Fear of western medicine claims another victim

[ParanoiA]

I should have been more specific. My apologies.

 

I meant that the preservation of their child's life trumps the Neumanns' right to withhold treatment from her due to their own religious beliefs. Or at least it should.

 

No apologies required, you did fine. We're on the same page, although we disagree - surprise!

 

I don't believe it should. Medical treatment carries risk also - risk of death or permanent damage. I don't think it's right to remove the Neumann's rights to weigh the risk of medical treatment. Forcing our will to let strangers violate their children's privacy, cut them up and inject drugs into them is not any more ethical. It doesn't serve us any better to override parental discretion.

 

Are you prepared to jail every medical person that touched a child should they end up dead from forced care? That's state sponsored murder / manslaughter. Their child was taken from them by the state, and killed by strangers - all against their will.

 

I know we want to save these kids, but overriding parental discretion by the state is a nasty, nasty line to be crossing. The cost of crossing that line is shockingly distasteful. Imagine reading headlines about medical personnel stripping children from the clutches of their parents only to return them a dead body.

 

Good luck getting these folks to listen to us then. And how does the situation get any better? Does this sort of thing really happen enough to risk that kind of power exchange entrusted to a bureaucracy?

 

Were the Neumanns persuaded by any child advocate? Did anyone have a chance to talk to these people, or is all of this after the fact?

 

I know, it's easier just to cancel their rights with pen and paper than it is to actually convince them we're right, but if the principle of individual liberty is to be maintained - if individuals are truly the keepers of the ultimate power, which is necessary for our republic (since we govern ourselves), then we must respect each other's rights to determine their own fate, including that of their children. I realize you're not from the US, of course.

[Sayonara]

I don't believe it should. Medical treatment carries risk also - risk of death or permanent damage. I don't think it's right to remove the Neumann's rights to weigh the risk of medical treatment.

The Neumann's didn't "weigh the risk of medical treatment". They held the belief that prayer alone would lead god to heal their child and consequently sat there and watched her die, instead of getting her to a doctor who could have diagnosed her diabetes and provided the frankly trivial solution to the problem.

 

It had absolutely nothing to do with "weighing risk".

 

Here is a picture of the couple at court:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/01/21/us/21faith.2.ready.html

 

Do you know why they look self-satisfied instead of devastated from the lack of sleep and child-shaped hole in their lives? It's because they think that god took her back to heaven.

 

Is that a basis on which you would allow children's fates to be decided?

 

As Judge Howard put it, "the free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct."

 

Forcing our will to let strangers violate their children's privacy, cut them up and inject drugs into them is not any more ethical. It doesn't serve us any better to override parental discretion.

Yes, when you use words like "force" and "cut up" then trying to prevent unnecessary deaths is going to sound much worse than trying to obstruct your own child's medical treatment, even though a decision is being made on behalf of the child in either case.

 

Discretion is one thing. Preventing your child from receiving treatment that will save their lives on no basis other than your belief in the magic powers of a space pixie is completely off the map.

 

Are you prepared to jail every medical person that touched a child should they end up dead from forced care?

"Forced care" doesn't actually apply. What is happening is that the adult's role in the consent-provision is being filled by someone who is more capable of providing a decision that will serve the interests of the child. In the UK we call this person an "Appropriate Adult", I do not know what the term is in the USA but you probably have them over there too.

 

Parenthood does not come with a special privilege that allows you to make whatever wacky decisions you like for your child without anyone being able to do anything about it. It is a position of legal and moral responsibility which defaults to the parent only because of their biological link with the child. If the parent can't fulfil that role, or puts the child at significant risk by trying, then someone else needs to do it for them. Mechanisms which support and act on this reasoning already exist.

 

 

That's state sponsored murder / manslaughter. Their child was taken from them by the state, and killed by strangers - all against their will.

You are being a bit dramatic here.

 

I know we want to save these kids, but overriding parental discretion by the state is a nasty, nasty line to be crossing.

I am not talking about overriding "parental discretion". I am talking about removing the decision from parents who are too selfish and batshit crazy to realise that god won't stop their kid from dying, and no - it's not okay to just let them fly back to Jesus.

 

The cost of crossing that line is shockingly distasteful. Imagine reading headlines about medical personnel stripping children from the clutches of their parents only to return them a dead body.

We are a drama queen today, aren't we?

 

but if the principle of individual liberty is to be maintained - if individuals are truly the keepers of the ultimate power, which is necessary for our republic (since we govern ourselves), then we must respect each other's rights to determine their own fate, including that of their children.

Do you not see the contradiction here? The one that is absolutely crackers?

 

Where were Kara's rights? Who was looking out for them? Religious fundies who watched her die, that's who. And why? Because their belief said only prayer could cure. It was never about what Kara wanted or needed.

 

 

What you seem to be saying is "I foresee some complications and I'd rather not change things than risk things becoming more complicated."

 

I don't see that as very compelling when we are talking about saving children who can't lawfully consent to their own life-saving medical treatment.

[iNow]

It also warrants mention that there is a difference between experimental procedures and well tested/proven/understood ones.

 

Insulin, for example, is rather well understood, and hardly likely to return the child as a corpse. Newer more potent drugs to treat something like cancer, or experimental procedures on the other hand, would (should) be subject to vastly different actions from the state.

[Mr Skeptic]

Where were Kara's rights? Who was looking out for them? Religious fundies who watched her die, that's who. And why? Because their belief said only prayer could cure. It was never about what Kara wanted or needed.

 

Did Kara ask for or want medical treatment?

 

With freedom comes the freedom to make mistakes.

[D H]

It also warrants mention that there is a difference between experimental procedures and well tested/proven/understood ones.

Agreed. Parents who refuses to subject their children to some experimental procedure are not committing child abuse. The focus of this thread should be on procedures that all reasonable people (a long-standing legal concept) would deem to be prudent, necessary, and within financial reach in sustaining a child's life.

[Sayonara]

Did Kara ask for or want medical treatment?

 

With freedom comes the freedom to make mistakes.

I think you may be missing the significance of lawful consent and parental responsibility.

[insane_alien]

Did Kara ask for or want medical treatment?

 

With freedom comes the freedom to make mistakes.

 

did kara get the choice in the first place?

[Sayonara]

Agreed. Parents who refuses to subject their children to some experimental procedure are not committing child abuse. The focus of this thread should be on procedures that all reasonable people (a long-standing legal concept) would deem to be prudent, necessary, and within financial reach in sustaining a child's life.

In the case of the Neumanns it was not even about treatment. So determined were they that only prayer can heal, they did not even take Kara to a doctor to diagnose her problem. Had they done so then I suspect the state may have acted more swiftly.

[Mr Skeptic]

did kara get the choice in the first place?

 

I don't know. I think she should be free to choose to seek a doctor's advice rather than her parents' when it comes down to her own health. But I think that no one should force them to have treatment even if she would die. My reasoning is that the freedom of a parent or individual is more important, since they usually have their best interest in mind. Forced treatment would save very few lives, at a large cost to freedom.

[iNow]

I don't know. I think she should be free to choose to seek a doctor's advice rather than her parents' when it comes down to her own health.

 

But, as Sayo just reminded everyone, doctor's advice never factored into the equation since they refused to take her. What then?

[Mr Skeptic]

But, as Sayo just reminded everyone, doctor's advice never factored into the equation since they refused to take her. What then?

 

If she's smart enough to use a phone and didn't mind going against her parents wishes, she could have gotten to a hospital regardless.

 

Also, did they refuse to take her, or not take her?

[iNow]

I'm gonna go ahead and say they refused since the aunt, a member of the close family, had to call the sheriff's department to make it happen. That was one relevant bit from the article, here's another:

 

Wisconsin law, [Judge Vincent Howard] noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.”

[Sayonara]

I don't know. I think she should be free to choose to seek a doctor's advice rather than her parents' when it comes down to her own health. But I think that no one should force them to have treatment even if she would die.

This misses the point entirely. This is partly due to ParanoiA's spurious inclusion of the idea of "forced treatment" into the equation. In the scenario under discussion, the only "force" used is that which is needed to take the decision regarding the child's treatment away from the parents.

 

Kara's parents were not saving her from having treatment forced on her. They willingly prevented medical treatment by knowingly abstaining from a visit to the doctor and thereby evading a diagnosis. They did this because their religious belief is that only prayer can heal. They therefore made the decision that Kara would not receive any form of medical treatment on the basis of their subscription to that plainly false hypothesis.

 

They were negligent. It's that simple. A court will have to show that they ought to have known the consequences of their inaction. Since the last time they took Kara to the doctor's was when she was three, one imagines that they at some point recognised the importance of health care. It seems that their church has become a more dominant force in their lives since that time but their personal history will likely find them out at court.

 

My reasoning is that the freedom of a parent or individual is more important, since they usually have their best interest in mind. Forced treatment would save very few lives, at a large cost to freedom.

Parent OR individual? Which would you say could have applied to Kara? Only "individual", obviously. But who prevented her from exercising that right?

 

Ignore the idea of "forced treatment" since it is a different argument, and change your last sentence to "treatment given to children despite religious objections would save very few lives, at a large cost to freedom."

 

My view on this is that the overall cost to freedom would be small compared to the benefit gained. I personally would rather see a handful of children live every year than let them die for no other reason than to enshrine the crackpot beliefs of people who are too selfish, arrogant, or woefully misled to protect their own children. By all means people may point out that certain freedoms may be lost, but none of them should expect me to shed a tear for people losing the right to kill children because they want to believe in dark age superstitions.

 

If she's smart enough to use a phone and didn't mind going against her parents wishes, she could have gotten to a hospital regardless.

Right, it's all Kara's fault.

 

Do you know how diabetes type-I affects the human body? Diabetics undergoing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) can slip into a diabetic coma very quickly. The early signs include sluggishness and tiredness, the later signs include confusion, apathy, and weakness. If, as in this case, the condition is undiagnosed, the sufferer will not know what is happening and may even make matters worse by having a little lie down until they feel better.

 

The day before she died from DKA, Kara was lying on the floor unable to speak. She could only communicate by moving her eyes and moaning. At this point her condition was plainly critical but medically salvageable.

Did her parents rush her to the emergency room? No. They went and prayed for a bit. It took a phone call from her aunt in California to the local sheriff's department to get an ambulance to the girl. She died on the way to hospital.

[Mr Skeptic]

It seems that the Neumanss did have enough sense to call 911 when the girl stopped breathing. But apparently they called their prayer circle when she was "only" in a coma, at which point the aunt thought it better to call 911. However, the Neumanns did eventually call 911. Listen to both calls here:

http://www2.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=732735

[iNow]

They willingly prevented medical treatment by knowingly abstaining from a visit to the doctor and thereby evading a diagnosis. They did this because their religious belief is that only prayer can heal. They therefore made the decision that Kara would not receive any form of medical treatment on the basis of their subscription to that plainly false hypothesis.

 

They were negligent. It's that simple. A court will have to show that they ought to have known the consequences of their inaction. Since the last time they took Kara to the doctor's was when she was three, one imagines that they at some point recognised the importance of health care.

Reinforcing this point further was DHs mention of the reasonable person standard. Even in that context, mental illness is not exempted. I'm not here arguing that religious belief is a mental illness (despite having done so in the past), I'm simply saying that the reasonable person standard applies despite mindset or belief.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

The reasonable person standard makes no allowance for the mentally ill. Such a refusal goes back to the standard set in Menlove, where Menlove's attorney argued for the subjective standard. In the 170 years since, the law has kept to the legal judgment of having only the single, objective standard. Such judicial adherence sends a message that the mentally ill would do better to refrain from taking risk-creating actions, unless they exercise a heightened degree of self-restraint and precaution, if they intend to avoid liability.

 

 

 

 

 

Right, it's all Kara's fault.

 

Do you know how diabetes type-I affects the human body? Diabetics undergoing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) can slip into a diabetic coma very quickly. The early signs include sluggishness and tiredness, the later signs include confusion, apathy, and weakness. If, as in this case, the condition is undiagnosed, the sufferer will not know what is happening and may even make matters worse by having a little lie down until they feel better.

 

The day before she died from DKA, Kara was lying on the floor unable to speak. She could only communicate by moving her eyes and moaning. At this point her condition was plainly critical but medically salvageable.

In addition to the symptoms listed above, DKA brings with it extreme nausea, disorientation, vomiting, and even hallucinations. I'm speaking from experience. I was not of the frame of mind to know to call a doctor, and I'm sure Kara wasn't either... Even if she did have the mental fortitude to "know" to call a doctor, I seriously doubt she'd have been physically able. DKA causes the body to shut down, and it's hard enough to lie down, let alone move about and execute decisions.

[Sayonara]

It seems that the Neumanss did have enough sense to call 911 when the girl stopped breathing. But apparently they called their prayer circle when she was "only" in a coma, at which point the aunt thought it better to call 911. However, the Neumanns did eventually call 911. Listen to both calls here:

http://www2.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=732735

Presumably their beliefs do not extend to god knowing CPR.

 

It is good to see that they were not completely brutal in the execution of their faith, but I doubt that this will absolve them of negligence in the eyes of a courtroom.

[iNow]

But apparently they called their prayer circle when she was "only" in a coma, at which point the aunt thought it better to call 911. However, the Neumanns did eventually call 911. Listen to both calls here:

http://www2.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=732735

 

That was really disturbing. I have nenewed respect for my mom who was a paramedic for a lot of years.

 

Either way, it's amazing how quickly people relinquish their faith when reality sets in. The aunt's call also supports my claim about refusal to see a doctor, as she stated they'd been trying to convince the parents for over a week to take Kara to one.

[D H]

In the case of the Neumanns it was not even about treatment. So determined were they that only prayer can heal, they did not even take Kara to a doctor to diagnose her problem. Had they done so then I suspect the state may have acted more swiftly.

Taking a child to a doctor is the first line of treatment. Refusing to take a sick child to a doctor is to deny even the possibility of treatment. It doesn't matter what their rationale was because it was irrational and irresponsible. They failed to carry out their are responsibility as parents.

[Sayonara]

I agree with that perspective.

[ParanoiA]

The Neumann's didn't "weigh the risk of medical treatment". They held the belief that prayer alone would lead god to heal their child and consequently sat there and watched her die, instead of getting her to a doctor who could have diagnosed her diabetes and provided the frankly trivial solution to the problem.

 

Well sure they did. They had already weighed the risk long ago when they decided god was more effective than medical care. But it doesn't matter if they or if they didn't, it still doesn't justify taking away the right to do so.

 

My arguments aren't FOR the Neumann's, they're AGAINST the alternative - allowing the state to override the parents. I think the Neumann's are a tragedy, but I think you'll have far more disgusting tragedies if you decide the state has power over our children. I don't believe you've really thought this through. The state taking this power is far more dangerous than the parents keeping it.

 

Yes' date=' when you use words like "force" and "cut up" then trying to prevent unnecessary deaths is going to sound much worse than trying to obstruct your own child's medical treatment, even though a decision is being made on behalf of the child in either case.

 

[/quote']

 

Yes, when we admit what we're really doing - forcing someone to be fondled by strangers against their will, with total control over life and death, taking away their right to determine the fate of themselves or their offsprings - then yes, it makes it more difficult to impose your morality on them. Seeing them as thinking, feeling human beings, with the capacity for fear, trauma, distress, pain, misery, distrust, forces you to realize how they might feel about procedures that the rest of us take for granted.

 

You don't see the violation of your doctor because you asked to see him. Most of us have zero issues with medicine - we're way past all of this. We're all comfortable giving them total power of life and death and we're actually quite forgiving of any mistakes - we all see the pragmatic value of this. It's so obvious, that it's second nature and we don't really think about it.

 

But that doesn't give us the right to dismiss others free choice simply because we're totally cool with it. Medicine isn't a gaurantee - just like god isn't a guarantee - it's only a better option per factual evidence. I don't say that to disparage it, I only say it because it's not a fact that their life will be saved - it's highly likely, but not a fact. That means this is all about choosing the best option - it's not about choosing "saving their life".

 

As long as medicine is not 100% mistake free, you are forcing others to take a risk against their will. You're forcing them to be subject to the procedures of medicine which includes risking their life, and forcing them to be violated by people they don't know and don't trust. I don't believe the government should ever have that power. I believe the government will commit far more atrocious tragedies as a result.

 

They are not dogs, they are people. And until you can prove they are not of sound mind then you are in no designated position of authority to presume you're right and they're wrong - it's just your opinion. There is no law requiring people to always choose the best option. It's not good enough to presume yourself god of right and wrong and cast their judgement aside and make them choose medicine.

 

Discretion is one thing. Preventing your child from receiving treatment that will save their lives on no basis other than your belief in the magic powers of a space pixie is completely off the map.

 

You can't prove that their life will be saved - but I'll agree anyway, just for argument's sake. But here, you are making the charge that magic powers of a space pixie is "completely off the map" - so can you prove they don't exist? You are making the charge, not them. They just declined what we see as the better option.

 

"Forced care" doesn't actually apply. What is happening is that the adult's role in the consent-provision is being filled by someone who is more capable of providing a decision that will serve the interests of the child. In the UK we call this person an "Appropriate Adult", I do not know what the term is in the USA but you probably have them over there too.

 

Forced care is fact - they don't want it, but we're making them do it. Force has been demonstrated. How you justify that force is yours to deal with, it's an opinion.

 

Parenthood does not come with a special privilege that allows you to make whatever wacky decisions you like for your child without anyone being able to do anything about it. It is a position of legal and moral responsibility which defaults to the parent only because of their biological link with the child. If the parent can't fulfil that role, or puts the child at significant risk by trying, then someone else needs to do it for them. Mechanisms which support and act on this reasoning already exist.

 

I don't disagree. But I'm not comfortable trumping parental rights because they chose an option we don't agree with. Sure, in the Neumann's case we would all be so happy this tragedy never happened - yay!! Then we'd have to contend with a different story where a child's life wasn't in danger, necessarily, yet the child was forced to receive care and due to a medical accident they died.

 

I think it's worse for the state to cause murder than the parents. The parents can only do it once really, the state can do it over and over and over....

 

You are being a bit dramatic here.

 

Isn't it dramatic to have your child taken from you, against your will, because the state insists the child be treated and they end up killing them by accident? From the parent's perspective, how is this any different than a criminal regime taking your kids and killing them?

 

Do you not see the contradiction here? The one that is absolutely crackers?

 

You mean the consistency in recognizing that children (age limit is debatable) are considered not to have the capacity to make these decisions, and that our government doesn't earn the credit to issue a wholesale override of parental discretion? Yes, I saw that and was quite proud of it. There's always going to be a consequence, and I choose to error on the side of individual power over state power.

 

Again, I'm not proud of the Neumann's, I'm just not ready to toss our US Constitution in the trash over it. I think the state could do far more damage and that would be far more despicable and shameful to institutionalize.

 

Where were Kara's rights? Who was looking out for them? Religious fundies who watched her die, that's who. And why? Because their belief said only prayer could cure. It was never about what Kara wanted or needed.

 

It was about what Kara needed, from their perspective. If one truly believes god will do this, then they must have cared about Kara enough to pray for god to do it.

 

They could say the same about you if you accidentally killed her. They could say it was never about what Kara or her parents wanted or needed, the state just wanted to impose their will and they killed her.

 

Edit: Oh, but I meant to add that I'd be FAR more open to empowering children over their parents. Snail brought up some interesting stuff, and I've since been pondering just how young a child can be and still be in charge of themselves. That's definitely something I consider as a possible fix, and it compliments the principle of individual liberty without empowering the state with direct life and death decisions.

 

What you seem to be saying is "I foresee some complications and I'd rather not change things than risk things becoming more complicated."

 

Sorry it seems that way. What I mean to be saying is that I have no desire to repeat the volumes of history associated with totalitarian power. The state only grows, it doesn't shrink. So we must be prudent when we decide to toss out old principles for new ones. Our principle that reveres the individual over the state is the preferred one as apparent from the blood we've spilled in our history achieving it. And like medicine, it too isn't perfect and will still have consequences and tragedies associated with it.

 

 

 

Kara's parents were not saving her from having treatment forced on her. They willingly prevented medical treatment by knowingly abstaining from a visit to the doctor and thereby evading a diagnosis. They did this because their religious belief is that only prayer can heal. They therefore made the decision that Kara would not receive any form of medical treatment on the basis of their subscription to that plainly false hypothesis.

 

So why is there an issue in turning around and doing the same thing if the medical personnel kill her? They willingly prevented theological treatment by knowingly abstaining from leaving her alone, cloaked in prayer. They did this because their science belief is that only medicine can heal. Thereforce made the decision that Kara would not receive treatment from god on the basis of their apparently false hypothesis.

 

This is the case as long as medicine, too, is merely a preferred option to extend ones life, that carries risk of permanent injury and death.

 

I personally would rather see a handful of children live every year than let them die for no other reason than to enshrine the crackpot beliefs of people who are too selfish, arrogant, or woefully misled to protect their own children.

 

Same here, 100%, if that were the reason.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Either way, it's amazing how quickly people relinquish their faith when reality sets in. The aunt's call also supports my claim about refusal to see a doctor, as she stated they'd been trying to convince the parents for over a week to take Kara to one.

 

It's amazing the aunt got as far as she did in a week. Now just imagine if we stopped being lazy using pen and paper to control everyone and go out there and started talking to these nutcases.

Edited January 23, 2009 by ParanoiA

[john5746]

I don't disagree. But I'm not comfortable trumping parental rights because they chose an option we don't agree with. Sure, in the Neumann's case we would all be so happy this tragedy never happened - yay!! Then we'd have to contend with a different story where a child's life wasn't in danger, necessarily, yet the child was forced to receive care and due to a medical accident they died.

 

I think it's worse for the state to cause murder than the parents. The parents can only do it once really, the state can do it over and over and over....

 

Well, your opinion is entertaining, but as usual, you are trying to avoid the slippery slope by not trying at all. If I thought the government or any entity had to be perfect to do anything, then I would be a hermit.

 

Children are citizens and have rights that supersede their parents rights to use them as they see fit. There must be a minimum standard - food, shelter, education, medical care. As usual, there is no magical equation that makes this a clean cut calculation, but giving insulin to a diabetic is not on the edge of it.

 

Compromise is possible, we don't have to sacrifice the lives and well-being of children in order to feel safe from government. We also don't want to sacrifice all of our rights to parenthood.

[Sayonara]

Well sure they did. They had already weighed the risk long ago when they decided god was more effective than medical care.

No. Choosing to utilise prayer as a healing technique on the basis of their church telling them that only prayer can heal (i.e. only prayer is an effective treatment) is not the same as deciding that medical care is too risky.

 

But it doesn't matter if they or if they didn't, it still doesn't justify taking away the right to do so.

Interesting angle.

 

My arguments aren't FOR the Neumann's, they're AGAINST the alternative - allowing the state to override the parents. I think the Neumann's are a tragedy, but I think you'll have far more disgusting tragedies if you decide the state has power over our children. I don't believe you've really thought this through. The state taking this power is far more dangerous than the parents keeping it.

I am not making the case that the state should have power over people's children. I am making the case that there are situations where the arbitrary beliefs of the parents create such an unjustifiable obstruction to critical medical aid that the right of the child to live far outweighs the rights of the parents to act out life-threatening decisions which are based in those beliefs.

 

Yes, when we admit what we're really doing - forcing someone to be fondled by strangers against their will, with total control over life and death, taking away their right to determine the fate of themselves or their offsprings - then yes, it makes it more difficult to impose your morality on them.

I am not making the case that people should have treatment forced on them - we have not even got onto discussing the details of any system that might be used to prevent future cases such as Kara's. The reason I have never broached this is that I never intended to propose it; I think you misinterpreted my position. When I originally stated that the right to life trumps the right to religious belief, I meant that the former would take precedence over the latter in a court of law.

 

I am making the case that a person's status as a parent does not necessarily mean that they have the right to impose negligent or harmful decisions on their child.

 

But that doesn't give us the right to dismiss others free choice simply because we're totally cool with it.

So what would you say Kara's parents did with her right to chose to live?

 

Medicine isn't a gaurantee - just like god isn't a guarantee - it's only a better option per factual evidence. I don't say that to disparage it, I only say it because it's not a fact that their life will be saved - it's highly likely, but not a fact. That means this is all about choosing the best option - it's not about choosing "saving their life".

And I am saying that there are situations where the best option is so blazingly clear that people who obstruct it should be held fully accountable. This is what the Neumann's face. They will have to show that it was not reasonable for them to have known the likely consequences of their actions; that they were not reckless with the life of their child in choosing prayer over medicine.

 

As long as medicine is not 100% mistake free, you are forcing others to take a risk against their will.

Again, do you think that Kara's choice was to lay down and die? Stop conflating personal choice with parent-enforced decisions.

 

They are not dogs, they are people. And until you can prove they are not of sound mind then you are in no designated position of authority to presume you're right and they're wrong - it's just your opinion.

You are factually incorrect here. There needs to be a reasonable belief that a person is not in a position to make the decision for themselves, not "proof". The point of having appropriate adults for those who cannot lawfully consent is to ensure that their best interests are maintained. I am making the case that people like the Neumanns are not Appropriate Adults, and the system by which Appropriate Adults are identified already accommodates such discrimination.

 

There is no law requiring people to always choose the best option.

No, but there are laws requiring people to take reasonable steps to preserve life.

 

It's not good enough to presume yourself god of right and wrong and cast their judgement aside and make them choose medicine.

Not good enough for what? For saving the lives of children it certainly is. For appeasing your sense of fairness, it probably isn't, but that has not been my concern in this discussion.

 

You can't prove that their life will be saved

No such proof is necessary. What is necessary is that when a child is critically ill, they receive the course of treatment which gives them the best chances of recovering.

 

- but I'll agree anyway, just for argument's sake. But here, you are making the charge that magic powers of a space pixie is "completely off the map" - so can you prove they don't exist? You are making the charge, not them. They just declined what we see as the better option.

Again, proof is not necessary. The reasonable person standard addresses this, regardless of whether you chose to take notice of it.

 

Forced care is fact - they don't want it, but we're making them do it. Force has been demonstrated. How you justify that force is yours to deal with, it's an opinion.

You are still equivocating.

 

It is not the case that the child is being forced into treatment in the scenario I am discussing. The force being used is only that which vetoes the right of the parent to arbitrarily block life-saving medical treatment on the basis of superstitious drivel, and I say that is force well used.

 

If people wish to substitute prayer for well-proven, well-documented, biologically trivial, life-saving treatments, then the onus should be - and legally is, as we see with the Neumann's being held accountable in court - on them to demonstrate their convictions in its efficacy.

 

I don't disagree. But I'm not comfortable trumping parental rights because they chose an option we don't agree with.

Well then prioritise. Chose the welfare of children like Kara, or your comfort.

 

Sure, in the Neumann's case we would all be so happy this tragedy never happened - yay!! Then we'd have to contend with a different story where a child's life wasn't in danger, necessarily, yet the child was forced to receive care and due to a medical accident they died.

Why would you "force medical treatment on a child who was not in danger"? That is not the proposal at all.

 

I think it's worse for the state to cause murder than the parents. The parents can only do it once really, the state can do it over and over and over....

I am not sure that unlawful death by parental negligence is quite in the same ballpark as medical accidents, and even less sure that either of them should be labelled "murder". Murder has a specific legal definition which is largely based around intent.

I do take your point, but since (as I have stated) I am not talking about children being whisked off and having careless medical procedures performed on them for no real reason I think that any deaths resulting from medical intervention are far more likely to result from help arriving too late, rather than some kind of weird scenario where rescued children spontaneously become abnormally likely to experience medical accidents.

 

Isn't it dramatic to have your child taken from you, against your will, 1because the state insists the child be treated and they end up killing them by accident? From the parent's perspective, how is this any different than a criminal regime taking your kids and killing them?

In case it was not clear before, I am talking about a specific sort of parent. The sort who will let their child lie on the floor dying while they pray to a magical being who they should reasonably suspect is less capable and/or willing of saving their child than staff at the local hospital.

 

Normally I would like to protect their right to hold those beliefs, but under these specific circumstances the right of the child to live trumps their faith a thousand times over and I do not give a good god hippy damn about their perspective.

 

You mean the consistency in recognizing that children (age limit is debatable) are considered not to have the capacity to make these decisions, and that our government doesn't earn the credit to issue a wholesale override of parental discretion? Yes, I saw that and was quite proud of it. There's always going to be a consequence, and I choose to error on the side of individual power over state power.

I am not trying to make a political argument here. I am pointing out the very obvious and real-world failure of Kara's parents to fulfil the role of Appropriate Adult. Their own decisions and actions led to this failure and they must accept the consequences that go with them. What sort of a society would waive those consequences on the basis of individual power? How many dead children does personal freedom for parents need to cost?

 

It was about what Kara needed, from their perspective. If one truly believes god will do this, then they must have cared about Kara enough to pray for god to do it.

 

They could say the same about you if you accidentally killed her. They could say it was never about what Kara or her parents wanted or needed, the state just wanted to impose their will and they killed her.

And yet we both know what the best chances would have been for Kara, had the choice been available.

 

 

Arrrr! You changed the end of your post!

 

So why is there an issue in turning around and doing the same thing if the medical personnel kill her?

Your continued assumption that children are going to be killed left right and centre aside, a situation where the parents have been lawfully circumvented and treatment given to their child despite their religious beliefs and that child subsequently dies is no different to a situation where a child dies in medical care where the parents have consented to the procedure. Unless there are different ways of being dead which I have just missed, that is. The difference lies in the steps which lead the child to being treated, and this is a separate legal issue.

 

They willingly prevented theological treatment by knowingly abstaining from leaving her alone, cloaked in prayer. They did this because their science belief is that only medicine can heal. Thereforce made the decision that Kara would not receive treatment from god on the basis of their apparently false hypothesis.

Yes, and that passes the reasonable person test.

 

This is the case as long as medicine, too, is merely a preferred option to extend ones life, that carries risk of permanent injury and death.

The risk is always there and yet we continue to use medicine because the level of risk is so vastly overwhelmed by the benefits.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Sayonara³

[Mr Skeptic]

In case it was not clear before, I am talking about a specific sort of parent. The sort who will let their child lie on the floor dying while they pray to a magical being who they should reasonably suspect is less capable and/or willing of saving their child than staff at the local hospital.

 

So now medical personnel are more powerful than an omnipotent god? Or are you saying that it is unreasonable for people to believe in god, and are legally liable for such belief?

 

And the Neumanns did call for real help when they realized Kara was dying, but unfortunately it was too late by then.

[ParanoiA]

Well, your opinion is entertaining, but as usual, you are trying to avoid the slippery slope by not trying at all. If I thought the government or any entity had to be perfect to do anything, then I would be a hermit.

 

I'm not avoiding a slippery slope, since I'm not arguing about fear of subsequent laws that build off of that precedence - which I happen to think will happen, but I didn't make that argument. I think if you stop right there you will have dead people eventually, that were made dead by well intentioned people that forced them into it using laws. No slippery slope required, this is a principle I feel very strongly about since it goes right to the heart of the individual versus the state.

 

I'm never, ever going to sign on to the notion that the government knows what's good for me better than me. Even though, in isolated cases that may well be true. It is entirely antithetical to my belief of eventual non-governance to empower the state to choose what's best for me, against my wishes. We killed innocent people, including kids, to achieve that principle.

 

Children are citizens and have rights that supersede their parents rights to use them as they see fit. There must be a minimum standard - food' date=' shelter, education, medical care. As usual, there is no magical equation that makes this a clean cut calculation, but giving insulin to a diabetic is not on the edge of it.

 

Compromise is possible, we don't have to sacrifice the lives and well-being of children in order to feel safe from government. We also don't want to sacrifice all of our rights to parenthood.[/quote']

 

Compromise is possible without jeopardizing such a fundamental principle. Why do we have to keep retreading this water for every negative consequence out there? We see something unfortunate, and rather than accept the complexity and figure a solution within the framework we built, we jump to grab pen and paper and make a damn law - changing the rules.

 

When exactly do we play by those rules?

 

What's the point of codifying principles in a written document if we're just going to justify overwriting them as soon as their inconvenient? What's the point of a tentative committment?

[Mr Skeptic]

That was really disturbing. I have nenewed respect for my mom who was a paramedic for a lot of years.

 

Either way, it's amazing how quickly people relinquish their faith when reality sets in.

 

A self-limiting problem, I think. These cases will inevitably receive a lot of media attention, and most likely serve to prevent similar deaths. On the other hand, what would happen if a child were to be treated against their wish and their parents wishes, and died as a result? Incredible hostility from people who don't like doctors or who value individual freedom, at the very least.

 

The aunt's call also supports my claim about refusal to see a doctor, as she stated they'd been trying to convince the parents for over a week to take Kara to one.

 

But the aunt has even less right to decide about medical treatment (though I think she did the right thing calling for help regardless of the parent's wishes -- at that point Kara was truly unable to ask for help). What I want to know is whether Kara wanted medical treatment, or whether she wanted just prayer. I suspect an answer to that would be enough to determine the parents' guilt/innocence when it goes to court. My belief in personal liberty applies equally to underage people, even if some of it is shared with the parents.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And for those of you wanting to override the parents' (and possibly child's) decision about medical treatment because religion makes them incapable of deciding for themselves, I must ask: What is the point of taking away so many people's freedom, for no benefit whatsoever? Because it sounds to me like a law that you couldn't enforce, and if you can't enforce a law there's not much point in making it. And throwing the parents in jail after the fact won't bring their kid back, and would likely just cause more harm and piss everyone off.