• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

American history and black history cannot be separated.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

They are not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Cancel the cowardly Times and Post and set up an equivalent monthly donation to ProPublica.

Their shamelessness is their super power.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

The willow is too close to the house.

SCOTUS: It’s not “bribery” unless it comes from the Bribery region of France. Otherwise, it’s merely “sparkling malfeasance”.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

Shut up, hissy kitty!

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

Dear elected officials: Trump is temporary, dishonor is forever.

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

Dear Washington Post, you are the darkness now.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Giving in to doom is how we fail to fight for ourselves & one another.

Mobile Menu

  • 4 Directions VA 2025 Raffle
  • 2025 Activism
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / Dying for No Good Reason

Dying for No Good Reason

by John Cole|  March 29, 20089:15 am| 80 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics, Assholes, General Stupidity, Outrage

FacebookTweetEmail

I generally have libertarian leanings when it relates to the parent/child relationship, but I can’t help but feel there should be a criminal price for this kind of stupidity:

Wisconsin authorities will consider filing charges in the case of an 11-year-old girl who died on Easter Sunday of complications from diabetes that went untreated because police say her parents’ obscure religious beliefs do not allow medical intervention.

***

Eells does say his church does not believe in the the medical intervention.

“We are not commanded in scripture to send people to the doctor but to meet their needs through prayer and faith. As anyone here in the ministry will tell you, we are not against doctors for those who have their faith there and never condemn or restrict them in any way,” Eells writes. “But we know that the best one to trust in for healing is Jesus Christ. The foundation for receiving this benefit from Him is repentance and faith in His promises.”

Sleeter says when officials started to investigate the case, the Neumanns were initially cooperative, but said the couple, who have three other teenaged children, are “of the opinion that they’ve talked to us and there’s nothing else they want to say.”

At the very least, something needs to be done about the rest of their kids. The question, I suppose, is where do you draw the line in a free society in regards to this sort of thing?

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Threats
Next Post: I Only Beat Her Because I Love Her So Much »

Reader Interactions

80Comments

  1. 1.

    p.a.

    March 29, 2008 at 9:27 am

    Another nominee for the Darwin Awards. Sucks when it’s a child, but I think the only practical solution is ‘hands off’; it’s a real slippery slope if government gets too involved here. I can see enforcing immunization laws against parents’ wills- individual vs. social costs etc., but beyond that we’re not too far from “his/her high school dropout parents smoke and eat fatty foods. we must remove the child for its safety.” Don’t think anyone wants to go there.

  2. 2.

    BH Buck

    March 29, 2008 at 9:40 am

    Speaking of Darwin awards…

    Shooting of Gay Student Sparks Outcry

  3. 3.

    myiq2xu

    March 29, 2008 at 9:45 am

    Sucks when it’s a child, but I think the only practical solution is ‘hands off’; it’s a real slippery slope if government gets too involved here. I can see enforcing immunization laws against parents’ wills- individual vs. social costs etc., but beyond that we’re not too far from “his/her high school dropout parents smoke and eat fatty foods. we must remove the child for its safety.”

    Mr. Goldberg? Is that you Jonah?

    Still fighting that “liberal fascism?”

  4. 4.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 29, 2008 at 9:46 am

    There doesn’t seem to be a good choice here. Having a child die because of her parents’ beliefs is horrible. If we start taking children away from their parents because of their parents’ beliefs then the door is opened to all sorts of other mischief. I can’t help thinking that there are some communities that would be more than happy to pull kids out of homes where the parents are atheists, or Wiccans, for instance, on the grounds that the parents were jeopardizing the child’s soul.

  5. 5.

    slippy hussein toad

    March 29, 2008 at 9:50 am

    BH Buck Says:

    Speaking of Darwin awards…

    Shooting of Gay Student Sparks Outcry
    March 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am

    There’s an award for that, but it’s due to the asshole who did the shooting. I think he should get a special cell.

  6. 6.

    mikesdak

    March 29, 2008 at 9:52 am

    Even a free society doesn’t allow negligent homicide. Children aren’t property,they’re a responsibility. I read somewhere that they think the child’s death was because they aren’t devout enough. If they’re willing to let their child die for their “faith” then they should be willing to take the consequences for their failure.

  7. 7.

    BFR

    March 29, 2008 at 9:56 am

    The question, I suppose, is where do you draw the line in a free society in regards to this sort of thing?

    It’s child abuse – plain and simple. We don’t allow molestation now, do we? Lock them up and throw away the fucking key.

    Full disclosure – I’m a Type 1 (like this kid) diabetic so this story makes me physically ill.

  8. 8.

    mikesdak

    March 29, 2008 at 9:56 am

    As for whether to take away the other kids, that becomes somewhat automatic when the parents go to prison for killing one.

  9. 9.

    myiq2xu

    March 29, 2008 at 9:59 am

    I think he should get a special cell.

    I suspect he’ll be learning more than he wanted to know about gay sex.

  10. 10.

    Wilfred

    March 29, 2008 at 9:59 am

    Hodja got a job as a judge. In this very first case, two men were suing each other over piece of land. Hodja told the first man to state his case and when the man finished giving all the reasons why the land should be his and not the other man’s Hodja said: “You’re right”. Immediately, the other man jumped up, protesting how unfair it was to say such a thing without hearing his side of the story. Hodja apologized and instructed the man to give his version. When he finished, Hodja said: “You’re right”. Immediately, someone in the audience jumped up and said: “Oh come on now! They both can’t be right!”
    And Hodja said: “You’re right”.

    You either have wisdom or you don’t. If you don’t, it doesn’t matter what you do. Pick a master narrative (religion, law, witchcraft. etc) and stick with it.

  11. 11.

    BFR

    March 29, 2008 at 10:00 am

    There doesn’t seem to be a good choice here. Having a child die because of her parents’ beliefs is horrible. If we start taking children away from their parents because of their parents’ beliefs then the door is opened to all sorts of other mischief.

    NO!!! There is a good choice – you take kids away from parents who physically endanger them. It doesn’t matter if the abuse is from neglect, sadism or in this case religious devotion. It’s still abuse and there’s no reason to leave any kid in that household.

  12. 12.

    joshua

    March 29, 2008 at 10:00 am

    Refusal to seek medical treatment for your child’s disease is neglect; religious beliefs are not an excuse to put your child in immediate danger. An 11-year old is not in a position to seek the treatment themselves, especially against the wishes of their parents. If it can be demonstrated that a reasonable person would have recognized that the girl had been suffering from a long-term illness that required immediate medical treatment, they should be charged under whatever criminal statutes cover criminal neglect of a minor child and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible and their other children should be placed in foster care.

  13. 13.

    zsa

    March 29, 2008 at 10:02 am

    My religion tell me that children are able to fly. If they pray hard enough, their faith will protect them when I throw them off the roof.

  14. 14.

    Halteclere

    March 29, 2008 at 10:06 am

    Yea, it is a tough line to define – when are a parent’s beliefs negligent and criminal, and when are they just unfortunate?

    I think most everyone will find these parents to be criminally negligent, for the parents (as best I can tell) embrace all other aspects of a modern society. But how to separate this instance from another group of people whose beliefs don’t embrace most modern advancements, such as the Amish? The Amish groups that I am vaguely familiar with don’t have telephones and have to rely on friendly neighbors for fast transportation (modern vehicles) to a hospital. If an Amish child dies in a similar circumstance, would anyone claim that the Amish family was being criminally negligent? Where should the line be drawn?

    (funny story – an aunt and uncle of mine were rear-ended by an Amish horse and buggy once.)

  15. 15.

    BFR

    March 29, 2008 at 10:08 am

    If it can be demonstrated that a reasonable person would have recognized that the girl had been suffering from a long-term illness that required immediate medical treatment

    The parents stated that they knew something was wrong – they watched her slowly die over the course of a couple of weeks.

  16. 16.

    BFR

    March 29, 2008 at 10:12 am

    If an Amish child dies in a similar circumstance, would anyone claim that the Amish family was being criminally negligent? Where should the line be drawn?

    This played out over several weeks – an Amish parent who let their kid die in similar circumstances would be just as culpable. They literally had weeks to get her to a doctor, in which case diagnosis would have happened in about 15 minutes and she could have been stabilized in a matter of hours.

  17. 17.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 29, 2008 at 10:12 am

    My religion tell me that children are able to fly. If they pray hard enough, their faith will protect them when I throw them off the roof.

    And the law couldn’t do a thing about it until you started throwing them. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise of the First Amendment allow pretty much guarantee that you can believe whatever you want and that you can act on those beliefs right up to the point that you break the law.

  18. 18.

    KC

    March 29, 2008 at 10:14 am

    I’m diabetic, and have heard of any number of mumbo-jumbo natural “remedies” to diabetes that are supposedly safer and more effective than traditional treatments (basically, taking insulin manually). A friend of mine’s mom who was also diabetic got into taking one of these remedies–it promised to reinvigorate her body’s insulin production–and stopped taking her shots. Within a month she was going to the hospital with severe keotasidosis. In her case, part of the motivating factor for her to buy this garbage was financial–her insurance wasn’t good and things were getting too expensive. However, in the case of this girl, it sounds like her father was a policeman, so I’d assume she had decent health insurance. Then again, it never ceases to amaze me what people will buy into.

  19. 19.

    ACK

    March 29, 2008 at 10:16 am

    That’s a sad story.

    My extended family members on my maternal side were all Christian Scientists.

    My mother was too. She did eventually stop practicing but her conversion only happened after she made a comment to my father about not believing in medical treatment shortly after my oldest sister was born. My father was horrified. My mother did abandon that church pretty quickly after that.

    She then went on to make frequent/regular use of medical professionals. ;)

  20. 20.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 29, 2008 at 10:16 am

    NO There is a good choice – you take kids away from parents who physically endanger them. It doesn’t matter if the abuse is from neglect, sadism or in this case religious devotion. It’s still abuse and there’s no reason to leave any kid in that household.

    Of course you take the child away – if you know that the child is suffering. The law didn’t find out in time. They were on their way to the home to investigate when the 911 call came through.

    What I meant was, you can’t peremptorily take a child away from its parents just because the parents have some nutty beliefs.

  21. 21.

    mikesdak

    March 29, 2008 at 10:19 am

    I favor the old saying “your right to swing your fist ends where another nose begins”. You have a right to whatever wacky belief you can dream up, as long as there’s no collateral damage,and you have to take responsibility if there is.

  22. 22.

    BFR

    March 29, 2008 at 10:21 am

    What I meant was, you can’t peremptorily take a child away from its parents just because the parents have some nutty beliefs.

    Of course, having nutty beliefs isn’t a crime but abuse is. As soon as they became aware that she was unwell and declined to get medical help, that’s when the behavior became criminal.

  23. 23.

    Brachiator

    March 29, 2008 at 10:42 am

    At the very least, something needs to be done about the rest of their kids. The question, I suppose, is where do you draw the line in a free society in regards to this sort of thing?

    I almost want to say that the parents’ religious beliefs must be respected even if it leads to awful consequences, but I think I have to draw the line when imminent physical harm is caused or is likely to be the outcome of non-intervention.

    It amazes me that the child’s father was a policeman. You would think that he might have a broader view of things, and be more concerned about protecting the life of his child.

    BFR Says:

    What I meant was, you can’t peremptorily take a child away from its parents just because the parents have some nutty beliefs.

    Of course, having nutty beliefs isn’t a crime but abuse is. As soon as they became aware that she was unwell and declined to get medical help, that’s when the behavior became criminal.

    Of course, there are tons of people, many of whom considered themselves intelligent and enlightened, who treat their children with all manner of herbs and “alternative” medicines which have absolutely no effect, but which may lead them to delay using more effective treatment until it is too late. Not only do we permit this, we often applaud these fools as though they are brave and “progressive” when they show up on TV trumpeting the latest natural remedy for this, that and the other.

  24. 24.

    demimondian

    March 29, 2008 at 10:49 am

    Get your fringe sects right, for Heaven’s sake! It’s not the Amish who refuse medical treatment — it’s the Christian Scientists, and, to a lesser extent, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. (And even they will now accept insulin for a diabetic, provided it isn’t obtained from human or animal sources.)

    The Amish aren’t opposed to medicine, but to “pride” — they avoid those trappings of modern life which do nothing more than increase comfort. They reject modern dress and modern conveyance because they consider those things to be *extra* physical comfort when what they have is already sufficient.
    They don’t *universally* reject vaccination, although they do have lower-than-usual vaccination rates. The Old-order Amish have been very willing to participate in research into type I diabetes (see this link, for instance.)

  25. 25.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    March 29, 2008 at 10:52 am

    where do you draw the line in a free society in regards to this sort of thing?

    Here’s where I would draw it: people are free to do any insanely idiotic stupidity to themselves, but not to force it upon other people, even their own children, who aren’t even close to old enough to decide if they want to follow in their parents’ imbecilic footsteps.

    Take those kids away and put them with parents who are not homicidally delusional.

  26. 26.

    myiq2xu

    March 29, 2008 at 11:01 am

    OT – The worst horror movie EVAH is on USA right now.

    Jeepers Creepers

    “Gee sis, it looked like somebody was shoving bodies down a pipe back there. Let’s go back and see.”

  27. 27.

    demimondian

    March 29, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Take those kids away and put them with parents who are not homicidally delusional.

    Strip out the loaded language, and I think that’s probably the compromise we’ll eventually settle upon: “Your children’s health is your responsibility. You can parent however you like, so long as your children are not put at undo risk through your own gross negligence; once you step beyond the line, you can lose that right.”

  28. 28.

    Brachiator

    March 29, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Update: Praying parents’ other 3 kids removed

    The three siblings of a girl who died of diabetes that went untreated as her parents prayed instead of taking her to a doctor have been removed from the home during an investigation, police said Friday.

    The parents and social services experts agreed the move would be best for everyone, Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said. The children are staying with other relatives, though they were not in danger, he said.

    “There is no physical evidence of abuse or neglect,” he said.

    Madeline Neumann, 11, died Sunday the Weston home of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes as her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, prayed for her to get better. Her mother said she never expected her daughter, whom she called Kara, to die.

    The family believes in the Bible, which says healing comes from God, Leilani Neumann said.

    The children removed from the home range in age from 13 to 16 and are expected to return to their parents once an investigation of the girl’s death wraps up, Vergin said.

    He would not specify where they are living, other than with another family member.

  29. 29.

    w vincentz

    March 29, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Oh my, my, my..a child dies and we’re ever so outraged!
    Ain’t it great that it wasn’t an Iraqi kid?
    Underneath all of this bull shit is the need for people to BELIEVE.
    “God is on our side.”
    “The surge is working.”
    “We must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.”
    Right…it’s the parents’ “fault”. Shit! Anything to justify stupidity.

  30. 30.

    b. hussein canuckistani

    March 29, 2008 at 11:13 am

    I draw the line at children – if you endanger your children, they need to be protected, and I don’t care what kind of batshit rationalizations you have.
    If you let your children die for your nuthouse beliefs, then you are just as guilty as if you had poisoned them so they could meet Jesus.

  31. 31.

    demimondian

    March 29, 2008 at 11:18 am

    Anything to justify stupidity.

    Yup. So, since you can only be concerned about one thing at a time, I guess you’ve stopped caring about Iraq or vote fraud, since you’re outraged about this?

  32. 32.

    Halteclere

    March 29, 2008 at 11:27 am

    demimondian Says:

    Get your fringe sects right, for Heaven’s sake! It’s not the Amish who refuse medical treatment—it’s the Christian Scientists, and, to a lesser extent, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. (And even they will now accept insulin for a diabetic, provided it isn’t obtained from human or animal sources.)

    If you are responding to my post, then please read this sentence again:

    The Amish groups that I am vaguely familiar with don’t have telephones and have to rely on friendly neighbors for fast transportation (modern vehicles) to a hospital.

    Now, I acknowledge that my point was muddied since I had forgotten that the child died of diabetes complication (I slept since I originally read the article) and not something else that developed unexpectedly over a two-week period.

    To clarify my point: Where is the line drawn between someone refusing to take immediate action for a person’s well-being due to beliefs contrary to treatment, and someone whose beliefs makes them unable to take immediate action for a person’s well being?

  33. 33.

    w vincentz

    March 29, 2008 at 11:28 am

    demi,
    I’m outraged by EVERYTHING!!
    This is just another splinter on the fire.

  34. 34.

    Raenelle

    March 29, 2008 at 11:50 am

    Tough call, but you wouldn’t just be taking the decision out of the parents’ hands; you would also be imposing something on them that they consider morally debilitating. And there’s always the slippery slope. Whenever government gets to intervene, it enlarges their habit of and taste for intervening.

    OTOH, I’m more of an individualist than an idealist: Usually, I’d say save the kid and fuck the principle.

    But I just don’t see how saving this kid could be made consistent, even in an ideal (non-power corrupts) universe, with the husbanding of individual freedom. Our freedoms aren’t on the march; they’re in a panicked retreat. And giving the government power here just throws down a couple more weapons we haven’t already discarded in the dash for safety.

  35. 35.

    Scott H

    March 29, 2008 at 11:50 am

    Let a jury sort the parents out. I don’t know that this wasn’t some kind of religious Munchhausen by proxy.

  36. 36.

    The Other Steve

    March 29, 2008 at 11:55 am

    I don’t care if it sucks, or you are sad, or what emotion you are feeling.

    The state has no business here.

  37. 37.

    ed

    March 29, 2008 at 11:58 am

    Jesus Christ chose 12 men to be his apostles, those he trusted with his message and ministry. The apostle Luke was a PHYSICIAN! Prayer is a known to have healing properties, but most typically, responses to prayer come through other people. Like physicians. It is an age old tradition to take one section of the Bible and make a whole religion out of it. Refusing medical care is NOT a Biblical injunction, unless quotes are cherry picked and taken out of context.

    Child neglect is child neglect, regardless of motivation. This slope is not so slippery, there being a clear difference been neglecting one’s physical well-being and one’s spiritual well being. One is the province of government, the other is not.

  38. 38.

    ThymeZone

    March 29, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    I almost want to say that the parents’ religious beliefs must be respected even if it leads to awful consequences, but I think I have to draw the line when imminent physical harm is caused or is likely to be the outcome of non-intervention.

    Of course, that’s where the line has to be drawn. What’s the difference between what these insane parents did, and a mother putting her child in the oven because she thought God told her to do so? Or another parent starving a child because she thought God wanted that?

    If a religion taught parents to kill their children, would we tolerate it? When treatment for diabetes is obvious and ubiquitous and available, what’s the difference between withholding that treatment, and otherwise abusing the child to death?

    The idea the this practice is protected under religious freedom is absurd. Religious freedom is not license to kill people.

  39. 39.

    w vincentz

    March 29, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Demi,
    The title of this thread is “Dying for No Good Reason.”
    Maybe someday, someone with vast knowledge beyond my limited will explain to one year old Gage Hake, the son of #4,000, what his daddy died for, and why he’s unable to attend his Little League games, or go camping, or fishing, or…
    So a little girl dies cause her parents are religious “nuts”. Fine. Or a little baby is blasted by gunfire from Marines at a check-point in Fallusia, or a whiel ago, a naked girl runs down the road cause her village was just napalmed. Shit! I could go on.
    This sickens me, as it should everyone.
    Hey Gage, your daddy got pissed away cause he believed the lies of the president. So sorry.

  40. 40.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 29, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    You can’t enforce common sense. Here in Southern California, kids die every Summer because their parents leave them in the car on a hot day while they go into a store (Or a mall!) to “Just pick up a few things.”

    It has nothing to do with the parents’ religious beliefs and everything to do with not having the brains that G*d gave a piss ant. When the aforementioned lack of brains is coupled with a religious belief in the primacy of prayer over medicine the results are predictable. Despite that, the law can not step in until actual harm is done.

  41. 41.

    Temple Stark

    March 29, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    This country lives on over-medication, impure and simple.

    This is the other extreme. Both are extremely damaging while the former is sucking the life out of this country and making America a nation of dependents.

    There are teenagers in this situation that have, apparently done fine. They should be left alone. Watching your child die because of stubborn faith? That looms large on the scale of disgust and horror. The teenagers and the family will judge themselves, and each other and so will society and neighbors in this case. I don’t think their lives are going to be a picnic from here on out. Jail time isn’t the answer.

    Put it another way, I was dragged out of my parents home when I was young, 2 or 3 – literally physically removed – because they were vegetarians and there was misplaced concern from someone on my part. I was healthy and continue to remain quite healthy – yet while in the hospital I got the measles. It could have been worse.

    My parents were required to make regular visits to the hospital to make sure I was OK, even though I really was OK and had never been not OK. My parents finally had enough and left the state (Calif. by the way); fugitives in a small but real sense.

    If societal norm is to be subservient to drugs and to live according to time broken down by dosage, I’d rather take nonconformity. That is, unless there is imminent harm – a clear and present danger if you will – as there was in this case.

    My incomplete and hurried thoughts. ….

    Temple

  42. 42.

    Temple Stark

    March 29, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Oh, I see the kids 13-16 have been removed (from comment above) -and are likely to be returned.

    Question arises from this point in the article: Madeline Neumann, 11, died Sunday the Weston home of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes as her parents …

    How does anyone KNOW this is what she died from? I guess measuring sugar levels in her blood post-mortem? As I said a second ago, if they were watching their child get seriously sick they should have done something; however I had been under the impression that everyone knew she had diabetes beforehand. My misread.

  43. 43.

    Krista

    March 29, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    I favor the old saying “your right to swing your fist ends where another nose begins”.

    Or like the golden rule of Wicca: “Harming none, do what thou will.” (And by “harming none”, they mean yourself as well.)

    Can the state go in and take kids away from Christian Scientists and others who eschew medicine, because the kids might get sick and die? No. They can’t do that. But, if a kid does get sick, and the parents won’t have their child treated, and the authorities find out about it, should they have the right to press charges? Yes, I believe so, because at that point, they are actively choosing to neglect their child’s needs, to the immediate detriment of the child’s health. And yes, there will be cases where we won’t find out about this until a child has died, and it’s tragic as hell, but I don’t know of a way that it can be prevented without resorting to absurd and authoritarian measures.

    Can I just say for the record how much I loathe most religion?

  44. 44.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 29, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    What ever happened to the phrase “God helps those who help themselves”? That kind of says it all for me; if you need help, get it! We had a situation like this in Spokane years ago where the kid died from something that could have been easily treated. The family lost their other kids, and the father was sent to prison (he was found to be the primary cause of the lack of medical care for the kid).

    If these people want to follow a religious line in the pursuit of whatever, just make sure that they understand that if what they do or don’t do kills or harms the kid(s), they are going to prison or may lose their children. No if, ands or buts about it.

    If I decide that I am not going to get medical care for my kids, and it is only because I wish it that way, I would rightfully lose my kids. But if I do it for religious reasons they leave me alone? What fucking sense does that make?!

    Some current aspects of religion seem to be right out of the dark ages, and no matter how enlightened we become over time it seems that there are people who prefer the ‘good old days’.

    Religion is more trouble than it is worth.

  45. 45.

    Darkness

    March 29, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    If you are trying to be careful of upsetting rights, this is just a no good solution case. Dangerously crazy people are dangerously crazy, whether the voice inside their head sounds like scripture or not. Some people have this P.C. reaction to those spouting scripture that gets in the way of better sense.

    I give the parents credit for being purists (in a psychotically unhealthy way). Most Christians wimp out on trusting the old JC when the pain and panic really set in and the hospital is so close by. You know the wimpy ones who don’t believe in evolution and think scientists are evil, but want the latest drugs they develop anyway. Must really grind having to have your life saved like that, prayer free.

  46. 46.

    scarshapedstar

    March 29, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    The most sickening part of this is that these idiots are probably vehemently “pro-life”.

  47. 47.

    tom.a

    March 29, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    This doesn’t seem to be a rights issue to me but rather one of physical abuse. The parents lack of action in his case was life threatening, they knew it and they had the opportunity to do something about it but did not act to prevent the abuse. We protect people’s rights to practice the religion they choose, but that right or any right for that matter, is revoked when it endangers the freedoms or life of another person, particularly children.

  48. 48.

    dbrown

    March 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    Free society? What world do you live in? Taxes, voting, speed limits, housing codes, justice systems, and the octopus of all: government. These and so many things prevent anyone from living in a ‘free’ society. Until you live on another planet and can support yourself without all the minor trappings of modern life (health care, electricity, indoor plumbing, huge and varied foods, clean potable water, education …) you can never be free – thank god!
    As for children, I believe the law says that until 18, they must receive life saving medical treatment regardless of religious stipulation. This is a crime in all senses of the word – unlike Greek/Roman culture around 300 BC – 400 AD when a father could kill children and his wife if he felt the need, I do not ever want that free of a society and think it is silly for you to imply that society preventing the murder of a child somehow undercuts the idea of a ‘free’ society.

  49. 49.

    Tsulagi

    March 29, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    I got nothing but contempt for these parents. They put their personal beliefs above the welfare and life of their own child. Narcissistic in the extreme.

    Can I just say for the record how much I loathe most religion?

    Ditto.

  50. 50.

    TenguPhule

    March 29, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Religion is the WMD of Stupidity.

  51. 51.

    The Sanity Inspector

    March 29, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    TenguPhule Says:

    Religion is the WMD of Stupidity.

    So I assume you’ve got a medical alert bracelet, forbidding the paramedics to take you to any hospital named after a saint?

  52. 52.

    BFR

    March 29, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    How does anyone KNOW this is what she died from? I guess measuring sugar levels in her blood post-mortem? As I said a second ago, if they were watching their child get seriously sick they should have done something; however I had been under the impression that everyone knew she had diabetes beforehand.

    I was diagnosed with diabetes at a similar age. It’s not rocket science – the symptoms are really pretty profound. It would be pretty inconceivable that they didn’t supsect something was seriously wrong.

    At any rate, if you were trying to build a case against them it wouldn’t be hard – they knew she was sick enough to feel the need to pray for her to get healthy – they took affirmitive action to try to ‘help’ but didn’t do the one thing that actually would (and that any responsible parent would instinctively do) – take them to the hospital.

    No, they chose instead to watch their daughter slowly starve to death.

  53. 53.

    PeterJ

    March 29, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    The apostle Luke was a PHYSICIAN!

    Probably a translation error. He was obviously a faith healer.

  54. 54.

    BFR

    March 29, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    I don’t care if it sucks, or you are sad, or what emotion you are feeling.

    The state has no business here.

    No, that’s 100% wrong. Kids don’t have the same legal rights as the rest of us – we don’t permit them to vote, drive cars, drink etc because they are considered wards of their parents – unless the parents are unfit (ie harming their children) at which point they are properly removed from the household.

    When you are a legal guardian of a minor child, you assume a number of responsibilities for protecting the children’s rights and well-being. You can’t ignore them because of your religious views.

  55. 55.

    Tom in Texas

    March 29, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    An employee of Rice University forgot to drop his daughter off at day care on his way to work. He remembered when he showed up after work to pick her up. She died of a heatstroke. No charges are expected to be filed.

    According to the story I originally read, the mother usually dropped off the child and the father simply forgot. I remember thinking that my father would absolutely have done this — not out of malicious intent, but simply from forgetfulness. I also recalled that my brother, being the fussy baby, would not have been forgotten. I was the quiet one, meaning I would have died with a nice tan.

  56. 56.

    Face

    March 29, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Hey Gage, your daddy got pissed away cause he believed the lies of the president. So sorry.

    Uh, what? How do you know what he believed in? Just cuz you’re forced to go to Iraq doesn’t mean you believe in it. Ever heard of “stop-loss” orders?

  57. 57.

    craigie

    March 29, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    I can’t help thinking that there are some communities that would be more than happy to pull kids out of homes where the parents are atheists,

    So, religious belief leads directly to child death, and the response is to take children away from atheists? Whoo, I love the smell of irony in the morning.

  58. 58.

    bob

    March 29, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    Time to outlaw religion. Belief in fairytales is childish. ACTING on those beliefs when they involve life and death can be criminal, as in the above example. Why is it that fake religion, child abuse, sexual deviancy, warmongering and predatory capitalism go hand in hand?

  59. 59.

    afferent input

    March 29, 2008 at 4:44 pm

    I’m going through a similar situation right now. My 56 year-old mother is manic depressive and had her first manic episode at the age of 19. She was raised Christian Scientist and thus has kooky ideas about medicine and doctors.

    Like most people with bipolar, she responds incredibly well to lithium. When she’s on lithium, she’s perfectly rational and perfectly normal and knows that the views of Christian Science is just outright wacky. But every few years she starts to waver and becomes more and more focused on her old religion.

    Apparently she’s started to attend church about two months ago without our family’s knowledge. In the past two months, she’s blown $15 K in savings, started to purchase an old Victorian home, drawn up engineering plans to solve the nation’s energy crisis using geothermal technology, and is reading poetry for group that does tours for haunted houses.

    This F-ing religion is a big part of her lifelong problems. The medication works wonders, but this poisonous theology teaches her that her problems are due to false belief. As a trained neuroscientist, these nutty ideas about mental illness are especially ludicrous.

  60. 60.

    dbrown

    March 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    What are her idea’s? They might be very good – bipolar people tend to be highly intelligent

  61. 61.

    Mona

    March 29, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    John: I’m a thoroughgoing libertarian, but I have always believed — and most ‘tarian writers I’ve seen address the issue do as well — that parents may not withhold proper medical care from their children due to their religious beliefs, or any other reason.

    Once that child reaches age of majority, s/he may deny any medical treatment, and die if that is the consequence. But children, by definition, cannot make such an informed choice. The law properly requires that their caretakers provide the necessities — including basic medical intervention — until the child is old enough to make that decision for themselves.

    Adults? No one should force a competent adult (meaning, one not a ward under guardianship) to undergo ANY medical tx. But children are not competent adults.

    Liberty, including religious liberty, is a high value. But the right to life trumps it.

  62. 62.

    Brachiator

    March 29, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    ThymeZone Says:

    I almost want to say that the parents’ religious beliefs must be respected even if it leads to awful consequences, but I think I have to draw the line when imminent physical harm is caused or is likely to be the outcome of non-intervention.

    Of course, that’s where the line has to be drawn. What’s the difference between what these insane parents did, and a mother putting her child in the oven because she thought God told her to do so? Or another parent starving a child because she thought God wanted that?

    Of course, the problem is that the parents’ aren’t insane. And while I can easily say that my values are superior to hers, and that our societal rules trump her beliefs and should be imposed upon her, the impulse — though obviously not the outcome — would be similar to the enormity of the Bush intrusion into individual, private, and family matters in the Terry Schiavo case.

    I could even try to quote chapter and verse to show that the parents’ interpretation of the Bible was incorrect, but if they honestly feel that they understand God’s word, as long as we respect the idea of individual conscience, we have to hear them out.

    If a religion taught parents to kill their children, would we tolerate it? When treatment for diabetes is obvious and ubiquitous and available, what’s the difference between withholding that treatment, and otherwise abusing the child to death?

    Some religious people feel that they have a precedent in the biblical story of Abraham being ready to sacrifice his son to justify their obedience to their deity.

    The idea the this practice is protected under religious freedom is absurd. Religious freedom is not license to kill people.

    Sadly, there are people who would disagree with you her, and back it up with rational discourse as well as religious fervor.

    Some of this sad case reminds me of the episode, “Believers,” from the SF show “Babylon 5.” An alien couple’s son is seriously ill, but the parents refuse to allow Dr. Franklin to perform invasive surgery because they believe that it would destroy the child’s soul.

    The doctor gets conflicting advice from various characters on the show, but ultimately decides to go ahead without the parents’ permission. The surgery is a success and the child later is shown recovering nicely.

    In the final scenes of the episode, the doctor goes to check on his patient, only to find that the parents have smothered the child. Believing that the child is “soul dead,” they believe that the only merciful act is to free the child’s body from bondage.

    bob Says:

    Time to outlaw religion. Belief in fairytales is childish. ACTING on those beliefs when they involve life and death can be criminal, as in the above example. Why is it that fake religion, child abuse, sexual deviancy, warmongering and predatory capitalism go hand in hand?

    You might as well outlaw human culture while you are at it. It is not just religion that is at fault here. Consider people who kill their daughters for having sex or for marrying outside the tribe even though they cannot point to anything in the text of their religion that mandates such a thing.

    There are recent stories of thoroughly secular parents who refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated even though they put their children and their neighbors at risk for diseases that are easily prevented.

    Put it another way, I was dragged out of my parents home when I was young, 2 or 3 – literally physically removed – because they were vegetarians and there was misplaced concern from someone on my part. I was healthy and continue to remain quite healthy – yet while in the hospital I got the measles. It could have been worse.

    You mean, like this (Vegan couple sentenced to life over baby’s death)?

    A vegan couple were sentenced Wednesday to life in prison for the death of their malnourished 6-week-old baby boy, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.

    Superior Court Judge L.A. McConnell imposed the mandatory sentences on Jade Sanders, 27, and Lamont Thomas, 31. Their son, Crown Shakur, weighed just 3 1/2 pounds when he died of starvation on April 25, 2004.

    The couple were found guilty May 2 of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children. A jury deliberated about seven hours before returning the guilty verdicts.

    Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby, who was born at home, was in danger until minutes before he died.

    But prosecutors said the couple intentionally neglected their child and refused to take him to the doctor even as the baby’s body wasted away.

    “No matter how many times they want to say, ‘We’re vegans, we’re vegetarians,’ that’s not the issue in this case,” said prosecutor Chuck Boring. “The child died because he was not fed. Period.”

    I wish that it were easy to just point the finger at religion or stupidity, but life, with its endless opportunities for triumph or tragedy, will not let us off the hook so easily.

  63. 63.

    Bruce Moomaw

    March 29, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Where do you draw the line against this sort of thing in a free society? The same place you draw it when it comes to, say, respecting the right of self-proclaimed Aztecs to carry out human sacrifices to keep the Sun from going out.

  64. 64.

    Brachiator

    March 29, 2008 at 6:46 pm

    Bruce Moomaw Says:

    Where do you draw the line against this sort of thing in a free society? The same place you draw it when it comes to, say, respecting the right of self-proclaimed Aztecs to carry out human sacrifices to keep the Sun from going out.

    Arthur C. Clarke: “The Nine Billion Names of God”

  65. 65.

    ThymeZone

    March 29, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    the problem is that the parents’ aren’t insane

    Sorry, but I disagree on that point, which I think is central to the issue.

    This is not about “values,” that’s how a phony bullshit word crowds out the words that actually apply here. This is about facts, and the ability to recognize them, a basic requirement of participation in a civilized society. Values be damned, the facts are clear. The child was denied obvious remedies that are available widely and are extremely effective. This was not Teri Schiavo, already gone, this was a kid who could easily have been saved.

    Failure to recognize the proper course of action, insistence on the wrong course, even in the face of overwhelming evidence , isn’t a sane response. It’s not rational and it’s not sane.

    As the child worsens, when the entire civilized world’s community of medicine is telling you to take action and allow treatment, when thousands of kids with the same illness are getting better and thriving on proper treatment and yours is sickening and getting weaker … that’s not sane. And it’s not sane that our child protection mechanisms aren’t there to step in and take the child away from the insane parents and get the child well.

    The child is not the decision maker, the child is at the mercy of the adults providing care. Those adults have a responsibility here, and these parents willfully failed to carry out that responsibility.

    Some religious people feel

    It’s not about feelings. It’s about facts, science, and reason. To hell with their feelings, their feelings have killed their child.

  66. 66.

    Mona

    March 29, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Brachiator sez:

    I wish that it were easy to just point the finger at religion or stupidity, but life, with its endless opportunities for triumph or tragedy, will not let us off the hook so easily.

    Look, for purposes of the individual child, it matters not at all whether the parents are religious nutz or secularists who have not properly informed themselves about how a Vegan should feed a baby — what happened to breastfeeding? If medically endorsed formula is not an option, one does not allow one’s infant to whither away to premie weight and die before considering that something is very wrong.

    I could not breastfeed; tried, it just was not possible. So, breastfeeding having failed, I put my first infant on formula, and he held none of of it down and had awful diarrhea. Not being a moron, I knew that was all a bad sign, and called the pediatrician. It turned out I was using a formula with too much iron. As soon as I switched all was well.

    Parenthood is a major responsibility.

  67. 67.

    TenguPhule

    March 29, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    It’s about facts, science, and reason.

    This disqualifies almost 40% of Americans then.

  68. 68.

    zsa

    March 29, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Wait, aren’t Christians supposed to sacrifice their first-born?

  69. 69.

    metalgrid

    March 29, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    Until healthcare is recognized as something everyone is entitled to, you can’t fault the crazies for witholding it from their children. I mean, we currently allow parents to indoctrinate their kids into so many self-destructive beliefs and actions, that witholding healthcare from them leads to far fewer deaths by lack of medical attention than suicides from self-loathing, deaths by stupidity and the like. In addition we can’t exactly have the government go around grabbing kids from the crazies when poor folks can’t afford healthcare for their kids either – it’ll be a painful double standard.

    We need to guarentee healthcare to every single American and then we can actually act outraged when something like this happens without looking like a hypocrite.

  70. 70.

    Nancy Irving

    March 29, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    A lot of people here are having problems drawing a line, but I can’t see the difficulty.

    If a parent is, say, beating a child, leaving a young child at home without supervision, or in any other way abusing or neglecting the child, and the abuse is detected by a schoolteacher or other professional, we have no problem with the child welfare people being notified, with their entering the home (with or without the parent(s)’ permission), with their assessing the danger to the child (and its siblings) and if necessary even removing the child/children from the home and the parent(s)’ custody.

    Why do we all of a sudden have problems with this if the abuse or neglect results from the parent(s)’ religious beliefs?

    If a child is being harmed by the actions or inactions of its parent(s), the community has the right and duty to protect the safety and rights of the child. Whether the neglect resulted from religion or any other cause, action by the authorities is the same.

    In the present case, any other children now in the household should be removed from the parents’ custody.

  71. 71.

    numbskull

    March 29, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    When I hear about these cases, or more broadly, the Christian Scientists, I always wonder: How in the hell do they know that all of modern science and medicine isn’t part of God’s plan? I mean, shit, EVERYTHING ELSE is part of “God’s plan” for these loons, so why not science and medicine?

    Reminds of the joke about the family waiting to be saved from their roof during a flood. The punch line is St. Peter turning them away at the Pearly Gates with the admonition: Geez, guys, we sent a row boat, a cutter, and a chopper for you, but you just kept babbling about “God will save us” and wouldn’t get on board! You’re too stupid to be allowed into heaven!

  72. 72.

    Desert Rat

    March 30, 2008 at 2:06 am

    To me its cut and dried. Hands off is all well and good, and frankly, works well for most families. However, when the actually life of the child is endangered, hands off just doesn’t cut it.

    From one point of view, these parents murdered their child, albeit through neglect. Would they be given the same hands off attitude if it were someone else’s 11 year old? Or an adult? Hell, no. I see no difference between the two situations. They had a responsibility to care for the well-being of that child. They failed. Assuming they are found guilty, they should go to prison for a long time.

    As for the other children, they should be removed from the family’s care immediately for the sake of their long-term well being. These parents have clearly surrendered their right to be parents.

  73. 73.

    Cabalamat

    March 30, 2008 at 8:25 am

    If this had happened in Britain, the child would have been made a ward of court and treated regardless of her parents’ wishes. This sort of case crops up from time to time when Jehovahs Witness parents try to prevent their children from having blood transfusions.

  74. 74.

    The Sanity Inspector

    March 30, 2008 at 8:46 am

    This is just a sad example of how our ideals of liberty don’t always mesh well with our ideals of universal well-being. File this case under “Society: imperfectability of”

  75. 75.

    Tim Fuller

    March 30, 2008 at 11:12 am

    Cops should just drop some pot seeds in the sofa when they are ‘searching’ and then they could arrest the parents for doing something really dangerous.

    Enjoy.

  76. 76.

    Temple Stark

    March 30, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    >>You mean, like this (Vegan couple sentenced to life over baby’s death)?

    No, not like that at all. I mean I could have caught something worse at the hospital. I wasn’t malnourished, I was regular weight, born at regular weight, supposedly a little yellow — too much carrot juice. I know, I know deadly stuff. Or not.

    Definitely not enough for the actions when a couple of home visits by social services of the time would have worked just as well. He’s not slightly yellow anymore? Good. Have a nice life.

  77. 77.

    scarshapedstar

    March 30, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    God tells me that my infant doesn’t need to be fed. If it starves to death, that’s just God’s will.

    How is that any different?

  78. 78.

    jenniebee

    March 30, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    It’s not about feelings. It’s about facts, science, and reason.

    So we’re a nation with a single acceptable philosophy? Pure Enlightenment rationalism isn’t without its faults, too.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Simple Answers to Simple Questions. « Ignoratio Elenchi says:
    March 30, 2008 at 5:03 am

    […] John asks: The question, I suppose, is where do you draw the line in a free society in regards to this sort of thing? […]

  2. Under-mentalists kill their child « Amused Cynicism says:
    March 30, 2008 at 8:26 am

    […] (via Balloon Juice) […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - twbrandt - Belle Isle, Detroit, Michigan 3
Image by twbrandt (7/20/25)
Donate

Recent Comments

  • Anyway on Squirrel! (Open Thread) (Jul 20, 2025 @ 11:50am)
  • Kathleen on Squirrel! (Open Thread) (Jul 20, 2025 @ 11:46am)
  • WaterGirl on Last Call for the Raffle – If You Bought Tickets, Please Check This List (Jul 20, 2025 @ 11:46am)
  • Ruckus on Squirrel! (Open Thread) (Jul 20, 2025 @ 11:44am)
  • Another Scott on Squirrel! (Open Thread) (Jul 20, 2025 @ 11:43am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!