Fear of western medicine claims another victim

[iNow]

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?).

The issue is not whether or not the parents know about diabetes and how to treat it. The condition itself is practically irrelevant. The facts of the case are that Kara was so sick she could not talk or move, and the parents didn't seek treatment. While their idiotic beliefs informed/motivated their decision to pray instead of going to a doctor, it is not their beliefs which are in question here, nor is their knowledge of diabetes and its proper treatment.

 

The child was so ill she could not speak or move, and they did not seek treatment. That is negligent and abusive, and they are culpable for their failure to act in a way that any reasonable person would.

[Saryctos]

The issue is not whether or not the parents know about diabetes and how to treat it. The condition itself is practically irrelevant. The facts of the case are that Kara was so sick she could not talk or move, and the parents didn't seek treatment. While their idiotic beliefs informed/motivated their decision to pray instead of going to a doctor, it is not their beliefs which are in question here, nor is their knowledge of diabetes and its proper treatment.

 

The child was so ill she could not speak or move, and they did not seek treatment. That is negligent and abusive, and they are culpable for their failure to act in a way that any reasonable person would.

 

They didn't seek treatment because it sounds like as far as they were concerned they were already administering treatment(prayer). There was no negligent behavior, they were very aware of the problem and attempted to do what they felt was best. Is it negligent to do something yourself instead of letting an expert do it? Only when related to medicine?

 

Please understand that I'm only playing the devil's advocate here. In no way would I endorse this misguided attempt at healing through prayer alone. I just want to attempt to break down exactly what thought process they are guilty of.

[padren]

While I can't say it's the state of things in Kara's case, I do find it interesting that often when prayer is preferred to medical treatment that it is not the deteriorating health of the child, but the threat of legal action that brings parents around to the "oh well, hmm, maybe a little medicine is okay then" school of thought. I'll try not to "over generalize" but that specific demographic truly makes me sick like none other.

 

 

While I don't want to ever tell someone what is "right" and force a "belief system" on them, even if it is based on scientific evidence - if we allow people to let their children die because "prayer" is viewed by them as better than medicine, how is there any degree of culpability for negligence in any case? I don't mean to straw-man here, but in any case where someone is required to use their best judgment - and that judgment is clearly faulty after the fact, how can you hold them accountable if anything goes?

 

How do you differentiate between truly faulty logic and simply self serving logic? If you "pray for your kids" should you be allowed to leave them by themselves for a few days while you go on a drinking bender? We have child abuse laws that literally outlaw saying certain things or exposing them to certain imagery.

 

There is a fine line between religious beliefs that steer a child in a manner we find disagreeable and outright putting that child in harm's way.

[SH3RL0CK]

While I can't say it's the state of things in Kara's case, I do find it interesting that often when prayer is preferred to medical treatment that it is not the deteriorating health of the child, but the threat of legal action that brings parents around to the "oh well, hmm, maybe a little medicine is okay then" school of thought. I'll try not to "over generalize" but that specific demographic truly makes me sick like none other.

can you provide any references? Or is this anecdotal?

How do you differentiate between truly faulty logic and simply self serving logic? If you "pray for your kids" should you be allowed to leave them by themselves for a few days while you go on a drinking bender? We have child abuse laws that literally outlaw saying certain things or exposing them to certain imagery.

 

There is a fine line between religious beliefs that steer a child in a manner we find disagreeable and outright putting that child in harm's way.

 

The problem is that the social system set up by the government is not well designed to handle our social problems. People using religion to deny medical attention (whether out of ignorance or not) is just one example. There are many other examples that could be provided showing the inadequacy of the government to handle social situation. I know from firsthand information that people who are willing to abuse the system will be able to do so for quite a long time as the system is designed to give people the benefit of the doubt and every opportunity to change. Unfortunately, when there is a social problem, usually the only tool society has to address it is by government intervention.

[padren]

can you provide any references? Or is this anecdotal?

It may take me a while, I recall reading the articles but it was some time back, one article specifically about a blood transfusion being blocked by parents who 'came around' to see it differently when warned of potential legal ramifications - I don't have the link right now, so I guess for the moment it's anecdotal, I can try to find it but it may take a bit of digging.

 

The problem is that the social system set up by the government is not well designed to handle our social problems. People using religion to deny medical attention (whether out of ignorance or not) is just one example. There are many other examples that could be provided showing the inadequacy of the government to handle social situation. I know from firsthand information that people who are willing to abuse the system will be able to do so for quite a long time as the system is designed to give people the benefit of the doubt and every opportunity to change. Unfortunately, when there is a social problem, usually the only tool society has to address it is by government intervention.

 

Social systems don't deal with social problems well in general, which is why it's been a sticky issue for a long time in any society that wants to balance individual freedoms against the protection of individuals - especially when it comes to the balance between protecting youth and the freedoms of parents to raise them.

 

As for the abuse of social systems - I see that as a price we just have to pay if we want to err on the side of helping more people who genuinely need it than on the side of 'safeguarding' against more of those who would abuse it.

 

But this specific issue really isn't about the failings of the government, it's an issue for social groups in general. Whether it's fearing for a kid that goes to school, a family member, or just a doctor's concern for a young patient - it's an issue that has no easy answer. My supposition is simply we already have precedent to require the reasonable use of conventional wisdom and socially approved methodologies in which failure to do so can lead to negligence charges, so I don't believe whether a specific instance invokes religious reasons is really relevant.

 

 

I could be wrong when it comes to social consensus - but I see religious freedom as protections against being singled out for your religious views, but does not go so far as to allow blanket special treatment for them. That means if you ace your physics test and are Christian, it would be illegal to disqualify you on that basis - but if you apply for a geology job and get a question on "how old does the world appear to be?" you are free to say "I haven't paid attention to the debate because I believe the world is 6000 yrs old regardless" but it isn't a free pass just because it's due to religion.

Edited May 13, 2009 by padren

[iNow]

They didn't seek treatment because it sounds like as far as they were concerned they were already administering treatment(prayer). There was no negligent behavior, they were very aware of the problem and attempted to do what they felt was best. Is it negligent to do something yourself instead of letting an expert do it? Only when related to medicine?

 

Please understand that I'm only playing the devil's advocate here. In no way would I endorse this misguided attempt at healing through prayer alone. I just want to attempt to break down exactly what thought process they are guilty of.

 

I think the most relevant answer to your questions is one which was presented earlier in the thread, that being the reasonable person standard. These parents failed to take actions that any reasonable person would, therefore they were negligent, and that negligence resulted in the terrifying and painful death of their daughter, Kara.

 

 

 

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

The first appearance of the reasonable person standard was in the English case of Vaughan v. Menlove (1837). In Menlove, the defendant had stacked hay on his rental property in a manner prone to spontaneous ignition. After repeated warnings over the course of five weeks, the hay ignited and burned the defendant's barns and stable, and then spread to the landlord's two cottages on the adjacent property. Menlove's attorney admitted his client's "misfortune of not possessing the highest order of intelligence," arguing that negligence should only be found if the jury decided Menlove had not acted with "bona fide [and] to the best of his [own] judgment."

 

The Menlove court disagreed, reasoning that such a standard would be too subjective, instead preferring to set an objective standard by which to adjudicate cases:

The care taken by a prudent man has always been the rule laid down; and as to the supposed difficulty of applying it, a jury has always been able to say, whether, taking that rule as their guide, there has been negligence on the occasion in question. Instead, therefore, of saying that the liability for negligence should be co-extensive with the judgment of each individual, which would be as variable as the length of the foot of each individual, we ought rather to adhere to the rule which requires in all cases a regard to caution such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe. That was, in substance, the criterion presented to the jury in this case and, therefore, the present rule must be discharged.

 

English courts upheld the standard again nearly 20 years later in Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the Birmingham Water Works, holding:

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

 

 

Rationale

 

American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. explained the theory behind the reasonable person standard as stemming from the impossibility of "measuring a man's powers and limitations." Individual, personal quirks inadvertently injuring the persons or property of others are no less damaging than intentional acts. In order for society to function, "a certain average of conduct, a sacrifice of individual peculiarities going beyond a certain point, is necessary to the general welfare." Thus, a reasonable application of the law is sought, compatible with planning, working, or getting along with others. As such, "his neighbors accordingly require him, at his proper peril, to come up to their standard, and the courts which they establish decline to take his personal equation into account."

 

 

 

 

http://law.jrank.org/pages/8780/Negligence-Reasonable-Person.html

A person has acted negligently if she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances. The hypothetical reasonable person provides an objective by which the conduct of others is judged. In law, the reasonable person is not an average person or a typical person but a composite of the community's judgment as to how the typical community member should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm to the public. Even though the majority of people in the community may behave in a certain way, that does not establish the standard of conduct of the reasonable person. For example, a majority of people in a community may jay-walk, but jaywalking might still fall below the community's standards of safe conduct.

 

The concept of the reasonable person distinguishes negligence from intentional torts such as ASSAULT AND BATTERY. To prove an intentional tort, the plaintiff seeks to establish that the defendant deliberately acted to injure the plaintiff. In a negligence suit, however, the plaintiff seeks to establish that the failure of the defendant to act as a reasonable person caused the plaintiff's injury.

Edited May 13, 2009 by iNow

[john5746]

Another example

 

Nice Parents

[Mr Skeptic]

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.

 

Nice Parents

A Minnesota judge has ruled that a 13-year-old boy with a highly treatable form of cancer must seek conventional medical treatment over his parents' objections.

 

Looks like I was wrong on that point.

[Pangloss]

Thanks for that example, john5746. That's a good one because it's such a clear demarcation between the two choices (90% chance of complete cure versus 5% chance of survival). I really hate to see things like that because you can practically predict that that boy is going to grow up hating the law and medicine and science because he'll just think that he was going to be fine had he not gotten treatment. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll learn better at some point. All we can do is console ourselves with the knowledge that at least he'll have that opportunity.

[john5746]

The story continues

 

This is really a sad story. I can't imagine the kid taking chemo against his will and his parents. It might make more sense to let him die at this point. Pretty sad.

[iNow]

From the article linked above:

 

 

Philip Elbert, Daniel's court-appointed attorney, said he considers his client to have a "diminished capacity" for reasons of his age and the illness and that he believes Daniel should be treated by a cancer specialist.

 

Elbert added that he does not believe Daniel -- who, according to court papers, cannot read -- has enough information to make an informed decision regarding his treatment.

 

Daniel's symptoms of persistent cough, fatigue and swollen lymph nodes were diagnosed in January as Hodgkins lymphoma. In February, the cancer responded well to an initial round of chemotherapy, but the treatment's side effects concerned the boy's parents, who then opted not to pursue further chemo and instead sought other medical opinions.

 

Court documents show that the doctors estimated the boy's chance of 5-year remission with more chemotherapy and possibly radiation at 80 percent to 95 percent.

 

But the family opted for a holistic medical treatment based upon Native American healing practices called Nemenhah and rejected further treatment.

 

In a written statement issued last week, an attorney for the parents said they "believe that the injection of chemotherapy into Danny Hauser amounts to an assault upon his body, and torture when it occurs over a long period of time."

 

Medical ethicists say parents generally have a legal right to make decisions for their children, but there is a limit.

 

"You have a right, but not an open-ended right," Arthur Caplan, director of the center for bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said last week. "You can't compromise the life of your child."

[iNow]

The courts found Kara's mother (diabetic daughter, prayer instead of medicine, disturbing 911 call when it was already too late, despite attempts by family to get action taken sooner...) ... guilty of killing her daughter.

 

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/45850182.html

A jury Friday found a central Wisconsin mother guilty of killing her 11-year-old daughter by praying for her to heal instead of rushing her to a doctor.

 

A Marathon County jury deliberated about four hours before convicting Leilani Neumann, 41, of rural Weston of second-degree reckless homicide.

 

<...>

 

Neumann's daughter Madeline died of untreated diabetes March 23, 2008, surrounded by people praying for her. When she suddenly stopped breathing, her parents' business and Bible study partners finally called 911.

 

Prosecutors contend a reasonable parent would have known something was gravely wrong with Madeline, and her mother recklessly killed her by ignoring obvious symptoms of how gravely ill she was. During closing arguments, Marathon County District Attorney Jill Falstad described Neumann as a religious zealot who let her daughter, known by the nickname Kara, die as a test of faith.

 

<...>

 

Leilani Neumann's stepfather, Brian Gordon of San Diego, said he was disappointed by the verdict and the jury was mistaken. He said his stepdaughter did nothing wrong in trusting in God to heal her daughter.

 

"We should have that right in this country," he said.

 

There will be a vigorous appeal and an investigation of possible prosecutorial misconduct, the stepfather said. "I don't care how far we have to carry this. There will be vindication and exoneration."

 

Gordon also said he was angered by Falstad's description of his family as religious extremists.

 

"We definitely are not terrorists," he said. "We are Bible-believing, God-believing, Holy Ghost-filled people who want to do right and be right."

 

I don't think he knows what a "religious extremist" is.

[Sayonara]

Prosecutors contend a reasonable parent would have known something was gravely wrong with Madeline, and her mother recklessly killed her by ignoring obvious symptoms of how gravely ill she was.

 

Surprise level: 0.03

[iNow]

Surprise level: 0.03

 

In all honesty, considering how things in my country have been proceeding lately, with the huge power and influence religion seems to be taking in our government, I really wasn't so sure, myself. I won't go so far as to say I was surprised by the courts ruling, but I can rightly say that I was incredibly relieved when reading about their decision.

[Moontanman]

oooops, sorry, I missed a couple posts there. I would like to point out that in this case a slippery slope argument just might be the best way to get across the idea of how bad this is to those who think the parents have aright to exercise their beliefs in regard to their children. since we know that not seeking medical treatment is bad and we know that prayer is not going to heal the child if he is really sick no matter how strong the beliefs are where do you draw the line? If i believe the right thing to do is discipline my child with a soldering iron is that ok? Are ciggarettes a tool partents can use to burn the devil out of thier child? Can I use needles to penetrate my child's tongue for lying? At some point the welfare of the child has to be paramount over the parents beliefs. Just as an exercise in futility where is the line? when are a parents beliefs more important than the child's welfare? Is it when we agree with the parent? Or is there a real line that we cannot allow to be crossed by parents? some religions routinely tell parents not to allow certain medical procedures. blood transfusion comes to mind right away. Is this ok? where is the line, can we really allow it to be defined by belief?

Edited May 24, 2009 by Moontanman

[iNow]

Those are some good questions in your last post, Moontanman. I don't have the time to address them now, only to share this update:

 

http://www.startribune.com/45990387.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O%3ADW3ckUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaU1yDEmP%3AQMDCinchO7DU

Daniel Hauser and his mother Colleen have been returned to Minnesota — a week after fleeing from court-ordered cancer treatment for the boy and triggering a nationwide manhunt in the process.

 

The breakthrough in the case came when Colleen Hauser used an Orange County, Calif., attorney to contact the FBI and the Brown County Sheriff’s office. Colleen and Daniel, 13, returned on a chartered flight at 3 a.m. today and where reunited with their family on their farm in rural Sleepy Eye, authorities say.

 

Looks like the judge is going to drop the warrant for the mothers arrest since she returned voluntarily. However, there is supposed to be some sort of custody hearing coming up, and it appears that the courts will be considering whether or not the mother takes him to chemotherapy as part of their decision criteria.

[iNow]

where do you draw the line? If i believe the right thing to do is discipline my child with a soldering iron is that ok? Are ciggarettes a tool partents can use to burn the devil out of thier child? Can I use needles to penetrate my child's tongue for lying? At some point the welfare of the child has to be paramount over the parents beliefs.

Indeed, but that proverbial line you seek is ever changing and never static.

 

 

Is this ok? where is the line, can we really allow it to be defined by belief?

IMO, the answer to this question is a resounding, NO. With something as important as the health of a young human who is not yet developed enough to care for themselves adequately, we must set much more objective standards which can be applied in all cases. The concept of belief is far too subjective and fuzzy to be used in matters of such import. This is merely my opinion, but I feel it is well grounded and reinforced by the reality in which we exist.

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I really logged in to share this story. It's a bit of a two-fer, and gets us away from the religious angle, which is nice. This one relates to homeopathy (hence, my suggestion it was a two-fer).

 

 

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25590813-5005941,00.html

Mr Sam, a homeopath, and his wife were accused of breaching their duty of care as parents to 9-month-old Gloria in the days before her death in May 2002.

 

During the Indian-born couple's four-week Supreme Court trial, a 12-member jury heard from 34 witnesses as well as viewing photographs charting Gloria's decline in health from the age of four months when she first developed symptoms of eczema.

 

The jury heard the baby girl was malnourished and her immune system depleted because her body was using the nutrients from food to fight infections caused by her skin condition.

 

The Crown successfully argued the couple were criminally negligent by persisting with homeopathic remedies to treat their daughter's eczema instead of seeking conventional medical help in the last two weeks of her life.

 

The jury heard Gloria's rash was so bad at six months' that her skin would weep and tear when her parents changed her clothing and nappies.

 

As her health deteriorated, her parents continued to administer homeopathic drops and ointments recommended by Mr Sam's professional peers to treat her skin rash.

 

The Crown alleged Mr Sam additionally breached his duty of care to Gloria as a patient. However, Mr Sam denied Gloria was ever his patient.

 

<...>

 

To find the Sams guilty, the jury had to be satisfied that the couple owed a duty of care to Gloria as their infant child and that they "omitted to obtain appropriate medical care" for her when they returned to Sydney from a trip to India 11 days before she died.

 

Additionally, the jury had to find that the omission caused or contributed to Gloria's death and that it "amounted to criminal negligence in that it fell so far short of the standard of care a reasonable parent would have shown in the circumstances."

 

 

A consistent theme in these stories is one of negligence, and the understanding that avoidance of western medicine is simply unreasonable and not acceptable, regardless of your system of beliefs.

Edited June 6, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Discussion about the merits of alternative medicine has been split to this thread.

[JohnB]

Thanks.

[Sayonara]

Aaaaaaand... both convicted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm

[John Cuthber]

That particular tragedy was not a case of fear of Westren medicine; it was just religious bigotry.

[iNow]

John - Are you saying that the charges of negligence were only allowed because people are bigoted against religion, or are you saying that the girl only died because of religious teachings?

 

If the former, I think you'll find a difficult time debating that stance due to the reasonable person standard which these parents failed to meet. No legislation about religious freedom can overturn the fact that there is a major difference between a "right to believe" and the "actions which stem from that belief." Some of those actions will be wrong and illegal, despite protections of belief and rights to worship.

[iNow]

I am beginning to wonder if... instead of sending these people to prison... we should perhaps send them to rehabilitation centers with a strong education component. This stuff is just so devastatingly sad and frustrating on so many levels.

 

 

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-15/1259894705182640.xml&coll=1

Over three months in 2006, as her five children grew more emaciated and listless by the day, Estelle Walker made no move to find a job, no effort to scrounge up a meal, her kids told a jury yesterday.

 

"We were supposed to wait for God to provide," said Walker's oldest daughter, now 21. "And that's what we did."

 

At one point, the daughter said, she and her siblings went 11 days without food. When police were at last summoned to the Sussex County cabin by neighbors, investigators found the children so malnourished they had difficulty talking.

 

<...>

 

The invocation of God has been a theme throughout the trial's first three days. Before the jury entered the courtroom yesterday, public defender Ronald Nicola told Judge N. Peter Conforti that Walker had been refusing to take an active role in her defense.

 

"She says, "God is my defense,' Nicola told the judge.

 

<...>

 

Last year, Walker rejected a plea-bargain offer that would have required no additional incarceration other than the one year she already served in the county jail, if she agreed to undergo additional psychiatric testing.

 

 

 

Would people like this still exist if there were no religion? Sure. Would they have such an easy justification and rationale for letting their children get so sick and death ridden if there were not these religious wishy-washy "faith is a strength, not a weakness" beliefs to which so many people cling so profoundly? I should like to think not.

[A Tripolation]

Would people like this still exist if there were no religion? Sure.

 

There's the answer to your question right there. If religion did not exist, nutjobs like this would find other excuses to not take care of their children. Blaming it on religion is a shallow, vapid claim.

 

I'm also curious as to what kind of 16 and 18 year-olds watch their siblings starve to death. Most people have a job by the time they are fifteen, and/or the competence to find one or obtain government aid.

Edited December 5, 2009 by A Tripolation

[insane_alien]

he's not blaming religion for the womans moronity. he's blaming her moronity.

 

religion just plays the role of a convienient excuse for such moronoity and that all too often allows people to get away with murder, literally.