Fear of western medicine claims another victim

[iNow]

Do you think this number is more or less than the number of children killed because some psychologist believed the child was "safe" if returned to their parents?

 

I mean, if you're going after people for acting on "wrong" beliefs, why not go the whole hog?

 

Because (in the circumstance you propose) what the psychologist did was make a mistake most likely due to not having enough information available to them, not consciously and intentionally act counter all of the best evidence and expert advice due only to teachings rooted in bronze age fairy tales. That's why.

[Mr Skeptic]

Because (in the circumstance you propose) what the psychologist did was make a mistake most likely due to not having enough information available to them, not consciously and intentionally act counter all of the best evidence and expert advice due only to teachings rooted in bronze age fairy tales. That's why.

 

What if the Neumanns did act in accordance with the best evidence they had available? What makes you think that the knowledge they had would lead them to choose the same experts you would, and then for some reason disregard their advice? Why do you say that the Neumanns ought to have injected their daughter with insulin, when that would usually be deadly? It's much easier to judge them after the fact. Come to think of it, the trials are about to start.

 

Hey iNow, weren't you one of the people who disagreed with holding people criminally liable for their beliefs when the Inquisition was doing it?

[iNow]

What if the Neumanns did act in accordance with the best evidence they had available? What makes you think that the knowledge they had would lead them to choose the same experts you would, and then for some reason disregard their advice?

Are you seriously suggesting that the "best advise" they received in treating a diabetic was to NOT use insulin, and instead to pray? Do you not see how silly you look by asking me what you have?

 

 

Why do you say that the Neumanns ought to have injected their daughter with insulin, when that would usually be deadly?

What are you talking about? Injecting insulin into a diabetic is not deadly, it prevents diabetic ketoacidosis, allows the ingested food and glucose to be broken down into usable energy, and prevents kidney failure. It's rather disingenuous of you to suggest that insulin injections into a diabetic are "usually deadly." If you truly believe that, I'd say it's time for you to open a textbook or talk to an actual diabetic.

[Mr Skeptic]

Since when was Kara diagnosed with diabetes? What do you think happens if you inject insulin into a sick person who does not have diabetes?

[iNow]

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying this:

 

- Kara's parents decided not to take her to a doctor since it conflicted with their religious beliefs.

- Kara was hence not diagnosed with diabetes until the autopsy since she never saw a doctor.

- For this reason, Kara's parents did not know she was a diabetic, and are not at fault for failure to provide her with insulin, since they were never exposed to "the best advise."

 

Basically, you are suggesting that my argument is wrong because I stated they would rather use prayer than insulin, correct?

 

Fine. My error. I should not have said they ignored the best advise since they never saw a doctor. My bad. They still had other family members desperately trying to compel them to take Kara to a doctor and they refused to do so. Diagnosing and treating diabetes is so horribly simple that a single trip to even a third-rate doctor would have led to the provision of insulin therapy... but they didn't go. I think that's sickening enough for my point to be made despite the poor word choice above by me.

 

Let's just rephrase as I should have done originally... The "Best Evidence" & "Expert Advise" in this case was simply to take the child to a doctor, and they ignored that.

Edited May 11, 2009 by iNow

[Mr Skeptic]

Are you seriously suggesting that the "best advise" they received in treating a diabetic was to NOT use insulin, and instead to pray? Do you not see how silly you look by asking me what you have?

 

The advise usually given for treating a dead diabetic is prayer and a funeral.

[iNow]

The advise usually given for treating a dead diabetic is prayer and a funeral.

 

What point exactly are you trying to make with that comment? Implicit in my post was that the diabetic was still alive and treatable... i.e. NOT dead.

[Mr Skeptic]

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying this:

 

- Kara's parents decided not to take her to a doctor since it conflicted with their religious beliefs.

- Kara was hence not diagnosed with diabetes until the autopsy since she never saw a doctor.

- For this reason, Kara's parents did not know she was a diabetic, and are not at fault for failure to provide her with insulin, since they were never exposed to "the best advise."

 

Basically, you are suggesting that my argument is wrong because I stated they would rather use prayer than insulin, correct?

 

Mostly I'm saying that they didn't know that she had such a serious condition until too late. Certainly they weren't trying to cure diabetes with prayer.

 

Fine. My error. I should not have said they ignored the best advise since they never saw a doctor. My bad. They still had other family members desperately trying to compel them to take Kara to a doctor and they refused to do so. Diagnosing and treating diabetes is so horribly simple that a single trip to even a third-rate doctor would have led to the provision of insulin therapy... but they didn't go. I think that's sickening enough for my point to be made despite the poor word choice above by me.

 

Let's just rephrase as I should have done originally... The "Best Evidence" & "Expert Advise" in this case was simply to take the child to a doctor, and they ignored that.

 

Well, they did call 911, but by the time they did, it was too late.

 

In any case, the first trial was scheduled for three days from now, so I'll let it rest for a while and see if anything new pops up.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What point exactly are you trying to make with that comment? Implicit in my post was that the diabetic was still alive and treatable... i.e. NOT dead.

 

Well yes, but if by the time anyone knew she was diabetic, she was a dead diabetic. Before that, everyone just knew she was sick.

[iNow]

Again, you above relied solely on silly attempts to play "gotcha" on my choice of words instead of defending your own indefensible position. These parents are directly responsible for the death of their child, and freedom of religion laws neither negate that fact nor free them of their culpability.

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Speaking of people who willingly ignore science and evidence-based medicine due to irrational beliefs:

 

 

 

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/44568447.html

Daniel Hauser has what doctors consider one of the most curable types of cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma.

 

But the 13-year-old from Sleepy Eye, Minn. and his parents don't want him to have chemotherapy and radiation, the standard treatments. For the past three months, they have ignored the advice of his cancer specialists and turned to natural therapies, such as herbs and vitamins, instead.

 

Now they are going to court to defend their decision.

 

<...>

 

Daniel, one of eight children, has asserted that treatment would violate his religious beliefs. The teenager filed an affidavit saying that he is a medicine man and church elder in the Nemenhah, an American Indian religious organization that his parents joined 18 years ago (though they don't claim to be Indians).

 

"I am opposed to chemotherapy because it is self-destructive and poisonous," he told the court. "I want to live a virtuous life, in the eyes of my creator, not just a long life." He also filed a "spiritual path declaration" that said: "I am a medicine man. Some times we teach, and some times we perform. Now, I am doing both. I will lead by example."

 

His example will be a silly and easily preventable death, an example of how these belief systems are viruses of the mind and infected pustules on society.

Edited May 11, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Again, you above relied solely on silly attempts to play "gotcha" on my choice of words instead of defending your own indefensible position. These parents are directly responsible for the death of their child, and freedom of religion laws neither negate that fact nor free them of their culpability.

 

Well, as long as we're playing "gotcha", I'm pretty sure that the parents didn't give Kara diabetes.

 

Let's see if I got you right:

1) Kara gets sick.

2) Parents get her what they believe is the best treatment.

3) She dies anyways.

4) Therefore parents should go to jail.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

More like

1. Kara grows "so weak that she could not walk or speak."
   
2. Her parents ignore this and assume she'll be healed by God.
   
3. Kara dies.
   
4. Because her parents allowed their child to die, they should go to jail.
   

 

Your argument seems to be that it's up to the parents' belief of what was the best treatment. If they believed prayer would work, they shouldn't be punished for following that course. The trouble here is that they ignored a lifetime of "See your doctor!" messages and the entire body of medical research in making the decision.

 

Basically, the decision is over whether you can determine the parents "criminally stupid."

[GutZ]

Crude but I can't see it any other way. Natural Selection. Let parents kill their kids. If you force the medical procedure, also forcing the doctors to be responsible, and something goes wrong, you also make the myth stronger. I am only concerned with these ignorant parents here, I know that the majority of doctors are very accurate, but shit happens and accidents do occur. With the normal populstion this is understood, and that they will fair way better taking a doctor's advise when they say it's critical than to wait and find out.

 

There is no need to place so much regulation, especially if it will help build the idea....sadly people are that stupid that they would need the deaths of many before they realize...hey I am an idiot.

 

I think this more a societal issue. I am more interest in elminating the stupidity all together. This stuff is going on right now as we speak....Even if faws are in place this stuff will still happen...no one is forced to do anything. You could save this people children and the mother might mercy kill the child because science is the tool of the devil....

 

These people are that f'ed up...lock them up after their idiocy makes them loose the child.

Edited May 11, 2009 by GutZ

[iNow]

Well, as long as we're playing "gotcha", I'm pretty sure that the parents didn't give Kara diabetes.

Two things, just to make sure we're all clear here.

 

1) YOU are making "gotcha" attempts instead of making arguments. That's your prerogative, but frankly it's quite annoying and insipid, and I've personally grown rather tired of watching you do it in every debate where something about religion or god gets mentioned, or in the same sex marriage threads.

 

2) Her parents DID give her diabetes, or more specifically her predisposition to it, as it's a genetic illness.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=diabetes.TOC&depth=1

 

 

 

After that, Cap'n pretty well addressed the post you made. The identification and description of the situation which you made is not only lacking, but flat out wrong.

 

On a more personal level, even if you're simply saying that's what the parents believed, I can't believe you're honestly trying to conflate "prayer" with "treatment."

Edited May 11, 2009 by iNow

[Sayonara]

Mr Skeptic, much of what you are currently discussing was thrashed out in the thread before it went dormant and iNow bumped it. Perhaps a refresher of the facts of the case would be profitable?

[Mr Skeptic]

Your argument seems to be that it's up to the parents' belief of what was the best treatment. If they believed prayer would work, they shouldn't be punished for following that course. The trouble here is that they ignored a lifetime of "See your doctor!" messages and the entire body of medical research in making the decision.

 

Basically, the decision is over whether you can determine the parents "criminally stupid."

 

Well, if the case against them is about negligence, then it should be noted that they did not do nothing -- they took what they believed to be the best course of action, prayer.

 

If it is about their not having the right to act on their religious beliefs, it should be noted that people do have the right to refuse medical treatment for religious reasons even if it means their death (fatally stupid?). I have yet to see any evidence that either parent or Kara wanted to take her to see a doctor -- the only people who have the right to make that decision.

 

It's not about the parents being criminally stupid, its a question of whether their religious belief is criminally unreasonable. Remember that not too long ago, people were punished for their beliefs, which we now agree was bad for society.

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What liberty can be more important than the right to think?

 

The Neumanns are the modern heretics, and will stand trial shortly.

[iNow]

If it is about their not having the right to act on their religious beliefs, it should be noted that people do have the right to refuse medical treatment for religious reasons even if it means their death (fatally stupid?).

Do people have the right to act on their religious beliefs even if it results in the death of others?

 

 

It's not about the parents being criminally stupid, its a question of whether their religious belief is criminally unreasonable.

Actually, no... not really. It's a question of whether or not the actions they took as a result of their religious belief are criminal. I should like to think that all of us can agree that their actions (those motivated by their beliefs) were, in fact, criminally unreasonable.

[Mr Skeptic]

Do people have the right to act on their religious beliefs even if it results in the death of others?

 

Do people have the right to act on their scientific beliefs even if it results in the death of others? That happens sometimes as well. I think that if Kara asked for a real doctor and her parents refused her, then they ought to be criminally liable. But if all three people responsible for the choice were in full agreement that prayer was the correct answer, then prosecuting any of them is a violation of their rights.

 

Or, maybe all children should be taken away from their parents and raised by the state.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Kara's wishes are irrelevant; she was a minor. You have to realize that government is designed not just to protect people from each other but to protect them from themselves, hence forced institutionalization and other things.

 

We disallow child abuse on the grounds that it harms the child -- that is unquestionable. Suppose the parents believe religiously that abuse is good for the child. Is that an acceptable excuse? Surely allowing a child to die, unable to speak or walk, is close enough to abuse.

[Pangloss]

Or, maybe all children should be taken away from their parents and raised by the state.

 

This is what you've been trying to say all along, and it's a perfect example of why your arguments tend to fail here. You can't just answer every left-leaning argument with a slippery slope scare. It doesn't work in general, it certainly doesn't work here, and the fact that that kind of deeply flawed reasoning is so prevalent in our society right now it actually creates more problems than it resolves.

[Mr Skeptic]

Kara's wishes are irrelevant; she was a minor. You have to realize that government is designed not just to protect people from each other but to protect them from themselves, hence forced institutionalization and other things.

 

People have a right to refuse medical care, even if it means their death. Medical decisions are made by the individual or their family, not by the state. The state has no right to make these decisions, therefore they have no right to prosecute them for not having made the decision the state wanted.

 

If the state wants to make medical decisions rather than let the family and individual make them, then they ought to pass a law granting them that right, not prosecute people who's medical decisions they disapprove of.

 

If Kara had chosen or people had reason to believe that she would have chosen real medicine, then the state has something to stand on.

 

We disallow child abuse on the grounds that it harms the child -- that is unquestionable. Suppose the parents believe religiously that abuse is good for the child. Is that an acceptable excuse?

 

Well here you have the parents overriding the child's wishes (or do children ask to be abused?) rather than acting according to them.

 

Surely allowing a child to die, unable to speak or walk, is close enough to abuse.

 

If I am incapacitated, but have previously expressed a desire to die/refuse treatment if certain circumstances arose, then they darn well better allow me to die.

[Sayonara]

This is all pretty moot with respect to Kara, seeing as diabetic coma has a pesky way of stopping people from deciding things. If you are going to speculate about unlikely conversations she might have had with her parents one day prior to her death, about what they should do for her in the event of medical crisis, then it's pretty clear that your interest is in airing your own views and not protecting anybody's rights.

[JohnB]

Because (in the circumstance you propose) what the psychologist did was make a mistake most likely due to not having enough information available to them, not consciously and intentionally act counter all of the best evidence and expert advice due only to teachings rooted in bronze age fairy tales. That's why.

Remember that the child would not have been taken in the first place unless there was proof of abuse in the first place.

 

Quite often there is a history of violence or drugs in the household. How much extra information do you think they need?

 

The information shows the child to be in danger. The belief that once returned the child will not be in danger is at best, wishful thinking.

 

So why not go the whole hog? You want people to bear responsibility for their beliefs, so why only go after one type of belief?

[iNow]

So why not go the whole hog? You want people to bear responsibility for their beliefs, so why only go after one type of belief?

 

As I clarified when Mr Skeptic made a similar comment on the previous page...

 

I want people to bear responsibility for their actions, not their beliefs. The challenge in the case under discussion here is that their actions were a direct consequence of their beliefs.

 

If the psychologist in the scenario you presented was negligent or knowingly placed the child into a situation where harm was practically unavoidable (with the caveat that there were better options available to them... that there were places with an overall rating of "better" into which to place the child), then yes... They, too, should be held responsible for their actions.

 

Nobody here is asking for people to be tried based on their beliefs. While the beliefs are IMO quite plainly ridiculous, and while it's precisely these beliefs which motivated the actions which led to the childrens deaths, it is the actions taken (or, more specifically, the lack of action taken) which is the relevant discussion point throughout this entire thread.

 

 

 

These parents are directly responsible for the death of their child, and freedom of religion laws neither negate that fact nor free them of their culpability.

Edited May 12, 2009 by iNow

[Saryctos]

Why does it matter what they believed? If they thought 4 aspirin and a good night's rest would have saved her would you still hold them negligent? Or is it more because it's a religious belief? I think actions alone is a poor way of judging any scenario. The intent was to help, they certainly were idiots when it came to medical treatment but they weren't sitting on their asses doing nothing about it.

 

I take exception in that there is an expectation for people to know things that they were never assumed to have learned (diabetes education is required where?). Regardless of what they believed, if they didn't know, then anything they did would be negligent of the facts.

[GutZ]

Giving your child random medication is as dumb as thinking pray would work.

 

Even for myself I'll phone telehealth Ontario to make sure I am not killing myself out of stupidity when I don't know what going on with my body.

 

If i am debating of giving my child 4 apsirins I am debating going to the hospitial as well (then again it's free here...not to rub it in or anything) or 24 hour walk in clinic...SOMETHING other than flooding my child with potentially unnecessary drugs.

 

I would say that's definitely neglect if you kill your child with self experimentation.

 

It's dangerous when you start allowing people get away with making stupid decisions.

 

"OH sorry I just ran you over...didn't look...damn."

"OH! you're only 12 years old...oopps"

"OH you mean if I stab someone with knife they die?"

 

Regardless of what the reason for doing it. Yeh I ma sure most of us aren't fans of the religious side but that doesnt mean even with the slight bias that it's wrong. it's a situation that regardless the reason....it's negligent. Yeah I m baised but it doesn't change the outcome in this specific case.

Edited May 12, 2009 by GutZ