Does the right to life stop when a child is born?
Dale Neumann was convicted Saturday of killing his 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, because he prayed for her instead of taking her to a hospital when her undiagnosed diabetes got so bad that she couldn't eat, drink, walk or speak. She died on the floor of her rural Wisconsin home with her father, mother and a group of people praying for her healing. Neumann says he was simply putting his faith first and following the will of God, but a jury found him guilty of second-degree reckless homicide. Neumann's wife, who similarly said her daughter's sickness was a "test of faith," was convicted earlier this year.
This event raises serious questions about the conflict between individual rights and governmental power, just as abortion does. Both involve innocent and dependent lives with no real power to contest a parent's choices. And unlike Wisconsin, most states give immunity to those who rely only on faith healing and refuse medical care. Those governments are essentially recusing themselves from any duty to protect the Madeline Neumanns in their communities. According to Wayne Purdin, blogging at Examiner.com,
In 1998, a study of religion-based medical neglect in the journal Pediatrics documented 172 child fatalities over 20 years among 23 religious denominations in 34 states. Faith Assembly in the Midwest led with 64 deaths. The Christian Science Church was second, with 28. The study called the cases the "tip of the iceberg," since many are never reported. The vast majority of these deaths were avoidable.
Where should the line be drawn between parents' religious rights and the government's power to protect the defenseless? Isn't this a Right to Life issue? And if it is, where are the Right to Lifers?
--Catherine Lyons
Photo: Dale Neumann smiles at his defense attorney Jay Kronenwetter during his trial in Wausau, Wis., on July 28. Credit: AP Photo / The Daily Herald, Corey Schjoth
Apparently the previous posters do not understand the dangerous precedent that this case creates. Let me pose this parallel. In this case what the jury is saying the "correct" thing to do was to send her to the hospital and give her a chemical treatment.
So let us parallel this:
If a mother refuses to have her child inoculated because of beliefs regarding the dangers of inoculation. 15 years down the road the child dies of measles. Should that parent then be put into prison for murder because of the choice to not allow her child to have the vaccinations? This is the exact same thing.
As soon as you set the precedent that the government can decide on what chemicals to inject, what treatments are mandatory, and what machinery you need, you open the door wide open for a complete invasion of religious and personal rights.
Let me say, as a medical professional, no treatment can be said to be 100% effective all the time. Any one who makes that claim is a fool. Treatments can have a very high rate of effectiveness. So where then do we draw the line.
After setting this precedent, what is to stop the government from deciding, “well, this treatment has a 95% success rate, therefore it would be a CRIME not to do it.”
What about when treatments that have possible side effects? Should it still be a CRIME to refuse them?
If any one of you has read A Brave New World then the idea of the government deciding on what religious faith an individuals children should be taught should have a high pitch warning bell.
It’s sad that the child died, but you people need to look at the bigger picture. You need to understand what the definition of precedent is. You need to understand that once you allow the government to supersede religious freedoms you open the door to have the 1st amendment completely thrown out. You need to understand how laws progress; It begins with a precedent exactly like this one.
For those of you that have forgotten let me remind you
The 1st amendment states:
"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."
"...or prohibiting the exercise thereof..."
Like I say, there is a much bigger picture at work here, a ruling like this should scare the **** out of you.
Posted by: Clark | August 07, 2009 at 10:44 PM
These parents, in keeping with their religious beliefs, willfully neglected to seek treatment for their sick child. If it had been in keeping with evil voices inside their heads, or a reading of the coffee grounds, or anything else, still the case would remain that they neglected to seek treatment for their sick child. A respect for religious diversity is healthy; a respect for parental neglect is not, and does not follow from the former. If the Neumanns' faith required them to let their daughter die without seeking medical help, then it also required them to break laws, and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. People are not physically incapable of bending or breaking their faith. If that were the case, God would never have had to command anything to anyone in all of time, for one cannot be commanded to do that which one cannot do but otherwise, by definition. Each individual is fully responsible for following his or her beliefs, and is likewise responsible for any actions taken according to those beliefs.
Religious tolerance and dialog between faiths is essential to human harmony and progress, but it cannot involve the effacement of personal and legal accountability. It is to some extent debatable whether a person who has been diagnosed with severe mental illness is fully accountable for actions against others, but it is abundantly more clear that religious belief is by definition a free choice. My heart goes out to the family, friends, and community involved in this painful tragedy, but I also believe that legal justice, at least, demands accountability.
Posted by: Curtis | August 06, 2009 at 09:12 PM
"I trusted in God. "
God sent you a hospital full of doctors, and you rejected them
Think Darwin Awards.
Posted by: anandine | August 05, 2009 at 01:38 PM
Defending this poor eleven-year-old wouldn't do a single thing to control the sexuality of women, so what possible use could the "right-to-lifers" have for doing so?
Posted by: Michelle | August 05, 2009 at 01:35 PM