Religious Based Neglect

[JoeyKnothead]

Sorry for the long post, but it's necessary to set up the debate...

From Washington Post / Jonathan Turley:

In the past 25 years, hundreds of children are believed to have died in the United States after faith-healing parents forbade medical attention to end their sickness or protect their lives. When minors die from a lack of parental care, it is usually a matter of criminal neglect and is often tried as murder. However, when parents say the neglect was an article of faith, courts routinely hand down lighter sentences. Faithful neglect has not been used as a criminal defense, but the claim is surprisingly effective in achieving more lenient sentencing, in which judges appear to render less unto Caesar and more unto God.

This disparate treatment was evident last month in Wisconsin, a state with an exemption for faith-based neglect under its child abuse laws. Leilani and Dale Neumann were sentenced for allowing their 11-year-old daughter, Madeline Kara Neumann, to die in 2008 from an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes. The Neumanns are affiliated with a faith-healing church called Unleavened Bread Ministries and continued to pray with other members while Madeline died. They could have received 25 years in prison. Instead, the court emphasized their religious rationale and gave them each six months in jail (to be served one month a year) and 10 years' probation.
>snip<
Compare the Neumanns' legal treatment with a couple of other recent cases in which children were injured or killed by nonreligious neglect. Russell J. Wozniak Jr. and Jennifer Ann Wozniak, of Chippewa Falls, Wis., received basically the same sentence as the Neumanns for, the criminal complaint said, allowing their 2-year-old to wander around covered in vomit and wearing a full diaper.

Then there are the parents of Alex Washburn. The 22-month-old died after hitting his head at home in Cross Lanes, W.Va. His parents, Elizabeth Dawn Thornton and Christopher Steven Washburn, said the boy fell a lot and hit his head on the corner of a table and his chin on a toilet. They apologized for not seeking medical help and agreed to terminate their parental rights to their other children, handing over custody to the state. "I wish I did seek medical treatment for my son faster," Washburn told the court. "That will definitely be with me for the rest of my life." The court sentenced both parents to three to 15 years in prison.

So the Neumanns got one month in jail for six years and kept custody of their children, and the Washburns got up to 15 years in prison and agreed to give up their kids.

Further info from page 2 of that article:

In Oregon, the Followers of Christ church has been cited for injuries and deaths associated with its faith-healing beliefs for decades. In one 10-year period, estimated Larry Lewman, an Oregon state medical examiner, the church experienced 25 child deaths related to faith-based medical neglect. A recent case involved Ava Worthington, a 15-month-old who fell ill in 2008. Rather than call doctors, her parents -- Carl Brent Worthington and Raylene Worthingon -- allowed a simple cyst on her neck to grow to the size of a softball as they anointed her with oil and administered small amounts of wine, according to testimony at the trial. She died of a blood infection and pneumonia.
...Despite the record of deaths and injuries at their church, the Worthingtons were allowed to keep custody of their 5-year-old daughter and a new baby that was coming in a matter of months. They needed only to promise to bring them to a doctor for scheduled checkups.
...Now another trial is pending for the family: Raylene Worthington's parents, Jeff and Marci Beagley, were charged with criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley. He died in 2008 from a urinary tract blockage that could have been treated with a minor surgical procedure.

Compare this to the following from the same article:

The key to the use of such a defense is that it must involve belief in a divine being, not a particular lifestyle. In 2007, Jade Sanders and Lamont Thomas of Atlanta were convicted of malice murder and given life sentences for the death of their 6-week-old child. The defense attorneys cited the couple's strict vegan lifestyle to explain why they fed their newborn son a diet of soy milk and organic apple juice, though during the trial Sanders said she had also breast-fed her son, who died in an emaciated state at 6 weeks, weighing just 3 1/2 pounds. The prosecutor and court had no qualms in treating this couple's beliefs as a poor excuse for murder, calling a nutritionist and vegan expert as a witness to show that a vegan diet can be safe for an infant. The prosecutor even told the jury: "They're not vegans, they're baby-killers."

For debate:

Should religious based neglect be considered as a "lesser evil" than other forms of neglect?

Should those found guilty of religious based neglect receive lesser punishment because of their religious beliefs?

[McCulloch]

Should religious based neglect be considered as a "lesser evil" than other forms of neglect?

Should those found guilty of religious based neglect receive lesser punishment because of their religious beliefs?

The judicial branch of our governments should stay out of the business of validating religious beliefs. If a certain act is against the law, then it should be against the law and there should be no exception based on religious belief. Human sacrifice, for example, should be outlawed, regardless of the religious beliefs of those who might wish to practice it. "God told me to do it" may be part of defense by reason of mental defect or disease, but otherwise should carry no legal weight.

Of course, there is the constitutional issue about governments not restricting religious freedoms. But, clearly, such provisions are not absolute. There has always been a hierarchy of rights. You may be free to practice your religion, but not if it involves maiming or injuring others without their consent.

[VermilionUK]

Should religious based neglect be considered as a "lesser evil" than other forms of neglect?

It shouldn't be considered a "lesser evil", but I think we should take into account that these people are not neglecting their child out of "evil" motives, which is usually the case with neglect. It is because they are trusting in their faith - they don't know any better.

Religious people don't know any better when they refuse medical care - instead trusting in their god to heal their child. They were utterly convinced that they were doing right.

Ignorance is the crime - not neglect. If anyone should be inprisoned, it is the person/group who led these parents into ignorance and compromised the safety of the children involved.

Although I'm not opposed to a prison sentence - some people have to learn the hard way.

[JoeyKnothead]

Should religious based neglect be considered as a "lesser evil" than other forms of neglect?

It shouldn't be considered a "lesser evil", but I think we should take into account that these people are not neglecting their child out of "evil" motives, which is usually the case with neglect. It is because they are trusting in their faith - they don't know any better.

Religious people don't know any better when they refuse medical care - instead trusting in their god to heal their child. They were utterly convinced that they were doing right.

Ignorance is the crime - not neglect. If anyone should be inprisoned, it is the person/group who led these parents into ignorance and compromised the safety of the children involved.

Although I'm not opposed to a prison sentence - some people have to learn the hard way.

I don't accept that stance. Couldn't it be said that anyone who neglects their child "doesn't know any better"?
As the example shows, the vegans who "didn't know any better" were given a certain sentence, while the religious who "didn't know any better" were treated much less harshly.

Disclaimer here being differences in jurisdiction and judges. I still think they can be considered alongside each other.

[VermilionUK]

Couldn't it be said that anyone who neglects their child "doesn't know any better"?

I don't think that's fair to say. Being an Atheist myself, if I refused to send my child to a doctor, knowing that he/she would possibly die - then yes, condemn me as a neglector of children.

However, if I refuse to send them to a doctor because I am entirely convinced that they will be healed by my god's divine intervention - then I am merely ignorant, although it should not soften the issue that a child's life has been lost. Yes, you could argue that I am neglecting, but I am not neglecting out of bad intentions or laziness - I am neglecting out of ignorance to the fact that there will be no intervention.

As the example shows, the vegans who "didn't know any better" were given a certain sentence, while the religious who "didn't know any better" were treated much less harshly.

Disclaimer here being differences in jurisdiction and judges. I still think they can be considered alongside each other.

I agree that they should not receive a lesser sentence - however we can't just put them in the same basket as drug abusers (or similar groups) who may neglect children because they don't care - because those religious parents did care.

The first step in preventing "death by religion" is to have laws that specifically address those who cause/allow death due to their religious beliefs. Maybe then people will think twice before putting belief before fact.

[FinalEnigma]

Irregardless(which, btw isn't a valid word) of religion, what would be the appropriate response to a parent who didn't get their child any medical care because they didn't know any better?

Personally, I don't want children raised by people who don't realize they need medical care when they have diabetes or other illnesses.

A diabetic child who is not recieving medical care will have serious, worsening, noticable problems. I don't care what religion I beleived in. If I saw my kid sick and getting continually worse, on the verge of dying - I would do everything under the sun to save them. To deliberately choose to avoid a known manner of treatment and care for a child, in my opinion, shows a serious lack of the responsibility/capacity required to be a good parent.

[VermilionUK]

Irregardless(which, btw isn't a valid word) of religion, what would be the appropriate response to a parent who didn't get their child any medical care because they didn't know any better?

Personally, I don't want children raised by people who don't realize they need medical care when they have diabetes or other illnesses.

A diabetic child who is not recieving medical care will have serious, worsening, noticable problems. I don't care what religion I beleived in. If I saw my kid sick and getting continually worse, on the verge of dying - I would do everything under the sun to save them. To deliberately choose to avoid a known manner of treatment and care for a child, in my opinion, shows a serious lack of the responsibility/capacity required to be a good parent.

Yup, good points.

If a parent puts their belief in gods above the reality that medicine will save/help their child, then they should not be allowed to care for that child.

However, we should distinguish between wilful neglect and ignorance through no fault of their own. These people are often indoctrinated into these religions at an age where their minds abosorb everything they are told - no wonder some of them have made such saddening decisions as those we have seen. I believe we should help them, rather than condemn them.

[FinalEnigma]

Irregardless(which, btw isn't a valid word) of religion, what would be the appropriate response to a parent who didn't get their child any medical care because they didn't know any better?

Personally, I don't want children raised by people who don't realize they need medical care when they have diabetes or other illnesses.

A diabetic child who is not recieving medical care will have serious, worsening, noticable problems. I don't care what religion I beleived in. If I saw my kid sick and getting continually worse, on the verge of dying - I would do everything under the sun to save them. To deliberately choose to avoid a known manner of treatment and care for a child, in my opinion, shows a serious lack of the responsibility/capacity required to be a good parent.

Yup, good points.

If a parent puts their belief in gods above the reality that medicine will save/help their child, then they should not be allowed to care for that child.

However, we should distinguish between wilful neglect and ignorance through no fault of their own. These people are often indoctrinated into these religions at an age where their minds abosorb everything they are told - no wonder some of them have made such saddening decisions as those we have seen. I believe we should help them, rather than condemn them.

I've no problem with that, but until they learn to deal with their children's problems rather than praying about them and doing nothing(praying is fine, but you have to at least give god something to work with and help the problem yourself), I don't think they are fit parents. however, you aren't going to find a judge anywhere that will mandate phychological treatment or child welfare to unindoctrinate them and make them stop following their religion.

[VermilionUK]

I've no problem with that, but until they learn to deal with their children's problems rather than praying about them and doing nothing(praying is fine, but you have to at least give god something to work with and help the problem yourself), I don't think they are fit parents.

Yup - and that's the saddest part. There's only one way (in my opinion) that we can stop this. But we can't ban/prevent teaching of religion (those that lead to neglect) - and so we can't stop this from happening.

however, you aren't going to find a judge anywhere that will mandate phychological treatment or child welfare to unindoctrinate them and make them stop following their religion.

Maybe there should be laws against child indoctrination to prevent them from becoming a possible danger to their future children.

It's harmful ignorance that is preventable - so lets prevent it.

[Coyotero]

Do they not believe that perhaps God provided man with cures to such diseases? For example, insulin.

They pray for a cure when one is readily apparent and available.

Reminds me of the joke about the guy in the flood:

There's a hurricane causing a town to flood, on the first day, rescuers show up in a bus and tell a man he has to take the bus to safety. He declines, saying "The Lord shall provide for me."

The second day, the first floor of his home is completely flooded, and he has to move to the second story. A life raft with rescue workers comes by, they tell the man that the worst is yet to come and he needs to join them to survive. He once again declines, citing "The Lord will provide for me."

On the third day, the whole house is flooded, he has no food, no drinkable water, and is forced to stand on the roof of his house. A government helicopter comes by, it's crew imploring the man to climb aboard and escape. Once more he refuses, saying "The Lord will provide for me."

On the fourth day, the flooding worsens, and the man drowns. He stands before God in heaven and asks: "Lord, I always have been a good servant on earth. Why didn't you provide for me in my time of need?"

God has a chuckle and replies: "I provided a bus, a boat, and a helicopter.... What more did you want?"