Prayer fails to save girl, parents charged.

[uberd00b]

Some of you may be aware of this story, in which the parents of an 11 year old girl decided to rely on prayer instead of taking their sick daughter to hospital.

The child died of easily treatable diabetes.

Now the parents are to face charges of negligent homicide.

There is apparently laws in Wisconsin to protect this kind of...treatment.

A person is NOT guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing…

No law of this state regulating the practice of medicine and surgery may be construed to interfere with the practice of Christian Science. A person who elects Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical or surgical treatment for the cure of disease may not be compelled to submit to medical or surgical treatment.

What in your opinion takes precedence in this case? The parents religion or the life of their child? Should they be charged? Should those laws exist? Is this child abuse?

Before I say a string of unpleasant things about these parents, what say you?

 

[Gremlins]

IMO the state has some role in protecting a minor who can't make decisions for themselves. If an adult wants to let themselves die, that's just dandy. They shouldn't do it to their child.

 

[mpok1519]

well, no matter how dumb I think the parents are, I don't know if heavy punitive action against them can right the wrong of this tragedy...

Sickness is God's way of telling us we need medical attention....

 

[Washington]

What in your opinion takes precedence in this case?

The law.

The parents religion or the life of their child?

The life of the child

Should they be charged?

Of course. All laws are written with consequences for disobedience. They broke the law so they deserve to be charged with it.

Should those laws exist?

Yes

Is this child abuse?

Yes.

 

[keith99]

Some of you may be aware of this story, in which the parents of an 11 year old girl decided to rely on prayer instead of taking their sick daughter to hospital.

The child died of easily treatable diabetes.

Now the parents are to face charges of negligent homicide.

There is apparently laws in Wisconsin to protect this kind of...treatment.



What in your opinion takes precedence in this case? The parents religion or the life of their child? Should they be charged? Should those laws exist? Is this child abuse?

Before I say a string of unpleasant things about these parents, what say you?

Think of it as Evolution in action.

My thought is that in cases like this the Law should be written to protect the child. But the Law is hte Law as it exists. If your cites are correct and current the parents should not be charged and in fact the prosecutors who are trying to make a case should have some very serious consequences to face.

 

[jayem]

There's a difference between belief and action. You are free to believe any darn fool thing you want. But it's absolutely appropriate for society to have laws regarding actions. And it's perfectly proper to state that if an action (or in this case it would be an act of omission) harms another person, you don't get a free pass by claiming it's a religious imperative. Otherwise, taken to the logical extreme, we'd have to excuse hanging witches, and burning heretics, and violent jihad if such can be shown as religiously justified.

But breaking a law doesn't mean the parents must go to prison. Probation, which would include monitoring of how they treat any other children would seem appropriate to me.

 

[Autumnleaf]

If prayer had worked should the parents have been punished? If not, since it didn't work why would you punish them?

 

[Washington]

If your cites are correct and current the parents should not be charged and in fact the prosecutors who are trying to make a case should have some very serious consequences to face.

I disagree.

Wisconsin law, Section 948.04 (6)​

A person is NOT guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing…​

I think the crucial qualification here is "under this section." Section, 948.04 only deals with mental harm. (pdf link HERE)
So, because the harm exceeded mental harm this section is irrelevant.

Wisconsin law, Section 448.04 (6)​

No law of this state regulating the practice of medicine and surgery may be construed to interfere with the practice of Christian Science. A person who elects Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical or surgical treatment for the cure of disease may not be compelled to submit to medical or surgical treatment.​

As has been pointed out, one must be of legal age (18) in order to make such a decision. Section 448.04 very clearly phrases its applicability as resting with the one receiving CS treatment. So the child would be unable to lawfully elect "Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical or surgical treatment ." And there is no provision I can find that allows a CS parent to do so for their child.

 

[Washington]

If prayer had worked should the parents have been punished? If not, since it didn't work why would you punish them?

This is like making the argument that, if a father is successful in throwing his young child into the air and catching him and we don't punish him, why should we find him guilty of child endangerment or even worse if he fails to catch his son and the kid hits the pavement, crushes his skull, and dies? We hold people legally responsible for the harm they do, not for the lack of harm they do.

 

[The Nihilist]

If prayer had worked should the parents have been punished? If not, since it didn't work why would you punish them?

You'd exonerate Medea, wouldn't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelias

 

[Autumnleaf]

This is like making the argument that, if a father is successful in throwing his young child into the air and catching him and we don't punish him, why should we find him guilty of child endangerment or even worse if he fails to catch his son and the kid hits the pavement, crushes his skull, and dies? We hold people legally responsible for the harm they do, not for the lack of harm they do.

We hold people responsible for the intentional harm they do. Otherwise every doctor who performs surgery would quit yesterday in case they got sued becase the patient died. There is risk to everything and you can't blame people for bad results beyond their control all the time or no one will try to help. Asking God to help isn't really that bad of odds most of the time.

 

[Beanieboy]

I took a class on Denominations and Sects, and Christian Scientologists said that they believe that this body, is an illusion, so when you are sick, you are simply fooled into thinking you are sick. It is all in the mind.

While it sounds a bit crazy, especially if medicine can help you, it is also kind of crazy that most Christians read about Jesus healing the sick and the blind, but think that prayer without medicine can do nothing for them.

Is it neglect? I think it depends on the girl. If the girl doesn't want treatment, and only prayer, it is a matter of her religion.

 

[Washington]

We hold people responsible for the intentional harm they do.

And sometimes for the the unintentional harm they do, such as:

Negligent Manslaughter: The killing of another person through gross negligence.

 

[Gremlins]

I took a class on Denominations and Sects, and Christian Scientologists said that they believe that this body, is an illusion, so when you are sick, you are simply fooled into thinking you are sick. It is all in the mind.

While it sounds a bit crazy, especially if medicine can help you, it is also kind of crazy that most Christians read about Jesus healing the sick and the blind, but think that prayer without medicine can do nothing for them.

Is it neglect? I think it depends on the girl. If the girl doesn't want treatment, and only prayer, it is a matter of her religion.

The problem is that the girl is a minor and not legally capable of making her own decisions.

 

[Autumnleaf]

And sometimes for the the unintentional harm they do, such as:

Negligent Manslaughter: The killing of another person through gross negligence.

I'm not sure if trusting God is negligence. You sort of have to disprove God to make that point. In a court of law where you swear upon the Bible that might be a tough nut to crack.

 

[Paulos23]

If prayer had worked should the parents have been punished? If not, since it didn't work why would you punish them?

I'm sorry, but it was a treatable disease! All they had to do was take her in and get the medicine. Instead they prayed. And surprise, she got worse and died.

It is stupidity like this that would make me throw the book at them and take their other children away for their safety.

 

[Paulos23]

I'm not sure if trusting God is negligence. You sort of have to disprove God to make that point. In a court of law where you swear upon the Bible that might be a tough nut to crack.

Isn't there something in the bible about not testing God?

And we are talking about something there is a treatment for, not some rare disease that has no cure here.

This is criminal neglect of a child.

 

[keith99]

I disagree.

Wisconsin law, Section 948.04 (6)​

A person is NOT guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing…​

I think the crucial qualification here is "under this section." Section, 948.04 only deals with mental harm. (pdf link HERE)
So, because the harm exceeded mental harm this section is irrelevant.

Wisconsin law, Section 448.04 (6)​

No law of this state regulating the practice of medicine and surgery may be construed to interfere with the practice of Christian Science. A person who elects Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical or surgical treatment for the cure of disease may not be compelled to submit to medical or surgical treatment.​

As has been pointed out, one must be of legal age (18) in order to make such a decision. Section 448.04 very clearly phrases its applicability as resting with the one receiving CS treatment. So the child would be unable to lawfully elect "Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical or surgical treatment ." And there is no provision I can find that allows a CS parent to do so for their child.

Thanks, The right word escapes me, germain is close. What I meant by correct was not just that they existed but they were applicable. As you have made quite clear through yor efforts the cites were not applicable.

Oh that's it applicable!

 

[Autumnleaf]

Isn't there something in the bible about not testing God?

And we are talking about something there is a treatment for, not some rare disease that has no cure here.

This is criminal neglect of a child.

Maybe it is trusting God to fix things beyond the parent's control.

If the parents had trusted doctors and the doctors had failed would we be discussing prosecuting the parents for trusting the doctors? Faith in God is something the courts seem to have. Why not parents?

 

[Meshavrischika]

Some of you may be aware of this story, in which the parents of an 11 year old girl decided to rely on prayer instead of taking their sick daughter to hospital.

The child died of easily treatable diabetes.

Now the parents are to face charges of negligent homicide.

There is apparently laws in Wisconsin to protect this kind of...treatment.



What in your opinion takes precedence in this case? The parents religion or the life of their child? Should they be charged? Should those laws exist? Is this child abuse?

Before I say a string of unpleasant things about these parents, what say you?

The child has no choice in the matter (and hence the law should protect them IMO) but since the law does not protect the child... the parents should be held accountable if they have EVER sought medical care at any time for their child. If they have not, the law clearly protects them... if they have, they have already violated religion for treatment and it should be no different this time... but this is MHO.