*mod edit* Thread moved to News

In Camel's defence, I wasn't able to find any of the other threads using the search function and the link doesn't send me to an active thread either.

Those parents should be convicted of murder, pure and simple. I don't know what else you call it when you deny someone needed medical attention, especially a minor in your care.

Their religious views are irrelevant, or should be.  There are a very few excuses for murder: actual or temporary insanity and self-defence are the only three I am aware of, and none of them are factors in this case. Certainly religious convictions are not listed.

The Wisconsin prosecutor needs to arrest these two for murder or admit that he's presiding over a theocracy.

Just received this from the FFRF:

Law Sanctifies Child Homicide in Name of Faith

Memorialize 11-Year-Old Madeline by Removing Faith Exemption

March 28, 2008

As a memorial to the painful, frightening and needless death of Madeline Kara Neumann, the Wisconsin Legislature needs to finally show some gumption, and remove from the statutes its exemption sanctifying child homicide in the name of faith.

Statement by Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor
Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-Presidents

The death of an 11-year-old child from illness is always tragic, but what puts Madeline Kara Neumann's death last Sunday in a different class is that it is unforgiveable. Madeleine's long descent into diabetic ketoacidosis was unnecessary, preventable and the result of willful negligence on the part of her bible-believing parents.

It's one thing for an adult to choose prayer over medicine. But it is sheer child sacrifice to permit parents to eschew medical diagnosis and treatment of ill offspring. Parents do not own their children, much less have the right to endanger their children's lives by callously disregarding medical needs in the name of religion.

What's even more appalling is the ambivalent reaction: "Ethicists say case unclear," reports the Wausau Daily Herald. The Herald quoted bioethicist Dr. Norman Fost of the University of Wisconsin Medical school warning that it's important not to be moralistic or pass judgment on parents who think they can heal a child through prayer: "They believe they're helping their child; they love their child, and they believe prayer has an effect."

However deluded the parents may be, the rest of us need not countenance or indulge that dangerous delusion.

Dean Zuleger, the administrator of the Village of Weston, was quoted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel saying, "There is a general sense of grief and sadness. Because I know the family a bit, there is a great deal of concern for their well-being." The parents' well-being?

"Death draws out difficult issues" read a headline in the Journal Sentinel. While Madeline's drawn-out death, involving nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, weight loss and weakness, is very difficult to read about, there is nothing difficult at all about deciding where the blame lies. "The prayer of faith will heal the sick," according to James 5:15. The fault lies in society's laudatory attitude toward a "holy book" which teaches superstition and faith-healing, whose passages are latched onto by bible literalists, and whose obedience to such injunctions has been given a pass in the criminal statutes of many states.

The mother, Leilani Neumann, of Weston, Wis., publicly announced: "We need healing. We are going through the healing process." What about the healing process her daughter required? This helpless dependent of a middle-class family had last seen a doctor at the age of three, and recently had been pulled out of public schools for religious home-schooling, possibly to cover up symptoms of her illness, which, according to medical experts, would have surfaced at least six months ago.

Legally, the question will revolve over whether the family recognized the seriousness of the illness. A chronology has emerged which belies the family's claim that they did not realize how sick Madeline was, including logs of their calls around the country to relatives (who notified authorities just before her death that Madeline was seriously ill) and to David Eels, whose Unleavened Bread Ministries operates AmericasLastDays.com. Eels, of Pensacola, Fla., admitted he prayed for Madeline the day before she died, and that the family phoned him Sunday, as they followed an ambulance with their dead daughter to the hospital, asking him "if I would pray that the Lord would spare her and raise her up, which I did."

Leilani Neumann told reporters she and her husband are not worried about an investigation because "our lives are in God's hands. We know we did not do anything criminal. We know we did the best for our daughter we knew how to do."

Their "best" was not good enough. Nor is the religious exemption provided for by Wisconsin statutes, similar to what many states have adopted under pressure of the Christian Science lobby. What they don't realize is that doing nothing to help their daughter is parental negligence, which is criminal. The parents can still be charged, at least with some form of negligence or child abuse. But more action is required.

As a memorial to the painful, frightening and needless death of Madeline Kara Neumann, the Wisconsin Legislature needs to finally show some gumption, and remove from the statutes its callous exemption sanctifying child homicide in the name of faith.

>>> Wisconsin State statutes

Start with the definition of a child
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gatewa ... &jd=948.03
948.01(1)
(1) "Child" means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, except that for purposes of prosecuting a person who is alleged to have violated a state or federal criminal law, "child" does not include a person who has attained the age of 17 years

Then the fun part...skip to 948.03(4) and 948.03(6) 
 

948.03(4)     
(4) Failing to act to prevent bodily harm. 

948.03(4)(a)
(a) A person responsible for the child's welfare is guilty of a Class F felony if that person has knowledge that another person intends to cause, is causing or has intentionally or recklessly caused great bodily harm to the child and is physically and emotionally capable of taking action which will prevent the bodily harm from occurring or being repeated, fails to take that action and the failure to act exposes the child to an unreasonable risk of great bodily harm by the other person or facilitates the great bodily harm to the child that is caused by the other person.

948.03(6)    
(6) Treatment through prayer. A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing permitted under s. 48.981 (3) (c) 4. or 448.03 (6) in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.
 

There will (most likely) be no charges.  The state (police) did seize computers, medical books, and medical (insurance) cards from the home.  The other children were removed from the home and examined for any life threatening illnesses being left untreated (found to be otherwise healthy).

The state will have a hard time proving that these people weren't acting in the best interest of their dead daughter.  Sad, but true.  The state has to prove these parents somehow knew there child was sick enough to die from this illness.  They hadn't taken the daughter to a doctor in 8 years.  The parents can even opt out of 'standard'/required immunizations just by saying (signing the appropriate Student Immunization Record (form) that they have a 'personal preference' not to immunize their children).  If there are such forms on file for their children and enough evidence (i.e., 8 years of no doctor exam), there isn't much the state can do.

I remember a time when going to a chiropractor wasn't considered having a 'real' doctor.  People went to chiropractors for all sorts of illnesses that would have been better treated by medicine.  Who ever heard of a chiropractor curing something like gallbladder/appendix? 

But you couldn't sue someone for failing to go to the 'right' doctor or for trusting a 'fake' doctor.  (Chopra and similar come to mind immediately). 

Personally, IMO, the daughter is better off dead.  At least now she doesn't have to look forward to a life on insulin (which her parents probably wouldn't have provided for the condition).  She could have eventually gone blind or have developed some other complication of diabetes (for which her parents would have prayed to relieve).

Sorry, but I'm also not in favor of the state dictating what, if any, medical intercession a person must submit to to save their life or treat a disease or defect. 

Personal choice.  Personal freedom.  Unfortunately, this 11 yr old girl didn't have a choice or the freedom to decide.  Perhaps if we had been able to ask her, a different decision and outcome would have resulted...such as the girl being removed from her family, placed in state custody, and forced to take insulin for the rest of her life.

We don't allow 11 year olds to make those decisions for themselves, because we don't believe they are capable of such 'adult' decisions.  The parents didn't have their parental rights terminated...even though other family members were sufficiently concerned to (belatedly) contact the local authorities.  Too late, the girl died.