Parents on their way to prison for not providing medical care for child.

[Revoltingest]

If you know that denying medication will cause death then i cannot see it any other way.

If they believe that the alternative will work, then they don't intend death.
But if they believe death is God's will, then murder it is.

 

[Mox]

I wouldn't call it "murder" if the intent, however misguided, was life.

Indeed, for someone to be guilty of murder, the mens rea of an intent to kill must be established, beyond reasonable doubt. Even if an actus reus is established.

 

[ChristineM]

Well the couple doesn't appear to be very mentally sound. The mother was found cradling her dead newborn around praying family and friends because they didn't want to go to the hospital for the birth.

I can only guess and imagine they were laying on the hands, speaking in tongues and all that for a resurrection of some sort to occur like Lazarus if the behavior of Pentecostals give a clue.

It's their surviving child that was refused treatment by the parents oblivious apparently to the fact they already had one dead newborn on their hands which should have rang a bell and raise the red flag that Faith isn't what people romantically envisioned it to be.

There's nothing pretty about hard reality when it comes to things like this.

Unwarranted death is never pretty

 

[Mox]

Educated people naturally have fewer offspring.

Solution to overpopulation is obvious then.

Ensure high quality education and equal opportunity for all.

(Would solve quite a few other issues too)

 

[PureX]

Religious belief does not make anyone immune to the laws of the land. Child neglect and endangerment are against the law, and the ideological justifications for such behavior are irrelevant.

 

[ChristineM]

If they believe that the alternative will work, then they don't intend death.
But if they believe death is God's will, then murder it is.

If they believe what alternatives... Praying, chantings, laying on of hands, magic? Where i come from ignorance is no excuse under the law.

But perhaps you have a point, if not premeditated, then just straight up murder

 

[Mox]

When Ghandi's wife, Kasturba, contracted Pneumonia, Ghandi prevented british doctors from giving her penicillin, citing his religious belief that she should only receive vedic medicine, no western rubbish, so she died.
When Ghandi himself contracted Malaria, later, he allowed the british doctors to administer quinine and he also let their surgeons preform an appendectomy on him.

It's easy to decide what's right for someone, when it's not your life on the line.

 

[Revoltingest]

When Ghandi's wife, Kasturba, contracted Pneumonia, Ghandi prevented british doctors from giving her penicillin, citing his religious belief that she should only receive vedic medicine, no western rubbish, so she died.
When Ghandi himself contracted Malaria, later, he allowed the british doctors to administer quinine and he also let their surgeons preform an appendectomy on him.

It's easy to decide what's right for someone, when it's not your life on the line.

Without knowing his reasoning, perhaps her death changed his mind, eh?

 

[Mox]

Without knowing his reasoning, perhaps her death changed his mind, eh?

Yup, he probably thought, ''Maybe my religious beliefs are not so important after all, the British might be arrogant imperialists, but their medical science is to die for''

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup, he probably thought, ''Maybe my religious beliefs are not so important after all, the British might be arrogant imperialists, but their medical science is to die for''

....or to live for?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I wouldn't call it "murder" if the intent, however misguided, was life.

I'd say it was at least involuntary manslaughter.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Indeed, for someone to be guilty of murder, the mens rea of an intent to kill must be established, beyond reasonable doubt. Even if an actus reus is established.

Definitely manslaughter.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

When you say we, I am assuming you mean the Law.
The law has the right to make laws, and enforce them. It doesn't have the right to break them - although some nations do.


Can you give an example of

Can you give an example of.

Anti-vaxxers. Certain cults in Xianity deny all medical care, because they think they know the actual mind of god, and in their arrogance, they often die because of it.

Denying blood transfusions is but one of many examples in this cult.

It's one thing if you are a seemingly rational adult, it is quite another if you are a child.

Whether a religion is respected equally or not, is beside the point, imo. Religion is religion. All are not the same - they vary..

No-- it is exactly the point. The US Constitution forbids Special Exemptions for Certain Religions.

Sadly, we ignore that a LOT in the USA, and Xianity all too often, gets a Free Pass, where other religions do not.

There are laws against various things - murder, rape...
If a religion is carrying out illegal activities, then the law is within its rights to enforce the law..

Exactly! And Religious Freedom is STOPPED DEAD IN THE WATER. Not Allowed Freedom to do those things.

This is exactly the same thing!

Withholding life saving medicine is subject to opinion.
For example, doctors do not agree on what is 'life saving medicine'.
Doctors practices are not all the same. Thank God..

False, to a very large degree-- it's not opinion. As in yours or my opinion.

Doctors must have a Licence for a Reason. The differences are minor.

Non-doctors who espouse BS like homeopathy? Do not count, here-- their opinion is about as relevant as your average stray dog's.

Freedom of religion cannot be stooped cold, unless that applies to all religion - which would require a reversal of the law..

False. See above.

The law is within its right to act against a violation of law - not religious freedom - unless as I said it reverses that law with - no more freedom of religion.

You seem confused, here. Understandable-- it's complicated.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Solution to overpopulation is obvious then.

Ensure high quality education and equal opportunity for all.

(Would solve quite a few other issues too)

Indeed. It would. Highly educated people are also less prone to snap judgements.

And, I suspect, would pause before engaging in war... being as how having a lot of education typically includes World History...

... including the ravages of warfare...

Thus? They would prefer non-war solutions where possible.

Alas. Some folk simply won't play along-- they go out, raise an army, and invade the borders of their neighbors....

*sigh*

 

[Jose Fly]

I'd say it was at least involuntary manslaughter.

They pleaded guilty to negligent homicide. This couple knew the risks. The mother's sister is currently in jail for basically the same thing.

 

[Deeje]

Heartbreaking article. Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs? If so, where do you draw the line? What procedures would you deny your child due to your religion? My thoughts are that if an adult wants to not receive medical care, that's their choice. However when a child is involved I believe that the state has a duty to step in and save that child. Please read and give your thoughts.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-religious-oregon-couple-didn’t-believe-in-medical-care-after-newborn’s-death-they’re-headed-to-prison/ar-AAzPFXD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

That is indeed a sad case of misplaced faith. There is nothing in the Bible that prevents a parent or anyone else from seeking medical assistance in cases of ill health or emergency. This case was nothing short of neglect. And the fact that it had happened before in the same house, is telling.

As @Vee has mentioned in her country, also in Australia, if there is a case where the medical profession and parents clash over medical treatment, a court decides what is to be done. Having said that, we have also seen cases where the treatments given to minor children against their parents wishes have led to further harm to the child. So it isn't always so cut and dried.

In recent years particularly, the use of medicinal cannabis in the treatment of severely epileptic children has been very successful, but because this plant has been banned as a dangerous drug (in the same category as heroin, which is ridiculous) parents have had their children taken out of their care and the medics have administered pharma drugs that do not address their seizures anywhere near as well as cannabis did, and left them with awful side-effects.....yet they are denied the medicine and their parents are branded as criminals.

There was another case of a 2 year old child with terminal brain cancer who was sent home to die because there was nothing more that the oncologists could do for him. He had endured the most grueling treatments; chemo and radiation, which made him sicker than the cancer. The parents had heard about medicinal cannabis and felt that he nothing to lose. To their surprise, he began to recover his appetite, and his health improved to the point where he was almost a normal little boy again. But something happened to prevent him from having his daily dose of CO and they would not give it to him in the hospital....so in a short time the cancer came back. This time there was no reprieve and the poor little fellow passed away.

Orthodox medicine is being shown up as not really being the most optimum treatment for a range of 'modern' illnesses, especially auto-immune disorders and cancer, which are on the rise. The medical profession has some very dedicated doctors and support staff, but in a lot of cases emerging in the data, the treatments themselves can sometimes be more life threatening than the condition they are supposed to be treating.

Their medicine is designed to suppress symptoms, not to get to the cause of the problem and fix it.

There is a balance to be struck and the courts need to hear both sides of the story, not depending just on orthodox medical opinion, which is being exposed for recommending pharma treatments that can make a patient's condition worse or even kill them.

The reason why so many people are turning to alternative medicine is because the orthodox approach is not making people well, and they are tired of spending so much money on 'treatments' that give them little relief and never ending in a cure.

 

[nPeace]

Anti-vaxxers. Certain cults in Xianity deny all medical care, because they think they know the actual mind of god, and in their arrogance, they often die because of it.

Denying blood transfusions is but one of many examples in this cult.

It's one thing if you are a seemingly rational adult, it is quite another if you are a child.

Denying blood transfusions is
...impose your religion onto other folk, against their will, and
...forcing Bronze Age "Medicine" onto children who are unequipped to make an informed consent.
?

How so?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

They pleaded guilty to negligent homicide. This couple knew the risks. The mother's sister is currently in jail for basically the same thing.

Thanks for the update. They knew on some level, they were doing wrong.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Denying blood transfusions is
...impose your religion onto other folk, against their will, and
...forcing Bronze Age "Medicine" onto children who are unequipped to make an informed consent.
?

How so?

There are cults among christianity that forbid blood transfusions--- and those among that cult frequently die as a result of such silly and sadly delusional ideas.

Since there isn't a Higher Authority that actually moves into reality, and interferes? These cultists take the bible, and interpret it to fit their delusions: They believe blood transfusions are Magically Evil.

That's fine if they are adults; I firmly agree that people have the right to commit suicide in the manner of their choosing, if that's what they want to do.

But they don't get to force that idiocy onto defenseless children. Children cannot make informed consent.

Unfortunately, it's not illegal to force these delusional ideas onto defenseless kids...

But Wait! That's Not ALL!

There are also equally delusional folk, who think vaccines are Magically Evil. They keep their kids from getting life saving vaccinations-- and many of these kids are now actually dying.

Sickening.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Heartbreaking article. Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs? If so, where do you draw the line? What procedures would you deny your child due to your religion? My thoughts are that if an adult wants to not receive medical care, that's their choice. However when a child is involved I believe that the state has a duty to step in and save that child. Please read and give your thoughts.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-religious-oregon-couple-didn’t-believe-in-medical-care-after-newborn’s-death-they’re-headed-to-prison/ar-AAzPFXD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

Absolutely. An adult should have the right to either accept or reject any type of medical treatment--hopefully, based on thorough research on their part.

A child, however, cannot make such a decision, and parents should not impose their religious beliefs on a child if rejecting a treatment will cause harm and/or death to that child.