good intentions?

These psycho parents allowed their daughter to die a horrible, slow, painful death because they are insane.

 

[chroot]

Again, the parents cannot "do the right thing or not" with respect to someone else's body. The parents had a responsibility to educate the child about the various options available to her, and thus failed to meet that responsibility.

This really has nothing to do with what the parents thought was the "right thing to do." That's entirely, completely irrelevant. Imagine some parents who really, truly thought that repeatedly molesting their daughter was the "right thing to do" -- we'd throw them in jail just the same. This case is, in reality, no different, because it is still an example of parents trying to remove the rights of their children to do what they wish with their bodies. That's the problem here. The parents' beliefs are fun for discussion, but have no bearing on the real issue.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

but 'Best' is a subjective term.

No, it is not. The best environment is the one in which the child grows to adulthood with the greatest understanding of the world possible. The parents obviously were aware of doctors and hospitals, yet chose not to pass this information on to their dying daughter.

This is not true. Though I grant that you think it should be.

It must be true in any society that values basic human rights. These parents will be thrown in jail for what they have done, which indicates quite well that it is true.

That is not exactly a compellnig criteria when it comes to real life, now is it?

What, should we not analyze the behavior of one person (a parent) with respect to another (a child)? We have an entire branch of government, the judicial, specifically to make such analyses.

- Warren

 

[DaveC426913]

The parents are crazy. If they thought the child was inhabited by demons and the only way to save her was to cut off all of her limbs and set her on fire, you're ok with that because they had good intentions?

Straw man. That is not whatg happened. An argument based on a fantasy you make up yourself needs no rebuttal.

 

[Evo]

Straw man. That is not whatg happened. An argument based on a fantasy you make up yourself needs no rebuttal.

Read the article and tell me that child had an informed choice. Don't be so ridiculous.

 

[DaveC426913]

What, should we not analyze the behavior of one person (a parent) with respect to another (a child)? We have an entire branch of government, the judicial, specifically to make such analyses.

Of course we should.

What I am objecting to here is the automatic knee-jerk reaction that so many people have to "religion".

We go to great lengths to squelch sexism (pidgeon-holing individuals based on ther sex) and racism (pidgeon-holing people based on their ethnicity) but do we ever stop to think why we want to quell that behaviour?

People should be judged as individuals, with the facts at hand. The parents may well go to jail for their stupidity. But so many people just slap the label "religious" on anything and consider it synonymous with "idiot zombie" or whatever and then judge that. Straw man!



Man, if there's one thing I'm learning hanging around here it's that atheistic-types and scientifically-minded types are the most enthusiatic to commit for the very crimes they accuse non-atheists and non-scientists of.

It seems to me that if "we" are going to claim moral superiority over those that we think are slaves to their faiths we'll have to take the higher road: tolerance and civility. No??

 

[DaveC426913]

Read the article and tell me that child had an informed choice. Don't be so ridiculous.

what? I never suggested that.

You tried to posit a scenario where parents cut off limbs and set children on fire, and then you asked us to judge that.

That is a textbook straw man argument. Straw man arguments are put forth when the real argument is too weak to attack.

 

[Evo]

what? I never suggested that.

You tried to posit a scenario where parents cut off limbs and set children on fire, and then you asked us to judge that.

That is a textbook straw man argument. Straw man arguments are put forth when the real argument is too weak to attack.

It wasn't a strawman argument you said this

Question re: child abuse.

Is there any consaideration in the criteria for child abuse that accounts for whether the parents felt that they were doing the right thing or not.

Certainly if the parents could not defend their actions as loving and considerate, then there's an obvious case for abuse. But I don't know if this is such a clear-cut case of abuse. The parents honestly felt that they were doing the right thing.

So, basically you say anything a parent does to a child if they think they are doing the right thing is OK. So my scenario is simply an example of what you yourself said. Don't try to get out of it.

 

[DaveC426913]

It wasn't a strawman argument you said this

So, basically you say anything a parent does to a child if they think they are doing the right thing is OK. So my scenario is simply an example of what you yourself said. Don't try to get out of it.

And then you created a fantasy out of whole cloth involving amputation and fire. I am not obliged to address your fantastical scenario.

 

[gravenewworld]

God only answers to tithes and offerings, not prayers.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God
... god

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
... god

They are guilty, by both their law and Caesar's law.

I say hang them.

 

[binzing]

Mentor fight! (Cartman from Southpark voice, joke off of "Cripple fight" or "Race War")

 

[DaveC426913]

She's beautiful when she's mad.

 

[Poop-Loops]

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

 

[Evo]

And then you created a fantasy out of whole cloth involving amputation and fire. I am not obliged to address your fantastical scenario.

But it addressed exactly what you were saying, that if the parent thinks it is right, it's ok.

I'm saying...NO IT'S NOT.

So are you retracting what you said? Are you now saying that what a parent thinks is right can't be wrong?

 

[DaveC426913]

But it addressed exactly what you were saying, that if the parent thinks it is right, it's ok.

Show me a parent that thinks your scenario is right.

Are you now saying that what a parent thinks is right can't be wrong?

Are you claiming knowledge of a parent that thinks this?


Thus is the nature of a straw man argument.

If you want to take issue with a scenario, use the scenario that's in front of us. Or concede that it's difficult to create a compelling argument on the scenario before us.

 

[Evo]

Show me a parent that thinks your scenario is right.

I'm a parent. I would listen to the medical assessments. I would not pray to a supernatural being.

I think the majority of parents will go with sound medical assessments.