PDA

View Full Version : Trials for parents choosing faith healing over medicine



Grendel
01-21-2009, 05:57 PM
Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine
January 21, 2009
By DIRK JOHNSON

WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.

“Basically everything stops,” said Dr. Louis Philipson, who directs the diabetes center at the University of Chicago Medical Center, explaining what occurs in patients who do not know or “are in denial that they have diabetes.”

About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”

Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.”

About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes.

Shawn Peters, the author of three books on religion and the law, including “When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law” (Oxford, 2007), said the outcome of the Neumann case was likely to set an important precedent.

“The laws around the country are pretty unsettled,” said Mr. Peters, who teaches religion at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and has been consulted by prosecutors and defense lawyers in the case.

In the last year, two other sets of parents, both in Oregon, were criminally charged because they had not sought medical care for their children on the ground that to do so would have violated their belief in faith healing. One couple were charged with manslaughter in the death of their 15-month-old daughter, who died of pneumonia last March. The other couple were charged with criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, who died from complications of a urinary tract infection that was severely painful and easily treatable.

“Many types of abuses of children are motivated by rigid belief systems,” including severe corporal punishment, said Ms. Swan, a former Christian Scientist whose 16-month-old son, Matthew, died after she postponed taking him to a hospital for treatment of what proved to be meningitis. “We learned the hard way.”

All states give social service authorities the right to go into homes and petition for the removal of children, Ms. Swan said, but cases involving medical care often go unnoticed until too late. Parents who believe in faith healing, she said, may feel threatened by religious authorities who oppose medical treatment. Recalling her own experience, she said, “we knew that once we went to the doctor, we’d be cut off from God.”

The crux of the Neumanns’ case, Mr. Peters said, will be whether the parents could have known the seriousness of their daughter’s condition.

Investigators said the Neumanns last took Kara to a doctor when she was 3. According to a police report, the girl had lost the strength to speak the day before she died. “Kara laid down and was unable to move her mouth,” the report said, “and merely made moaning noises and moved her eyes back and forth.”

The courts have ordered regular medical checks for the couple’s other three children, ages 13 to 16, and Judge Howard ordered all the parties in the case not to speak to members of the news media. Neither Ms. Falstad nor the defense lawyers, Gene Linehan and Jay Kronenwetter, would agree to be interviewed.

The Neumanns, who had operated a coffee shop, Monkey Mo’s, in this middle-class suburb in the North Woods, are known locally as followers of an online faith outreach group called Unleavened Bread Ministries, run by a preacher, David Eells. The site shares stories of faith healing and talks about the end of the world.

An essay on the site signed Pastor Bob states that the Bible calls for healing by faith alone. “Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital,” the essay says. “Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.”

A link from the site, helptheneumanns.com, asserts that the couple is being persecuted and “charged with the crime of praying.” The site also allows people to contribute to a legal fund for the Neumanns.

In the small town of Weston, many people shake their heads with dismay when Kara Neumann is mentioned. Tammy Klemp, 41, who works behind the counter at a convenience store here, said she disagreed with the Neumanns’ passive response to their daughter’s illness but said she was not sure they should go to prison.

“I’ve got mixed feelings,” Ms. Klemp said. “It’s just such a terribly sad case.”

Chris Goebel, 30, a shipping department worker for a window maker, said many people in the area felt strongly that the parents should be punished.

“That little girl wasn’t old enough to make the decision about going to a doctor,” Mr. Goebel said. “And now, because some religious extremists went too far, she’s gone.”Tragic stories, but quite fascinating from a legal standpoint.

I don't like the idea of the government interfering with religious practice any more than promoting it, but working in childrens' welfare means this is right where I live, essentially.

Thankfully, I've never run into anything like this, personally, but I can vouch for the fact that this is not something protective services is likely to catch until funerals are being arranged.

levil666
01-21-2009, 06:25 PM
Good find. I think that the idea of "religious freedom" has taken a serious drag on our nation as a whole. It has strayed from what it originally stood for, as being a means to keep people from persecuting people due to their religious belief, but now, the tables have turned, and (from first hand experience) people are being discriminated for not being "Christian."

That being said, what these parents did was neglegent, and regardless of their beliefs, freedom isn't free. Let the courts decide their fate, but obviously it was their God's will that the girl pass away. When did we as a people slip back into the Dark Ages?

Elduardo
01-21-2009, 06:27 PM
No freedoms are absolute, including freedom of religion. If the government has no other role, it's to protect children.

RIP
01-21-2009, 06:57 PM
Does a parent have the right to refuse treatment to their child if they deem it harmful? (Spiritually or physically) Modern medicine is not perfect. Does the government have the right to take your child away at gunpoint because they think they know better than you, the parent?

Elduardo
01-21-2009, 07:37 PM
I understand your point. For me there isn't much grey area if you deny your kid a cancer treatment or something of the such and the kid dies.

For lesser severity things it's probably not appropriate to have criminal prosecution.

Luris Blear
01-21-2009, 07:54 PM
The crux of the Neumanns’ case, Mr. Peters said, will be whether the parents could have known the seriousness of their daughter’s condition.If they would have taken the kid to the doctor, then yes they would have.


The Neumanns, who had operated a coffee shop, Monkey Mo’s, in this middle-class suburb in the North Woods, are known locally as followers of an online faith outreach group called Unleavened Bread Ministries, run by a preacher, David Eells. The site shares stories of faith healing and talks about the end of the world.Right. Their internet church told them not to do it because God is going to destroy the world?
Unleavened Bread Ministries

Warning: These Are America's Last Days America's. Then the world's.

Part of what we can do for the better of all humanity is require even an approximate guess +/- 5 years for the supposed end times (this time). When they fail to produce, you incarcerate the hucksters in charge of the church and sue what is left of The Holy God Damn The World Is Ending Brotherhood Incorporated into a little Armageddon of its own.

And on that note, any faith healers who presided over this child - including the parents - also need to be punished. If my son were to die because I attempted to heal him with scalpels and power tools then I would go to prison. If this girl's parents failed to heal her by touching their hands together and talking a lot then they deserve no less.

WarBeast
01-22-2009, 02:56 AM
I remember posting this very story about the Neumann's back when the story originally happened... and I had the very same questions... glad to see they didn't just get off scott-free for this shit.

I think what pisses me off is that the child has no choice in the matter... Yes, you have your freedom of religion, and yes you can practice it how you see fit, BUT when that belief and that practice kills someone... that's unacceptable.

I'm a "government needs to stay the hell out of my private business" kind of guy... Hell, I vote Libertarian... but even I see the need for government mandates when it comes to protecting those who can not speak for themselves, when it comes to matters in which life and death are an issue.

I wonder, if this defense actually wins out for these so-called parents and it sets the precident that you can deny medical care and basically let your child die, how long will it take for some scumbag negligent parent uses it as a defense themselves, when in reality, they just didn't give a damn about the well-being of their child?

The right practice your beliefs are constitutional, but so is the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, and when your rights on one hand infringes on the rights of another, that's a problem... and that's what this is all about...

Yannis
01-22-2009, 06:49 AM
Does a parent have the right to refuse treatment to their child if they deem it harmful? (Spiritually or physically) Modern medicine is not perfect. Does the government have the right to take your child away at gunpoint because they think they know better than you, the parent?

I don't agree with the treament denial at all. Just because modern medicine is not perfect that does not mean that a parent can deny medical treatment to their child. That sounds stupid. Even if it is not perfect it is a lot better than doing nothing and praying to God. Good luck with that. If anyone wants to turn to faith healing as a last resort after they have tried every medical treatment possible with no results, then that is fine.

Besides, taking their children in for tests to see what is wrong with them is not a treatment so even if they have the right to deny treatment (which they don't) they are still guilty no matter which way you see it from.

As the article states, 300 children died over the last 25 years because the parents denied medical treatment. If that poor girl was treated she would have lived. So who is to blame for those deaths ? Is it God ? I don't think so. But that is just my opinion.

toxicangel19
01-22-2009, 04:24 PM
Good find. I think that the idea of "religious freedom" has taken a serious drag on our nation as a whole. It has strayed from what it originally stood for, as being a means to keep people from persecuting people due to their religious belief, but now, the tables have turned, and (from first hand experience) people are being discriminated for not being "Christian."

That being said, what these parents did was neglegent, and regardless of their beliefs, freedom isn't free. Let the courts decide their fate, but obviously it was their God's will that the girl pass away. When did we as a people slip back into the Dark Ages?

Well I can tell you I HAVE been disciminated against as a Christian, and not ALL of us are discriminators because one choses either no religion or a different one at all. I don't mind atheists and agnostics and Jews and Catholics....even Muslims (except extremist kind).

As for the subject at hand, I say that if the child's life is being threatened and its something that is treatable, then Parents should be held accountable, God gave us common sense, and in my opinion otherwise we wouldn't have bright wonderful physicians to take care of us. I think people should take their kids to the ER when its serious, Id take mine if I had any.

Grendel
01-22-2009, 05:22 PM
I wonder, if this defense actually wins out for these so-called parents and it sets the precident that you can deny medical care and basically let your child die, how long will it take for some scumbag negligent parent uses it as a defense themselves, when in reality, they just didn't give a damn about the well-being of their child?


About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”

Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.”State law seems to be very clear, indeed.

What will be interesting is the response to the judge's statement about the Constitutional objection.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Exercise" would, at least on it's face, seems to indicate conduct, not just belief. That said, you can't claim a religious belief that includes human sacrifice, etc., so there are obviously limits. I think any appellate court is likely to cite a similar situation and deny the parents' challenge.

slimeisacharacter
01-22-2009, 06:12 PM
Our founding laws and regulations have needed a refresh for quite some time. This is just another glaring reason on how outdated they are and how much we need to readdress just about everything. The founding fathers were quite smart, but they never invisioned things like the internet, automatic weapons, killing your own kids for religion, and a hundred other situations that fall into that ever widening "Grey area" of our rights.

As for this particular case...

Every day stuff, to each their own. I see no reason why everyone should down cough syrup if someone feels a cup of hot tea and a nap would do. Even broken bones can be dealt with at the house, if you know enough about patching them up.

Life threatening illness with known and highly sucessful treatments, parents should have their child cared for. If God really wants to kill your kid, He/She will run them over with a bus or drop a piano on them, not give them an illness they can recover from.

Life threatening illness with no known treatment, a highly painful treatment with low success rate, or a treatment that brings in quality of life over quantity of life questions... Leave it to the parents. I'd much rather have my kids spend their last days at home, surrounded by family rather than wired and tubed to 20 different machines with almost no chance of recovery.


Or... go the extreme route I have seen now and then, claim the parents are mentally unfit to care for their children. Cases now and then where the parents are marked insane because they are a bit too religious and are marked a danger to their children due to their religious practices.

No matter what, someone is crying when all is said and done. But, thats religion vs state for you...

Darkgod
01-22-2009, 07:54 PM
Make it fair... inject the parents with a sickness only curable my medical treatment.

Searcher
01-23-2009, 01:42 PM
What about when an insurance co denies coverage for a child for one reason or another? the treatment is there, but the coverage isn't. No prosecution there. No outrage either.
So lets get this straight, religious objection to treatment from parent bad. Financial objection from ins co exeptable. I'd be willing to bet that far more people die every year from the latter, yet the outrage for the former is so intense. Priorities, or could it be the parents don't have the deep pockets it takes bribe, er lobby our government.

strtfghtr
01-23-2009, 01:55 PM
insurance companies are not leagaly responsible for a child's wellbeing...the parents are

slimeisacharacter
01-23-2009, 02:20 PM
What about when an insurance co denies coverage for a child for one reason or another? the treatment is there, but the coverage isn't. No prosecution there. No outrage either.
So lets get this straight, religious objection to treatment from parent bad. Financial objection from ins co exeptable. I'd be willing to bet that far more people die every year from the latter, yet the outrage for the former is so intense. Priorities, or could it be the parents don't have the deep pockets it takes bribe, er lobby our government.

Both insurance companies and stupid parents are at fault for various reasons. No reason to ignore stupid parents because our lawmakers are in the pockets of insurance companies though.

Tragicallyhip
01-23-2009, 06:00 PM
And on that note, any faith healers who presided over this child - including the parents - also need to be punished. If my son were to die because I attempted to heal him with scalpels and power tools then I would go to prison. If this girl's parents failed to heal her by touching their hands together and talking a lot then they deserve no less.

If I set myself up as some kind of medical authority and claim that my 'miracle procedure' negates the need for any other kind of medical treatment, and one of my patients dies, I'll certainly face legal action, so there's no reason why faith healers in a similar situation shouldn't be punished too.

Luris Blear
01-23-2009, 06:06 PM
If I set myself up as some kind of medical authority and claim that my 'miracle procedure' negates the need for any other kind of medical treatment, and one of my patients dies, I'll certainly face legal action, so there's no reason why faith healers in a similar situation shouldn't be punished too.

Yes. Exactly my point. :thumbup:

As for insurance companies: you sign a premium stating what will and will not be covered. My family was personally put into a lot of debt when our first son was born prematurely just because the pediatrician wasn't considered "emergency" enough.

So we worked harder and bought better insurance.

A friend of my wife's had a child who was about 11 weeks premature. The medical bill hit seven digits, but they had prepared themselves with good enough insurance that it barely affected them.

Is that a perfect system? No. It is possible and it is available, however.

If the company were to refuse payment despite collecting money for a premium that is supposed to pay, then sue the company. Go for at least Wrongful Death, like they hit OJ with. If the parents did not sign a good enough premium then maybe it was time to turn off the teevee and take care of their kids.

Searcher
02-03-2009, 01:21 PM
As for insurance companies: you sign a premium stating what will and will not be covered. My family was personally put into a lot of debt when our first son was born prematurely just because the pediatrician wasn't considered "emergency" enough.

So we worked harder and bought better insurance.

A friend of my wife's had a child who was about 11 weeks premature. The medical bill hit seven digits, but they had prepared themselves with good enough insurance that it barely affected them.

Is that a perfect system? No. It is possible and it is available, however.

If the company were to refuse payment despite collecting money for a premium that is supposed to pay, then sue the company. Go for at least Wrongful Death, like they hit OJ with. If the parents did not sign a good enough premium then maybe it was time to turn off the teevee and take care of their kids.

You sound rather naive here. First, lets talk reality. Ins co's have a vast legal latitute when it comes to finding loopholes in the most expensive policies. So it may not matter how hard you work. They are also exempt from anti trust laws so they can conspire even amongst each other to fix rates and policies.
Are telling me that if, after you playing by the rules, they still pulled whatever maneuvers they could to save money and let your wife or child die in that process that gratification would come to you after a wrongful death suit? And do you think wrongful death suits havn't been tried on them?

Second lets talk philosophy. When an industry as vastly important as health ins is allowed to control our government to their own ends, making you work harder in order to give them more and leaving less for your family, do you consider yourself free?
I admire your hard work ethic, but when you're working hard to pay off thugs the romanticism pales.

Luris Blear
02-03-2009, 10:36 PM
I've seen enough people screwed over to know it happens.

I've seen enough people step up, meet the challenge, and come out better for it (with better plans, no less) to know that it's also possible.

I will openly even admit to you that it happens -- in order to make sure that people who realize what settling for good enough or second best will get them.

Godfatha
02-04-2009, 06:33 PM
State law seems to be very clear, indeed.

What will be interesting is the response to the judge's statement about the Constitutional objection.



"Exercise" would, at least on it's face, seems to indicate conduct, not just belief. That said, you can't claim a religious belief that includes human sacrifice, etc., so there are obviously limits. I think any appellate court is likely to cite a similar situation and deny the parents' challenge.

This will be the crux of the case I believe. I see it as coming down to either the judges will be labeled as radicals free-wheeling with the constitution or failing to protect it from extreme religious views.

C.H.U.D.
02-13-2009, 06:53 PM
The kid died because the parents believed god would heal.

Where's your faith now you bastards?