Remember folks, the Kerry/Hatch Amendment would make this kind of “healing” (the kind of healing that actually kills children) paid as real medicine and paid with your tax dollars
WAUSAU, Wis. – A central Wisconsin couple who prayed rather than seek medical care for their 11-year-old dying daughter were sentenced Tuesday to six months in jail and 10 years probation in the girl’s death.
Dale and Leilani Neumann could have received up to 25 years in prison for the March 2008 death of Madeline Neumann, who died of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes. They were convicted of second-degree reckless homicide in separate trials earlier this year.
In sentencing the couple, Marathon County Circuit Court Judge Vincent Howard said the Neumanns were “very good people, raising their family who made a bad decision, a reckless decision.”
.
“God probably works through other people,” Howard told the parents, “some of them doctors.”The case was believed to be the first of its kind in Wisconsin involving faith healing in which someone died and another person was charged with a homicide
Read more of this tripe
I don’t want to say anything here. I’m just too angry. These kid-killers have other children now in danger. Maybe when the second kid dies we can throw the judge in jail too.
As someone with Type 1 diabetes I am beyong livid at this sentence. I dont possess the words to describe my anger and this sentence only makes me want to redouble my efforts to oppose the negative effects that religion brings into this world.
Choice of living or dying is a right people have, but when we leave it up to government authority to override parental authority in these matters, then are we not just enabling the government to take on more control?
She obviously died of natural causes, it wasn’t like it was murder. If some of these biblical literalist groups want to kill themselves off, then who are we to judge?
Adults over 18 years old have the right to refuse medical treatments to save thier lives but this was an eleven year old girl. Type 1 diabetes is so easily treatable and this was murder.
Yes. So?
Killing themselves is OK. Killing their children is when the govt needs to step in.
Oh wow. Yeah, right. But God forbid the government should require parents knowing that their child is about to kill her preborn child.
Really Dave, has your hypocrisy no bounds?
God forbid that christians follow their teaching against sex outside of marriage.That is the hypocrisy.Who is having the abortions, if you ask them what they are most will say i’m christian.
That’s a very good point.
I would bet dollars to Dolly Madison donuts that theists get more abortions than atheists.
No, it’s completely beside the point. Just because some messengers disregard the message doesn’t in any way diminish the validity of the message.
If a large enough amount of messengers disregard the ‘message’, it renders it meaningless anyways.
That’s about as logical as saying, “if enough people ignore the dangers of AIDS and continue on in their promiscuity, the physical reality and consequences of it will be ‘rendered meaningless…’”
Well then…by that logic that means that everyone who declares themselves a christian is actually a True Christian™.
What if the child agreed with it though?
Children don’t get to agree w/it. The decision is entirely in the parents’ hands.
This is beyond words for me. The simplicity with which she could have been treated. I can’t even go on an angry rant, this is just too depressing.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John W. Dowell and Sunny Graham. Sunny Graham said: Outrageous — Child Killing Perents get Slap on the Wrist « No God Blog http://bit.ly/8Xwpb [...]
During sentencing, the father read out load from his magic book then said to the judge
“I am guilty of trusting my Lord’s wisdom completely. … Guilty of asking for heavenly intervention. Guilty of following Jesus Christ when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying my God,”
In four months they will copulate and replace the child they murdered. How vile, how loathsome, how Christian.
How true.
With conjugal visits, she should be well along her way before she’s out.
Howe many times do you see the judge giving out more time than the prosecutor asks for?
If parents have a right under our Constitution, and they do, to inculcate their children with any and all kinds of Religious tripe(xtianity, judaism, hinduis, islam, buddhism etc), they ought have the right to practice the tenets of that religion to the nth degree, in the privacy of their home, even if anathema to the dominant elements of society and government.
So, since innoculations to stem the spread of disease is commonly administered, the parents of a child attending public school should be able to have their child exempted, for religious reasons, therefore resulting in the spread of disease?
If it is not a malady caused by a spreadable disease, then I agree, let them choose death, but not in the case of a communicable disease.
DW: Diabetes is not a communicable desease, so I’m assuming you agree with the parents rights in this case. In the case of a communicable disease, the only difference is that others may die as well. Why is the death of one child acceptable, but the death of the other children unacceptable? Isn’t the difference only one of numbers? I know that it would also involve the rights of those who would contract the disease, but it seems your placing more value on their life, than the child with the disease. In short, it seems that your saying that parents have the right to kill their own child, but not other peoples children.
Essentially correct. Sad commentary on freedom of religion isn’t it. Whereas I would prefer to step in and stop such atrocities, what can you do when faced with so many cases where such abuse occurs and the judges agree with the defendants? At what points do you step in? In my opinion subjecting children to indoctrination with religion when they are unable to form their own opinions is abuse. Why isn’t more done in this area? What indoctrination is permitted? Can morals of any kind be taught at young ages? Whose morals? Do we really want a “big brother” here in the United States?
Yahweh, as one who suffered abuse as a child, I would like to know when it is appropriate for the government to violate parental rights in order to protect children. Every family teaches some value system, whether it be religious or irreligious, to their children and every value system is going to conflict with others in their culture. So then, when does the government step in and impose its value system on an individual or family. Also, from where should the government get its values for making it’s laws and these types of decisions?
this is just unreal… i am beyond words.
Maybe the outcome of this trial, of a couple who let their 2-year-old son die of pneumonia, will turn out to be better:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y8zzlyd
These are obviously people who have bigger problems than their religion. They could have just as easily been seeking herbal cures and gotten the same result. I think freedom of religion is a vital right, but there has to be a line when that freedom ends. There’s a lot of religious people who could not fathom being this irresponsible or irrational. Regardless of the particular fixation of their neurosis, they should have been held responsible for their child’s neglect. However, I understand that opening a door for “big brother” to step in makes it hard to shut again when he inevitably gets in too far.
Although, if the government isn’t the final arbitrator of our values and decisions, who is?
Well said Dr.Now since we elect our gov’t i would submit that we are thru our lawmakers.Given that we regulate abortion and treatment of minors and the unborn, i don’t see an exculpatory clause for denying your child proven medical care just because one believes in good faith that a god will save them.
A lot of people are leery of the swine flu vacine. Suppose in the face of an epidemic a family decides to forgo the shots, even though they have been mandated for all. Should the couple be charged with putting the lives of their children in jeopardy? It really doesn’t matter whether you are atheist or believer in this scenario. Much news has been unfavorable of not only the swine flu vacines, but the regular flu vacines as well.
We had a similar case here in rural WA this where a teenage boy died of a ruptured appendix. If it’s possible, that was probably an even more outrageous case since, unlike type 1 diabetes, the boy’s illness could have been easily cured.
Still, I’m not sure where I stand on this. Forced medical treatment is about as bad as forced religion. Where is the line to be drawn between treatments that are mandatory (for minors) and those that aren’t. And what do you do with people who don’t comply? It’s a can of worms.
Really? How? Our laws are such that children must be given such medical care only when effective and possibly life saving. What up-side does religion have?
If it was my responsibility to draw the line between what medical treatment should be mandatory for minors and what shouldn’t, I would definitely make treatment of diabetes mandatory. Same with surgery to prevent a ruptured appendix.
But suppose a teenager has a type of cancer that even with chemotherapy has a pretty good chance of killing him. There is no way I would tell that person that they MUST take this “possibly life saving” treatment – it should be up to the kid and his parents to make that decision.
I’m not sure we even have any in my state pertaining to mandatory medical treatment. I don’t recall mention of any such law when I was reading about the boy with the ruptured appendix. Apparently Wisconsin doesn’t have one either (based on the charges against the parents of the girl who died). I would support a law in our state if it mandated only truly life saving treatment (say 80 percent or more effective) and if it applied only to minors.
No, I don’t see any up-side to religion, at least not in treating medical problems.
Jeff
The state has the right and duty to inform children of appropriate potentially life saving medical care when parents refuse or fail to do so. Good thing to!
dave,
This, like the last several threads, is like kindergarteners fighting in a playground. Saving a life with medical care is the compassionate thing to do. Allowing that person to pass on a genetic defect is an inforgivable sin. Contributers like Whutthole and Brainless Sodomite might see some redemption in the elimination of Jews, the real redemption exists in the realization that eugenics is a function of evolution. Some think that saving the genetically damaged, in order to reproduce is an act of kindness. But, it is really an act of ignorant betrayal. Some set of controls need to be put in place.
But, since this is a forum of persons who imagine themselves to be enlightened, I suppose the message will be lost.
NeoWolfe
Neo
Don’t worry we are working to finish the mission.
I understand what you are saying. Human compassion will never allow it to become a reality. It would behoove those afflicted to remove themselves from the gene pool to eliminate genetic defects from be passed on. If they refuse, again, human compassion paralyzes society, and the genetically “damaged” will pass on the damage. If we did anything less than follow human compassion then we go down the darkened halls of some kind of eugenics conflict.
As a side note: Suppose Stephen Hawkins parents had opted to remove themselves from the gene pool, knowing they might produce a diseased offspring? Yes, yes, I know, suppose that god was real, and we are headed toward hell.
How does compassion fit into the evolutionary process? It seems to be a moral virtue based more on our religious heritage than on any rational evolutionary principle. Perhaps it is a weakness itself. When do we ignore compassion for the sake of progress? Perhaps it’s the kind of courage to make the apparent “ruthless” decisions that our country is lacking.
Social animals develop compassion as it promotes the protection of the group as well as protection of the young. Ruthlessness is more of an abandonment of natural innate compassion. Compassion learned from generation to generation and which has served as an integral part of natural selection by making those who possess it more likely to survive.
And you know this how? Have you conducted research on newly evolved species to confirm this assertion?
But you just claimed that animals “develop compassion.” So which is it—“innate” or “developed?”
Not only is that counter intuitive to natural selection, but again, it sounds like you’re speaking as though that assertion has been experimentally confirmed from research on an entirely new species.
That’s not counter-intuitive to natural selection, since it would be a heritable trait that benefits a species.
Besides which, you’d not accept any experimental proof 1 way or another.
I would if you could perform it on an entirely new species from the moment it began–because that would be the only way to scientifically determine such a thing. To assert anything else is pure conjecture.
The fact that all species evolved via natural selection is proof enough.
Christianity is pure conjecture yet Christians accept it without hesitation, and without foundation.
Science is founded by observation and experiment, through reason. Not conjecture and with foundation.
When have I ever advocated for the elimination of jews or any other group? How dare you.
That’s true. You’ve only inferred segregation & a geniocracy.
Sieg heil herr Neowolfe. You are such a moron. Please eliminate your genes from the pool. It would be the decent thing to do
He hasn’t caught on yet that we are part of the global godless communist plot to turn earth into a slave planet.
He hasn’t caught on to much. Because of his low intelligence and desire for a more robust gene pool he should dedicate himself to winning this years Darwin Award.