Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Wisconsin couple found guilty of causing the daughter's death

A Wisconsin couple have been found guilty of causing their daughter's death through criminal neglect. They refused to take their daughter to the hospital even when she was so ill that she couldn't walk or talk, opting to pray for her instead.

I'm glad that they were found guilty. Parents should not have the right to put their children's lives at severe risk just because they have a certain religious belief. I don't think parents own their children's lives. They should not be allowed to withhold medical treatment from their underage children just because it doesn't suit their beliefs.

Ann

I have to say I agree with you. There have been too many children die in recent years that didn't need to die just because their parents didn't believe in doctors or they had joined some cult that didn't. I think when you actually put the child's life in danger it passes from religious belief into child neglect. THAT IS JUST MY OPINION. Children are a GIFT to be protected and NOT PROPERTY that you own.

That is also the law in the U.S. The rights in our Bill of Rights, including the right to free exercise of religion, are not absolute. The state can interfere when it has a compelling interest. That includes protecting other people. For example, even if you sincerely believed that you had to sacrifice another person to your god, that would not give you the right to murder. Similarly, you have the right to withhold medical treatment for yourself, but not for your child. The state has a compelling interest to protect the welfare of all children. That's why we have laws against child abuse and neglect.

Here are two fascinating and though-provoking blog entries by a man who makes the argument *against* the state's decision to prosecute the parents. (Or, more acurately, against the state's right to prosecute, and in favor of the parent's right to determine their child's medical care.)

Scroll down to read "You Can Have Your Religion, But Not Your Children", and "Forget Father, Big Brother Knows Best."

I read a bit of one of the blogs you posted a link to, Vicki. In that blog you could read this:

My impression is that the person writing this blog wants to define children as the domain of their parents, and not wards of the state.

I disagree with that sentiment. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that one reason why the Western and Christian world is more civilized than the Muslim world is that in our world, everyone is a "ward of the state". We are, as it were, the "property" of the state. That means that if someone kills us, either through deliberate murder or through gross negligence, that person is committing a crime against the state. The state has been robbed of one of its most prescious assets, a human life. Since the taking of a life is a crime against the state, the state can't tolerate it.

This is not the case in the Muslim civilization. Here every person is a property of his or her (extended) family. When a person is murdered, the state will not automatically punish the murderer. Instead, the state will ask the bereaved family if the family wants to punish the murderer. If the family wants the murderer to be killed, he will be killed. But if the family is willing to pardon the murderer, the murderer will be pardoned.

Now bear in mind that the family may kill one of its own. It may, for example, decide to execute one of its young girls whose behaviour it disapproves of. So the family kills the girl. And what does the state do? Since the family who committed the killing is also the party injured by the girl's death, the family will be asked if it wants to punish itself for killing the girl, or if it wants to pardon itself. It will come as no surprise that the families will almost always pardon themselves.

Conclusion? The girl has no protection if her family kills her. Her family wants to see her dead, and the state doesn't care.

The family can kill girls (and boys) through other means, for example through negligence. The family can decide to favour one of its children and spend all its resources on this favorite child. At the same time, it may starve its other children and refuse to give them medical care, etcetera.

Personally, I think it is critical for a civilized society that children are not considered the sole property of their parents, to treat and deal with according to the parents' religious beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

Let me say a few words about faith healing. I am, as many of you know, not a religous person, so I don't believe in faith healing. But I am very well aware that in the Gospels, Jesus cures many sick people through faith healing. So is it any wonder that religious people may want to practise faith healing and pray for their sick ones? Of course not! Is it wrong to pray for sick people? Oh, no, no! How could that possibly be wrong?

But here's what I don't understand. Why would it be forbidden to pray for your sick ones and take them to the hospital? Where in the Bible does it say that modern medicine is viewed unfavorably by God? Where does it say that you must choose between prayer and modern medicine?

I think society is right to insist that parents don't own their children's lives and are not allowed to endanger their children's lives through gross negligence. I'm glad to see that according to the blog you referred to, most Americans seem to share my feelings:

I'm not going to discuss what punishment the Wisconsin couple should have, but I'm glad, as I said, that they were found guilty of causing their daughter's death by a court of the United States.

Ann

Ann wrote:

No. It is not true that everyone is a ward of the state. That would mean that the state would be responsible for feeding, clothing, housing, training, and caring for each and every one of its citizens. And the American legal structure makes it clear that parents are primarily responsible for taking care of their children, especially before they are able to care for themselves in the adult world.

You can make a strong case that taking a life by "deliberate murder or through gross negligence" is a crime against society, which is an entity quite separate from the state. Society establishes the mode of living for a people or people group, while the state establishes the legal framework by which this mode of living is maintained. They are not at all the same thing.

For example, let me quote from the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.

This Constitution was intended to maintain the society in which it was written, not to care for all of the needs and wants of its individual citizens. The American government was originally intended to be the servant of its citizens, not their nanny.

To return to the original question posed, let me ask a question in response. If parents do not own their children's lives (and I believe that they do not), who does?

No one but the child. Neither the parents nor the state own the child. When a child reaches adulthood, the child must then live and behave as an adult or face the consequences of not doing so (inability to hold a job, no strong emotional ties, irresponsible behavior towards family, etc.).

That does not mean that parents are absolved from the responsibility of raising their children. As parents, we are charged with feeding, clothing, sheltering, teaching, and shaping our children to face adulthood responsibly. If we're not, then those Wisconsin parents are not responsible for what happened to their daughter. But they were and are.

That also does not mean that just anyone, whether from the government or from the local religious body, can waltz into someone's home and tell a child's parents that they cannot exercise their religious beliefs in regard to their children. This girl died of complications from untreated diabetes, a condition which could have (and definitely should have) been treated by physicians.

We must be careful, however, not to paint with too broad a brush here. It is true that they chose to pray for their daughter rather than seek medical help. That does not mean that all who pray for their sick children might cause their deaths. The New Testament records no pronouncements about people avoiding medical assistance when ill, and in fact on at least two occasions commends seeking external medical help. We must also remember that Luke, writer of two of the New Testament books, was himself a medical doctor, and nowhere is it recorded that he gave up that line of work. He just moved his office.

As far as the family's religious affiliation is concerned:

My point here is that their beliefs do not correspond to those of most Christians. Ann is correct when she asks where in the Bible that modern medicine is "...viewed unfavorably by God" and strongly implies that such sentiments do not appear. And I make no accusation towards anyone who has posted here to imply that anyone in this thread has attempted to condemn all Christians for the misguided acts of a few, because no one has done so.

To conclude, I believe that the Wisconsin couple was completely wrong in not seeking medical treatment for their daughter. Failure to help those in need is something that is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, and that is what they did. When my daughter got sick a couple of years ago, I took her to the doctor, and he told us that she had the flu. She took the medicine he prescribed and after a few days she got better. Had I only stayed home and prayed for her, I doubt that she would have gotten better. And it's not because I doubt God. I simply know that healings are called "miracles" for a reason. If anyone could be "miraculously" healed at any time, then they'd be called "usuals" instead.

I agree with what you said, Terry, and I agree that I should have used the word "society" instead of "the state".

Ann

Ann,

The intention of the author of these two articles was not to justify or defend the decisions of the parents, but to discuss the issue of parental rights.

My reaction to the news of this poor girl's death was the same as, I'm sure, that of everyone else on these boards. How could any caring person read that story and not be outraged?

But recent changes in America (notably the recent elections) have made me take a new look at the role of the state vs. the rights of the individuals. The stakes are enormous. I cannot say I agree 100% with the author of these articles, but, as I say, I found his work to be "thought-provoking".

Ann wrote:

Thank you, Ann, but I still disagree with you. Substituting "society" for "the state" changes your statement to:

In America, one's society belongs to the people within that society. The people do not belong to the society. The sentiment you expressed belongs to a socialistic or even Marxist society, not a democratic society. A democratic society cannot "own" its citizens, because the citizens are primary. In a socialist society, however, the people are the property of the society, because the society (or the state) is primary.

But the initial point of this thread is valid. That Wisconsin couple did wrong in preventing their daughter from receiving treatment which probably would have saved her life. We do agree on that point.

Well, Terry, I feel as if I belong to Sweden, but Sweden doesn't own me. If I want to leave Sweden and settle somewhere else, there is not a thing Sweden can do to stop me. If I want to sell everything I own in Sweden and take all the money out of Sweden, there is still nothing Sweden can do to stop me, because it is my money. As long as I don't commit a crime, Sweden can't stop me from doing what I want.

But Sweden is responsible for me. If I have left Sweden and taken all my money out of the country, Sweden would still be obliged to help me if I'm still a Swedish citizen.

Sweden doesn't own me and can't control me, as long as I obey the law of the land. Sweden doesn't limit my freedom as long as I don't break the law. But Sweden is duty-bound to help me if I need help, because Sweden is responsible for me. I like it that way.

Ann