Jury finds Wis. mother guilty in prayer death

[JillSwift]

But if you were to remove the "religious" component from this situation it would be criminal neglect.

It also would no longer be the same case - so the point is moot.

If the parents knew their kid was sick, and s/he stayed that way for a long time, and they didn't do anything but give their child aspirin or over the counter cough medicine as treatment until the kid died would this not be case of criminal neglect?

You can't conflate an expectation that aspirin and cough syrup will heal with the idea that an omnipotent being will heal. The cases do not compare.

Before deciding it's a parent's right to allow their child to die for religious reasons, take a moment to think about how much suffering is involved in such a death. <trimmed>

Some may say that it infringes on religious freedom to not allow parents to kill their children via medical neglect.<trimmed>

Horribly, the suffering of the child makes no difference. Also, I argue that cases where a child is otherwise killed for religious reasons is also protected. Why? Because religious freedom demands the government have no opinion on the validity of a belief of a religious nature. Again, so long as the parents have total responsibility for a child's life, then the parent's right to impose their religion on the child - including the consequences of such useless things as prayer - is paramount.

I would think that the numerous pleas of their family and friends to get the child medical help would make it impossible for the woman to be unaware that inaction would kill the child. The only possible excuse would be insanity. Only an insane person or a murderous person could allow their child to slowly and horribly die as family members plead for them to get the child medical help.

Well, that's just it: They were not inactive, they believed they were taking the best possible action, calling on an omnipotent being to make their child well. That's my point, it's not negligence within their world view.

Beware of falling into the trap of allowing government to set legal standards for insanity. It's clear to you and me that these parents are delusional, waiting on an imaginary friend to heal their child, and making the law say so sounds at first blush like a good idea. However, that same logic could as easily net us laws saying that people who fail to believe in a "higher power" are also obviously insane. I don't think it's a good idea to set that kind of precedent.

I think the time is (or should be) in the past when parents owned their children like property and had the power of life or death over them. Once the child leaves the mother's body he or she has rights as a human being with the number one of those rights being life.

This here is the solution. There must be a far higher level of expectation on parents. Our society would probably be better off if its children were given greater autonomy immediately. Meaning, in this case, no child is considered to have the religion of their parents (or any religion at all, for that matter) so the parent's duty to the children is identical to their duty to an adult stranger when they are ill - call on modern medicine.

That leaves parents with the right to raise their children within the religion - teaching, church/mosque/temple attendance, etc. - without imposing them to the potential dangers of such crap. It would also clear up some of the public school drama - religious concerns about what is being taught no longer count, so teaching of evolution, comparative religion, skeptical inquiry, critical thinking and the like could proceed unhindered.

[BadPoison]

They prayed and prayed and when that didn't work, they finally relented and called an ambulance. So, they knew deep down that the ambulance had a better chance of saving the child - but they saw this as a test of faith. A test that they failed, might I add?
And as someone already said, why not keep praying for a resurrection if you truly believe in the power of prayer?
 

[SSY]

Well, that's just it: They were not inactive, they believed they were taking the best possible action, calling on an omnipotent being to make their child well. That's my point, it's not negligence within their world view.

The fact that they thought they were doing the right thing is irrelavent, the point is, they were incapable of making the right choice for the well being of the child. They are incompetetant parents, they are a danger to any children left in their care, the children should be placed somewhere safe. This is of course, assuming they thought they were doing the best thing, which is highly doubtful.

If I thought it was the right thing to do, when my child was ill, to string them up by the ankles and beat the devil out of them, and I honestly, truly beleived it was the only way they could get better, then it means I have good intentions, but am totally incapabable as a parent, and should not be allowed children. Just like good intentions don't make pilots, or doctors, or structural engineers, good intentions do not make parents by themselves, you need education/common sense, these people lack one or the other.

[JillSwift]

The fact that they thought they were doing the right thing is irrelavent, the point is, they were incapable of making the right choice for the well being of the child. They are incompetetant parents, they are a danger to any children left in their care, the children should be placed somewhere safe. This is of course, assuming they thought they were doing the best thing, which is highly doubtful.

If I thought it was the right thing to do, when my child was ill, to string them up by the ankles and beat the devil out of them, and I honestly, truly beleived it was the only way they could get better, then it means I have good intentions, but am totally incapabable as a parent, and should not be allowed children. Just like good intentions don't make pilots, or doctors, or structural engineers, good intentions do not make parents by themselves, you need education/common sense, these people lack one or the other.

Actually, case law disagrees with you on the relevancy of the parent's intent.

As for the rest, I reiterate the warning about state standards for competency. The problem lies in the rights the parents have being in conflict with societal standards, not in the parent's belief system.

The parents in this case aren't negligent because their intent was to save the child and they have the right to raise their children as if those children held the same world view. Which is where this charade breaks down - children aren't in a position to hold a world view as they don't have nearly the education or experience necessary to. It is society-sanctioned child abuse to claim there really is such a thing as a "Christian child" or "Muslim child", etc. for this reason. In order to be able to hold parents to a standard of care (like one does pilots, doctors, engineers, etc.) is to force the assumption of secular neutral ground in the relationship, as one must when dealing with a stranger in need of help.

This is the underpinning for the need for the separation of church and state - religious expectations must not trump societal duty. It is why a religious person who's religion says "never pay taxes" can be jailed for tax evasion, and why people can't be sacrificed to ba'al. But currently, this separation does not exist in the relationship between parent and child, because the parents have the right to raise their children as if those children held identical world views.

[SSY]

As for the rest, I reiterate the warning about state standards for competency. The problem lies in the rights the parents have being in conflict with societal standards, not in the parent's belief system.

Do you think there should be a standard of competancy for one raising children? Do the actions exhibited here measure up to to this standard?

The parents in this case aren't negligent because their intent was to save the child

First of all, we cannot know they thought they were doing the best thing, this stinks of a test of faith to me. And secondly, even if they thought they were doing the right thing, they thought wrong, my contention is, even if they thought they were doing the right thing, they were too incompetetant to make such a decision. My view is bourne out by the evidence.

In order to be able to hold parents to a standard of care (like one does pilots, doctors, engineers, etc.) is to force the assumption of secular neutral ground in the relationship, as one must when dealing with a stranger in need of help.

What do you mean by this? I thought there was already a presumption that the parents had to give an adequate standard of care to the children?

[JillSwift]

Do you think there should be a standard of competancy for one raising children? Do the actions exhibited here measure up to to this standard?

There is a standard of care, but it's mitigated by religious freedom.

First of all, we cannot know they thought they were doing the best thing, this stinks of a test of faith to me. And secondly, even if they thought they were doing the right thing, they thought wrong, my contention is, even if they thought they were doing the right thing, they were too incompetetant to make such a decision. My view is bourne out by the evidence.

We can infer they thought they were doing the best for their child by their previous decisions. This isn't the first time they prayed instead of getting real medical attention. Second, though you and I as atheists know full well that such a decision is grossly negligent, religious freedom means that the state must respect the belief. Their belief in divine intervention means that they weren't being negligent and were in fact trying to get the bet possible care for their child - in their world view as defined by their religion.

What do you mean by this? I thought there was already a presumption that the parents had to give an adequate standard of care to the children?

Yes, as I said above, there is an standard of care they must meet. However, that is mitigated by their freedom of religion and the societal standard that allows them to assume the children hold that same religious world-view. That is to say, they can assume that the child would also opt to forgo medical care in favor of begging a magical sky-daddy for a miracle, meaning that everyone involved had similar and to their standards reasonable expectations and thus no negligence.

To see what I'm saying you have to stop applying your standards of care to the situation. You and I both know that begging an imaginary being for help is deranged at best, but their belief is equally strong that such a choice is the exact correct thing to do. The state must respect that belief if religious freedom means anything - and in that I don't want the state telling me what I can and can not believe I must in turn defend other's right to belive even if those beliefs are flat out stupid.

The right of the parents to make the assumption that their children hold the same religious world-view is what must be revoked, it infringes on the child's right to choose and it infringes on th child's right to access heath care and other services without agenda. The secular "neutral assumption" about medical care that society holds a person to with their duty to act on another adults emergency medical needs should also be the standard for a parent-child relationship.

As it is, the parents in question here were well within their rights to pray their child to death. It's ugly and horrible and wrong, but let's please demand the change happen where the most good is done and the least harm. Give the kids the right to be considered religiously neutral until they achieve the age of contractual consent so that parents are forced by societal standards to give the children full access to available services - medical, educational, the works.

[disposablechild]

That should teach her a lesson

[disposablechild]

That gave me a good laugh

[LovingLife]

To Jill (I haven't quite got the hang of the quote button"

"Again, so long as the parents have total responsibility for a child's life, then the parent's right to impose their religion on the child - including the consequences of such useless things as prayer - is paramount."

Wrong on multiple accounts.  The freedom of religion only goes so far, just like any of your other rights.  You only maintain complete justification for those rights as long as those rights do not interfer in the rights and health/life of another person and as long as they are not in violation of any law.   You have the absolute right to believe, think, feel, have emotional talks with, have faith, in any god, any belief, any religion.  You ACTIONS however must still fall under the laws of this country, especially pertaining to other people.  You, youself have the right to deny medical care for an injury or illness, but you cannot deny another person because of that faith.

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/l ... ult_en.htm  

The above is from the charter in Europe which mimics the court cases, and laws in the united states.

It basically boils down to this...  the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not sanction harming another person in the practice of one's religion, and they do not allow religion to be a legal defense when one harms another. Much like my right to swing my arms around in a circle ends where your nose begins.

From Thomas Jefferson:

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

This is to include a child to not be forced into acting by one religious belief or another.  That is not an infringment on the parents rights to teach their child but they cannot legally force their actions, aside from attending church, to perform any ceremonies, rituals, or lack of medical care because the parents freedom.  If a child request medical care, the parents must provide, or allow someone else to provide it.

This crime fall under reckless endangerment as well as negligent homicide.  The parent knew that the child's condition would lead to harm, indeed had already led to harm of said child and did nothing to prevent.  Praying does not fall under an action that would prevent or treat a harm to the physical body.  It is the parental and LEGAL responsibility to keep that child in physical health.  They neglected in that detail by negating to take common sense precautions that a logical person would take into account.  Their religious freedom would not have been infringed by taking the child to a doctor since no law is in place to punish them for praying.  A law is in place to punish them for child abuse, child neglect and negligent homicide, which is what should rightfully occur.

[LARA]

Sad case.  Who knows, maybe this child would have been different from her parents?  I don't think it's fair to give out any Darwin awards on this one.

But I digress from my original purpose in posting.  What I really want to know is if the father of the child will be facing charges as well.  I think both of them should face prosecution if the child was in both parents custody.

Excellent response to Ghost, LovingLife.  But I have one small thing to note.

"LovingLife wrote:  You only maintain complete justification for those rights as long as those rights do not interfer in the rights and health/life of another person and as long as they are not in violation of any law. You have the absolute right to believe, think, feel, have emotional talks with, have faith, in any god, any belief, any religion. You ACTIONS however must still fall under the laws of this country, especially pertaining to other people. You, youself have the right to deny medical care for an injury or illness, but you cannot deny another person because of that faith."

In certain cases, such as when a person is deemed to have a mental illness, that person does not always have the right to deny themselves medical care.   The issues get much more complex in this arena and it's especially pertinent in the area of religious belief, especially when one takes into account that psychological diagnosis of what is or isn't an abnormal belief depends somewhat on cultural context.

[LovingLife]

In certain cases, such as when a person is deemed to have a mental illness, that person does not always have the right to deny themselves medical care.   The issues get much more complex in this arena and it's especially pertinent in the area of religious belief, especially when one takes into account that psychological diagnosis of what is or isn't an abnormal belief depends somewhat on cultural context.

Understood...in those cases those medical decisions are left to family members that are to know that person best and the patients most likely choice on the matter.  Should that person have had an injury that left them mentally impaired, it is left to family or power of attorney should they have one.  Or if they were always mentally challenged the parents that raised that child in the best interest of the child's health, or best interest of the child as a whole (denying medical care because of a long prolonged painful death)

Since the state has claimed a vested interest in the health of the child, thus holding parents accountable when their actions or nonactions cause harm, religious belief in my mind as well as the law, has no place in situations such as this. They have found that the child also maintains their own freedom of religion, to include those that differ from the parents.  The parents legally have only so much control over a child's religious life before it becomes unconsitutional and a violation against the rights of the child.  They do this by degrees of mental ability.  For example 7 would be the age in which a child has the mental ability to determine basic right and wrong principle, 12 being the age where they can be tried for certain crimes, 14 (or 16) age that they are mentally capable of consenting sex, and etc.  

From a religious point of view, if god was the one determiner of that child's health, then it mattered not whether the parents took her to the doctors and medicine, and continued to pray for her health to return.  Indeed it may have been gods plan for those doctors do physically do gods work and heal her.  In all human beings have a purpose and that purpose is to do gods work, the parents were violating gods plan for that doctor and that child.  It makes as much sense as praying every second of the day to be a good loving mother and then never picking up your child and physically feeding it, all the while praying that god will feed and care for it for them.  Parents may pray to god all they want, but they must physically care for that child as part of gods plan for a healthy child.  Neglecting that duty is both illegal and against the word of god.