Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

[Shogun]

Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help



WESTON, Wis. — An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday.

Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said Madeline Neumann died Sunday.

"She got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said.

Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.

The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said.

They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said.

The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.

Telephone messages left at the Neumann home by The Associated Press were not immediately returned.

The family does not attend an organized church or participate in an organized religion, Vergin said. "They have a little Bible study of a few people."

The parents told investigators their daughter last saw a doctor when she was 3 to get some shots, Vergin said. The girl had attended public school during the first semester but didn't return for the second semester.

Officers went to the home after one of the girl's relatives in California called police to check on her, Vergin said. She was taken to a hospital where she was pronounced dead.

The relative was fearful the girl was "extremely ill, dire," Vergin said.

The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.

"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."

The girl's death remains under investigation and the findings will be forwarded to the district attorney to review for possible charges, the chief said.

The family operates a coffee shop in Weston, which is a suburb of Wausau, Vergin said.

Madeline Kara Neumann is shown working on chalk art last summer during downtown Wausau's Chalk Fest.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is called freedom of religion. Though I have no problem with the State forcing parents of children under 16 to use doctors and medical services where exactly do you draw the line. My opinion on the matter would to some violate the 1st Amendment.

 

[Paulie]

Wow, that's not far from where my mom lives. Wisconsin is pretty libertarian as it is. I don't know all the laws there, but I don't think they would have legislation that requires people to seek medical help.

What it does do is show just how ridiculous religion can be. It warped these people's minds that much, that they actually thought they could pray their daughter to health. That's pretty fucked up.

 

[Shogun]

yup..

lethal neglect sure is freedom of religion.

yup.


948.21
948.21 Neglecting a child.

948.21(1)
(1) Any person who is responsible for a child's welfare who, through his or her actions or failure to take action, intentionally contributes to the neglect of the child is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor or, if death is a consequence, a Class D felony.

http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/ga...=default.htm&vid=WI:Default&d=stats&jd=948.21

 

[Ravi]

My opinion on the matter would to some violate the 1st Amendment.

What are you trying to say?

 

[Shogun]

apparently, killing your kid in the name of jebus is ok for eleven year olds with diabetes....


...but let a zygote go unbirthed and see what happensn.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What are you trying to say?

That an argument that this is protected by the 1st Amendment is viable. Freedom of Religion is given in that Amendment. Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs is not allowed. So the case becomes one of where does the Freedom end and the right of the Government to control begin.

 

[Paulie]

yup..

lethal neglect sure is freedom of religion.

yup.


948.21
948.21 Neglecting a child.

948.21(1)
(1) Any person who is responsible for a child's welfare who, through his or her actions or failure to take action, intentionally contributes to the neglect of the child is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor or, if death is a consequence, a Class D felony.

http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/ga...=default.htm&vid=WI:Default&d=stats&jd=948.21

I hear you. But what in the law constitutes "failure to take action"? What action does the law require?

There are natural remedies that can do just as good, if not better jobs than pharamceutical drugs. Now I don't know if the parents were using home remedies, or if they were just relying on the "power of the good lord", but I'm not sure if not taking your kid to an actual doctor can be considered "failure to take action".

 

[Shogun]

Did you bother to read the state law? so, your religion lets you kill kids rather than force the devils insulin, eh? ridiculous.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did you bother to read the state law? so, your religion lets you kill kids rather than force the devils insulin, eh? ridiculous.

You are aware religion can be used to prevent transfusions?

 

[Shogun]

I hear you. But what in the law constitutes "failure to take action"? What action does the law require?

There are natural remedies that can do just as good, if not better jobs than pharamceutical drugs. Now I don't know if the parents were using home remedies, or if they were just relying on the "power of the good lord", but I'm not sure if not taking your kid to an actual doctor can be considered "failure to take action".

Doing a hundred jumping jacks won't set a broken arm. Praying to a ghost in the sky doesn't sure diabetes. Being a reclusive dogma junky doesn't absolve criminal negligence. If not taking the kid to the doctor to address a disease that requires medical attention isn't neglect then there is no reason to even have the word in any legal text.


So, when snakebite pentecostals ignore the puncture wounds and let their kid die from testing god's ability to heal do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "ahh well, it's a relgious freedom"?


Legality

The states of Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee have passed laws against the use of venomous snakes and/or other reptiles in a place that endangers the lives of others, or without a permit. The Kentucky law specifically mentions religious services; in Kentucky snake handling is a misdemeanor and punishable by a $50 to $250 fine.[5] Most snake handling practices, therefore, take place in the homes of worshipers, which avoids the process of attempting to obtain a government permit for the church. Law enforcement officers usually ignore these religious practices unless and until they are specifically called in. This is not usually done unless a death has resulted from the practice. The practice is still legal only in the state of West Virginia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling#Legality

 

[Shogun]

You are aware religion can be used to prevent transfusions?

Are you aware that snake bite christianity is illegal? Especially when people die?

Again, did you bother to read the legal statute of the state of Wisconsin? When else can we expect dogma junkies to use religion as an excuse to kill their kids?

 

[Ravi]

That an argument that this is protected by the 1st Amendment is viable. Freedom of Religion is given in that Amendment. Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs is not allowed. So the case becomes one of where does the Freedom end and the right of the Government to control begin.

I imagine violating someone's civil rights, i.e. their right to life, is a bigger problem.

If you're a legal adult and want to refuse medical care, be my guest. But if you withhold it from someone else you should pay the price.

 

[Paulie]

So, when snakebite pentecostals ignore the puncture wounds and let their kid die from testing god's ability to heal do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "ahh well, it's a relgious freedom"?

Well, letting poisonous snakes bite your children, and then refusing them any kind of medical treatment, is a lot different than a kid being sick, and parents using alternative methods of healing.

Like I said, I'm not sure of the entire story. I don't know if they used natural remedies, or if they only relied on prayer. If you didn't even TRY to physically remedy your child, then that's neglect. If you tried alternative physical methods and added in some prayer, then you really can't JUST chalk it up to being nutty bible thumpers. We know that there ARE REAL ways to remedy illness. But, no one knows if god exists or not, so prayer doesn't count as a remedy.

 

[mattskramer]

This is just another example that, in my opinion, supports my moderate, relativistic, situational ethics and philosophy. There are very few, if any, absolutes. The question is not whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Constitution states no exception. It seems pretty absolutist to me. Yet, situations like this might come up from time to time.

Do you think that there should be limits to the first amendment for cases like the one of an 11-year-old child? If so, do we need a constitutional amendment? Without an amendment, it looks as though Wisconsin law protecting such a child is unconstitutional in some instances.

 

[manifold]

So, when snakebite pentecostals ignore the puncture wounds and let their kid die from testing god's ability to heal do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "ahh well, it's a relgious freedom"?

Religious freedom? Maybe

But I prefer evolution in action.

 

[Shogun]

Well, letting poisonous snakes bite your children, and then refusing them any kind of medical treatment, is a lot different than a kid being sick, and parents using alternative methods of healing.

Like I said, I'm not sure of the entire story. I don't know if they used natural remedies, or if they only relied on prayer. If you didn't even TRY to physically remedy your child, then that's neglect. If you tried alternative physical methods and added in some prayer, then you really can't JUST chalk it up to being nutty bible thumpers. We know that there ARE REAL ways to remedy illness. But, no one knows if god exists or not, so prayer doesn't count as a remedy.

prayer is not a natural remedy. wishful thinking is not alternative medicine. Christians are not usually into neato new age healing methods using crystals and chakras.

Would this be any different if I let my kid die because sprinkling chicken blood on her head after the ritual sacrifice didn't, in fact, cure her cancer?

 

[Shogun]

Religious freedom? Maybe

But I prefer evolution in action.

rescan the thread and catch up. letting your kid die due to neglect and snakebites is not a tenant of our religious freedom.

 

[Shogun]

This is just another example that, in my opinion, supports my moderate, relativistic, situational ethics and philosophy. There are very few, if any, absolutes. The question is not whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Constitution states no exception. It seems pretty absolutist to me. Yet, situations like this might come up from time to time.

Do you think that there should be limits to the first amendment for cases like the one of an 11-year-old child? If so, do we need a constitutional amendment? Without an amendment, it looks as though Wisconsin law protecting such a child is unconstitutional in some instances.

So murder is OK as long as I am a follower of a death cult? Are my religious rights being violated if I am not allowed to blow myself up in public in the name of Allah?

sorry, that logic doesn't fly.

 

[manifold]

rescan the thread and catch up. letting your kid die due to neglect and snakebites is not a tenant of our religious freedom.

I never said it was.