Sickos just praying for the sick is SICKENING
Posted
April 1, 2008 at
4:22 pm by
Kimberly
If you haven’t heard the appalling news about 11-year-old Madeline Neumann’s tragic death of diabetic ketoacidosis last week, you can read about it here in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The gist of it was that her parents decided to pray over her body instead of take her to a fucking doctor after she had been sick for two weeks and, at ten or so days in, COULD NO LONGER WALK OR TALK. Madeline was healthy before her episode. At her death, she was emaciated, as the body eats it own fat to raise insulin levels during diabetic ketoacidosis.
Around the same time, the idiot parents of poor little 15-month-old Ava Worthington of Oregon were indicted in Ava’s death for their attempts to ”faith-heal” the baby of her bronchial pneumonia–which led to a blood infection that could have been treated with antibiotics.
As the article about Ava notes, laws were passed in the 1990s that struck down legal shields for faith-healers after the deaths of several children whose parents were members of the fundamentalist church. The Worthingtons were indicted on Friday on manslaughter and criminal mistreatment charges, but it is unclear whether the Neumanns will be charged. According to a Chicago Tribune report, Wisconsin law says that a parent cannot be accused of abuse or neglect of a child if “in good faith” they selected prayer as a basis of treatment for a disease. An investigation has begun into whether the Neumanns had a “a good faith belief” that their daughter could be cured through prayer.
My thought is that if Madeline was FUCKING BEDRIDDEN, there’s no way in hell the parents could have had a good faith belief she would be fine if they lit some candles and said a few Hail Marys. Fucking assholes.
I believe in God, and I pray. I pray more when I need or want more, which sucks, but you can bet your sweet ass that I’d be praying to my God, everyone else’s God, the real doctors and the people that play them on TV if my babies were that ill. If my babies were lethargic and wanted to stay in bed for a few days, and they appeared to be getting thinner, and they just wanted me to hold them, I would probably have a Civil Protection Order against me to stay AWAY from the doctor’s office because I’d been there too many times.
My son had a five-day fever last year and the doctor’s office staff was probably referring to me as “Norm” from Cheers I had been there so many times. I’m not saying I drugged him up with everything under the sun, but I wanted a professional medical person overseeing my child and informing me thoroughly so that I could make proper decisions about his care.
My son ended up losing five pounds with that fever and looked so thin that I burst into tears when I put him in the bath at the end of that week. I called in my husband so I could run out and buy milkshakes.
What about the Worthingtons and the Neumanns? I wonder what they’re feeling now. Milkshakes aren’t going to bring back their beautiful daughters, and I hope all their asses get locked up for so long they forget what ice cream tastes like.
Tags: abuse, Criminal Justice, faith healing, Fundamentalism, general, medical abuse, religion
 |
19 Responses to “Sickos just praying for the sick is SICKENING”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
Entire Blog
1. Rita said:
April 1, 2008 @ 5:53 pm | Quote
I don’t know what can be done about it. Punishing the parents isn’t going to do any good, because they honestly and truly believe they are acting in the best interest of the kid. That doesn’t mean it should be allowed, but punishing them as a way of deterring other parents with the same beliefs isn’t going to help, and punishing them to make them suffer isn’t going to bring the dead kids back.
We’re really stuck in a hard place with this, because as a nation, we allow the practice of any religion, so we can’t bust up these churches and not let them congregate. And this is part of their religious core. We also don’t have mandatory sterilization, otherwise we could prevent these folks from having more kids and doing it again. It’s a tough one. Maybe cities need to have churches with these beliefs on their CPS rounds, so that social workers can make home visits to members of congregations occasionally to make sure that the kids are getting medical care if they need it.
We can punish the parents after the fact all we want, but it isn’t going to save any more lives. I think some sort of prevention would be a better use of our feelings of horror over this.
2. Allison J said:
April 1, 2008 @ 6:09 pm | Quote
I’m will you 100% Kimberly.
When my DOG some much as seems a bit out of sorts, I perk up and watch him like a hawk. And I don’t care what anyone says — my pooch is my baby.
More than 2 days of any abnormal behavior and I’m on the phone with the vet. If he is vomiting, gums turn white, sleeping for hours on end (not typical for this boxer), I take it as sign that he is ill — not in need of prayer.
This is disgusting. And in no way can one claim good faith when a child can no longer get out of bed! This goes beyond being religious.
Sadly, I think with religious beliefs this strong, prevention may be near impossible.
3. Allison J said:
April 1, 2008 @ 6:11 pm | Quote
Wow — for an editor I had some major errors in my last comment!
4. Maureen said:
April 1, 2008 @ 7:25 pm | Quote
One word: FREAKS.
5. prescott said:
April 1, 2008 @ 9:15 pm | Quote
Why shouldn’t they be punished? If they didn’t intend for the girl to die, but were the direct cause of her death, well that’s involuntary manslaughter at the worst and child endangerment at the very least.
As for punishing them after the fact not saving any lives, you could probably say that about a large number (if not all) of manslaughter cases. So all those cases should just get to go home?
6. Rita said:
April 1, 2008 @ 9:20 pm | Quote
I didn’t say they shouldn’t be punished. I just don’t really understand the purpose of it, to just punish someone for the sake of punishing them. If it’s to prevent them from doing it again to someone else, or to be a deterrent for someone else to never do it, then I get it. I just don’t understand wanting to see a person suffer just because they “deserve” it. Yes, they did wrong, yes they caused the death of someone else, but it wasn’t out of maliciousness or even selfishness, so what GOOD would come from punishing them. That’s all I’m asking. I’m not offering any answers or any alternatives here, just asking what the GOOD of having them punished would do.
7. Kimberly said:
April 1, 2008 @ 9:23 pm | Quote
It IS a tough one. The idea of having government social workers make rounds is good in theory, until civil lawsuits by the churches kick in. Invasion of privacy. Freedom of religion. Got to keep in place that oft-theoretical separation of church and state. We can’t bring in spot-checkers until there’s been an allegation of criminal activity warranting state involvement.
I agree with Allison that prevention may be near impossible with fundamentalists’ overzealous beliefs. When Madeline’s mother was asked why her daughter died, she said it was because her faith was not strong enough. I don’t know that deterrence is even an option in any sense when dealing with a cult mentality.
I’m for punishment for a death. I’d rather release every locked up pot dealer in the U.S. and give their spaces in the overcrowded prisons to these people and people like them, who clearly are more deserving of the spots.
8. Kimberly said:
April 1, 2008 @ 9:32 pm | Quote
Rita, that is and has been a huge topic in criminal law since the beginning of criminal laws. We studied whole books in law school on the concepts of punishment for punishment’s sake and punishment for deterrence. The question can be asked and is asked by judges every day in sentencing people on everything from marijuana possession to manslaugher.
The only “good” of having them punished is the maintenance of order in society. You break a law and recklessly cause the death of another, you get punished. Order maintained.
9. Rita said:
April 1, 2008 @ 9:36 pm | Quote
I’ve just never understood the idea of “deserving” of pain and suffering. It’s just something I’ve never been able to wrap my head around. Of course, when hit in the face with some unspeakable horror, it is my gut reaction to want vengeance, but that goes away and is replaced by something else. It’s not that I’ve been particularly sheltered either, that “if this happened to YOU or someone you loved, you’d feel differently” because I have been the victim of some pretty heinous things. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the terrible things these people have done, or feel that they should just be let loose to keep committing crimes, it’s just that I don’t understand the idea behind wanting vengeance, or feeling that someone else deserves to suffer. It’s like that part of me is just missing or something. I hear other people speak of it, and even other bleeding heart liberals like myself speak of having that feeling sustained in them, and I just don’t get it.
Personally, I’d like to see them sterilized and never in the care of a child again for their whole lives, but further than that, I just don’t see the purpose of locking them away, or having pain inflicted upon them. It’s not like these people will EVER comprehend what it is they’ve done wrong, or repent for it. They’ll probably see themselves as martyrs actually, being victimized by a godless society for their faith, and believe that they will have a special place in heaven because of it.
10. Allison J said:
April 1, 2008 @ 9:37 pm | Quote
With you Kimberly & Prescott — punishment for DIRECTLY causing another’s death — especially when it could have been 100% preventable.
There have been people convicted of manslaughter for far less.
It is not punishing just for the sake of punishing — it is punishing for the fact that you DIRECTLY caused a death.
11. Rita said:
April 1, 2008 @ 9:39 pm | Quote
Huh. Well, that is interesting. So, it’s punishment basically for mob control? To appease the angry masses, so they feel that something has been done? That does make some sense. I mean that’s why Jesus was crucified, right? I dunno, I still just kind of feel like as a whole, maybe we could evolve from that kind of bloodthrist, get up over whatever primal hump is in our way, stop beating our chests for vengeance and find ways that work to prevent murderous deaths instead. But, that’s just me with my missing vengeance gene.
12. Kimberly said:
April 1, 2008 @ 9:55 pm | Quote
So are you arguing for a law-free society, where we can all just run free and do whatever we want with no ramifications? As ideal as that seems — the fact that we could maintain order on our own — I think it’s highly doubtful we could do it. And why have laws with no punishment attached? (Although there are probably a lot of laws with no teeth). We need law in society. That said, I’m all for working to prevent crimes and arguing for rehab or house arrest or other kinds of alternative sentencing when the situation calls for it. I think this situation calls for prison time if it is found that they did break a law. That punishment would serve the dual purpose of punishment and prevention–it gets them away from their other kids and keeps those other kids alive.
13. Allison J said:
April 1, 2008 @ 10:13 pm | Quote
This has nothing to do with a vengeance gene, nor mob mentality. It is, as Kimberly stated, about punishment for a crime and prevention from further crime.
It is why rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc. are prosecuted. And I for one am much more worried about the damage people like these can wreak over some 25 year old growing pot in their basement.
And wouldn’t sterilization be tantamount to punishment?
14. Rita said:
April 1, 2008 @ 10:17 pm | Quote
No, not at all. I believe in consequences for actions. I believe in keeping dangerous people away from society so that they can’t harm others, in whatever way is feasible. For some that does mean prison for life, for others it might mean a mental institution for life. In cases like this though, the only people they’re in danger of hurting are their own offspring.
Maybe punishing the clergy of these churches? Maybe going higher up in the food chain and charging those who encourage their followers to break the law would be a better deterrent? Yes, we have freedom of religion, but we wouldn’t tolerate a brand of religion that openly encouraged their followers to actively murder or harm children. This type of thing is openly encouraging parishioners to passively murder children. Were their friends of the family, other people involved in the church who were aware of the kids’ conditions that might be charged as accomplices to the murders?
The parents are going to have to do something to “pay” for what they did. They can’t go along as if they did nothing wrong, but I just don’t know what good will come of any punishment to them.
15. Jessica said:
April 2, 2008 @ 6:44 am | Quote
In my opinion, a civilized and free society always requires that people take responsibility for their actions. The only reason “the state” entrusts parents to freely raise their children with little government intervention is because society has “faith” that parents will use their discretion wisely.
These parents failed in that regard. Refusing medical intervention is not a mental illness, if it were, then all parents that refused to vaccinate their children would be in counseling.
These parents neglected their child and it made decisions that directly resulted in her death.
They deserve whatever punishment is allowable by law and I hope the justice system serves that girl and sends a message to the rest of society — murder your child and lose your freedom and/or life yourself.
There is nothing wrong with punishing murderers. I actually believe whole heartedly in retribution.
16. Rita said:
April 2, 2008 @ 8:39 am | Quote
I know you and I have personally been round and round with this topic before.
I’m not saying they should just go free with nothing at all.
But, as far as taking responsibility, do you honestly think they’re going to do that? Do you think they’re going to ever say that they caused the deaths of these kids? No. Well, I guess the one did when she said her faith wasn’t strong enough, that is some kind of wacked out claim to responsibility. But, otherwise, they believe that it was God’s will or whatever.
I don’t think that this will be any kind of deterrent for people who have the same beliefs. If anything, like I said, they’ll be considered martyrs for their faith. So, that part doesn’t apply.
And retribution. Yes, punishing these people for the sake of punishment serves retribution for those who need to see it. Retribution is what you’ll get. Does that make you feel better? That’s the bottom line, do YOU feel that punishing these parents will make YOU feel better for what they’ve done? I know from our past discussions about this that yes, personally for YOU, you say you will feel better. For me personally, I don’t feel better knowing that they’re punished. For me, that isn’t enough. I get no feeling of closure knowing that someone else is suffering in some way. I don’t want their blood on my hands, either.
I want more. I want something to be put in place to help prevent this from happening again. I think all the energy that we (societal “we”) put into waving torches and pitchforks and demanding our bloody vengeance could be put into going up higher in the chain and cutting off the source of it, to prevent other tragedies in the future. Sure the parents are to blame directly and they need to be sent away, but, I wish them no added pain or harm to them while they’re serving their time cut off from the rest of us. I get no glee from knowing that someone else is suffering regardless of the reason.
17. Kristy said:
April 2, 2008 @ 10:24 am | Quote
I think both things need to happen. I think we need to aim for prevention. Someone needs to figure out a way to reach these congregations of lunatics. It needs to be something sneaky and manipulative to work, because as Rita pointed out, otherwise they will just revel in their martyrdom. I don’t know the answer though.
But I also think that these people deserve punishment. I think up to a certain level of wack job, that kind of thing does serve as a deterrent. But separately from that, I don’t believe they should be allowed to enjoy their lives after ending the innocent life of their dependent children. It’s the same reason I believe in the death penalty. Bleeding heart that I am, it’s the one non-liberal belief I hold. I believe a person can forfeit the right to live. I hear examples of horrible things that someone has done to another person or people that I think makes the perpetrator deserving of death. And yes, I believe it to the point that I would be willing to administer the punishment myself if called on. Some people should die.
18. friend said:
May 5, 2008 @ 2:03 pm | Quote
This is a great post and topic…recently is Utah a kid was diagnosed with a TREATABLE albeit very aggressive kid cancer. The treatment was several rounds of chemo…but, it may lead to sterility in this adolescent boy. Because procreating is one of the basic ways to get to the Celestial Kingdom…heaven to you and I, they refused, and went the holistic route. How could you not TAKE CARE of your child…it blows me away!!!!
19. SB said:
May 5, 2008 @ 2:15 pm | Quote
This has beeen all over our news here and the parents are being charged, Here is a link:
http://www.myfoxmilwaukee.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=B6CE597CEE320E3D1A2B279709070261?contentId=6412235&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1