GUILTY WI - Kara Neumann, 11, dies as parents rely on faith healing, Weston, 23 March 2008

[daisy7]

A Wisconsin mother and father convicted of reckless homicide for praying instead of taking their dying daughter to a doctor could spend up to 25 years in prison.

Dale and Leilani Neumann will be sentenced Tuesday in the death of 11-year-old Madeline Neumann, who died on their living room floor from undiagnosed diabetes as they prayed rather than getting her medical treatment.

(snipped)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,560941,00.html?test=latestnews

 

[PeteyGirl]

Good.

I wonder about the deterrent factor. I suppose it will be nil. Going to prison will sort of "fit in" with the belief that the "world is against us" and fire 'em up even more.

But maybe just maybe, one of the passive onlookers will remember this ruling and DO SOMETHING, do the right thing. Which is obviously to take action in spite of the parent's beliefs.

If THIS belief (to withhold care in favor of prayer) is allowed to be constitutionally protected then what's next?

That's a familiar argument, isn't it?

 

[Miss_Scarlett]

Well, there are passages in the Bible that cover "faith" healing.

Some people "believe" that the "power" of God will solves all of their problems in life if they just "pray" hard enough.

They put their "faith" in God over and above the medical field.

Just the simple fact that this child did not see a Doctor since she was 3, leads one to believe that her "parents" shunned the medical establishment over their "belief" and faith that God would heal a child.

If they did seek medical help, then they would feel that they would be turning their back on God and "his will".

I don't recall reading any passages in the bible about "starving children" as a defense.

I remember a young vegan couple who ended up starving their child because they could not feed her properly on the diet they had chosen due to their religion.

I think charging people in cases like this would help because there are probably a lot of people going along with this in their religion who deep down know it's wrong, but are afraid to commit this so-called sin. If they feared prosecution there would probably be more who would finally get medical attention for their child. Not all, but I think it would help.

ETA: I really agree with the posts about how it was convenient for them to choose prayer in this case, but not in how they earned money for food and put gas in the car. Why in the world did they have medical insurance if they didn't believe in medical care?

And we have laws against human sacrifice despite anyone's religious beliefs. While I realize that they did not have a sacrificial ceremony and probably did not want her to die I still think that that letting your child die despite every available resource to save her is sacrificing her in the name of religion.

And for what it's worth regarding my opinion, our son has not had all of his vaccinations for his age. He has a neurological disorder (not autism) and developmental delays. We are waiting to give the rest to him as he overcomes the delays (which he is) and give them to him over a longer period of time. We did not get a religious waiver, but a medical waiver. It's a risk-benefit situation for us in that decision made with his doctors and therapists. At the same time we have put him on the prayer chain at our church and pray every night with him. One of the things I have asked for is that others pray for the competence of the doctors he has seen and tests he has had.

 

[Miss_Scarlett]

I do recall stories where parents hide their abuse of children by not taking them to the doctor. We have clear laws about breaking children's bones or hurting them - that's considered abuse. I have no problem with parents being charged in that instance.

That is, for me but not for everyone, a very different scenario than what happened in this case.

I remember a case I think was similar to this. That a child had a broken bone or something similar which was not healing and I think got infected and eventually killed her because her parents did not believe in getting medical attention. I mean, would you really just pray that a child's broken bone(s) heal properly without medical intervention, no matter how the injury came about? Why not pray that the doctors set the bones properly with God's help?

 

[daisy7]

Dale and Leilani Neumann Sentenced To Spend Time In Jail, On Probation, and Serve Community Service

Dale and Leilani Neumann will serve 30 days in jail each year for the first 6 years of a 10 year probation term.

Their jail time will be staggered, with Dale serving 30 days in March, the month of Kara's death, and Leilani serving in September.

(snipped)

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/63630282.html

WTH? They're gonna go to jail for a month once a year for 6 years??

 

[hoppyfrog]

Unbelieveable.

:furious:

 

[crystalgenie]

There are no words for this... NONE!!!! 10 to 15 would have been nice. They knowingly murdered their child. Ignorance isn't an excuse for murder and frankly religious beliefs are not an excuse for murder either!!!:furious:

 

[angelmom]

Dale and Leilani Neumann Sentenced To Spend Time In Jail, On Probation, and Serve Community Service

Dale and Leilani Neumann will serve 30 days in jail each year for the first 6 years of a 10 year probation term.

Their jail time will be staggered, with Dale serving 30 days in March, the month of Kara's death, and Leilani serving in September.

(snipped)

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/63630282.html

WTH? They're gonna go to jail for a month once a year for 6 years??

How convenient. I'll bet every criminal wishes they could schedule their time in this way. :sick:

 

[BuzzieCat]

Dale and Leilani Neumann Sentenced To Spend Time In Jail, On Probation, and Serve Community Service

Dale and Leilani Neumann will serve 30 days in jail each year for the first 6 years of a 10 year probation term.

Their jail time will be staggered, with Dale serving 30 days in March, the month of Kara's death, and Leilani serving in September.

(snipped)

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/63630282.html

WTH? They're gonna go to jail for a month once a year for 6 years??

What kind of a cockamamie sentence is that? :snooty:

 

[kgeaux]

Good.

I wonder about the deterrent factor. I suppose it will be nil. Going to prison will sort of "fit in" with the belief that the "world is against us" and fire 'em up even more.

But maybe just maybe, one of the passive onlookers will remember this ruling and DO SOMETHING, do the right thing. Which is obviously to take action in spite of the parent's beliefs.

If THIS belief (to withhold care in favor of prayer) is allowed to be constitutionally protected then what's next?

That's a familiar argument, isn't it?

There will be no deterrent factor. Belief and faith in a God Who Heals is STRONG; this kind of faith is perhaps beyond comprehension for most of us, but I know people who truly, truly, truly believe that God has declared Himself as the Great Physician and that to rely on any other physician is a statement of disbelief in God.

The next parents who follow the path of prayer for God's healing instead of relying on man's "imitation" healing will no doubt believe that THESE parents had faulty faith, that their own faith is purer, stronger, that surely God will hear and answer them.

I do not believe in withholding medical care, I just pray that God will guide our medical providers in the way to best help and heal myself and my family, BUT if these parents really believed in what they were doing, if they truly believed they were acting in accordance with their faith and in obedience to God, then I do personally believe they thought they were doing the absolute best for their child.

Faith is so personal, and so hard to understand if you don't share the same view.

What kind of a cockamamie sentence is that? :snooty:

Sounds to me like the sentence had to acknowledge that a child died due to the negligence of her parents, but the jurors respected the fact that the parents acted in good faith, with no intent to harm their child.

 

[WhyaDuck?]

Reminds me of a little story.

A religious man was drowning, and he prayed to be saved. Soon, a boat came by and the captain asked him if he needed help. He said, "No thanks, G-d will save me." A second boat came by, and again he said, "G-d will save me." This happened a third time, before the man sadly drowned. After death, arriving in heaven, the man, upon meeting G-d, asked why the Lord failed to save him. G-d answered: "Didn't you see any of the three boats I sent?"

That pretty much sums up how I feel religion and medical science works, in my eyes.

 

[WhyaDuck?]

Dale and Leilani Neumann Sentenced To Spend Time In Jail, On Probation, and Serve Community Service

Dale and Leilani Neumann will serve 30 days in jail each year for the first 6 years of a 10 year probation term.

Their jail time will be staggered, with Dale serving 30 days in March, the month of Kara's death, and Leilani serving in September.

(snipped)

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/63630282.html

WTH? They're gonna go to jail for a month once a year for 6 years??

Huh... that is some creative sentencing. How odd.

 

[ebbie]

Cold to say it but this is pure evolution at work. No room for the stupid in nature.:waitasec:

Shame the child was a victim of the parents though.

And shame on the legal system for the slap on the wrist! With their thinking, they are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to have the responsibility of any other lives (children).

Will they have faith their car will stop without using the brakes too? Dumb dumb dumb....:banghead:

 

[kgeaux]

Cold to say it but this is pure evolution at work. No room for the stupid in nature.:waitasec:

Shame the child was a victim of the parents though.

And shame on the legal system for the slap on the wrist! With their thinking, they are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to have the responsibility of any other lives (children).

Will they have faith their car will stop without using the brakes too? Dumb dumb dumb....:banghead:

I'm not sure that I would equate faith with evolution, ebbie! And unfortunately in this case, the one who was evolved right out of existance was a perfectly innocent child.

In reference to the sentence I bolded above: I knew a very mentally ill person at one of the first churches I attended who believed that God was telling him to jump out in front of a moving train. He believed he would come through the impact unharmed and thereby give glory to God. Crazy thinking, huh? And ya' know what? He did it. And of course the train killed him. I've always thought about how confused he must have been when he realized he wasn't coming through this impact uninjured.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Faith is so personal, and so hard to understand if you don't share the same view.

Absolutely.

Which makes it so important that "faith" not be given special dispensation or protection across the board in the eyes of the law.

WHO designates which "faith" is protected and which "faith" should not be protected as a constitutional right? The individual can decide up to a point, but society must have a line that cannot be crossed without consequence or it would be bedlam.

This child had a life that belonged to her. She should have been allowed to live it. We protect that right except if the child is a fetus below 20 weeks or so. I think the subjective value of "faith" is irrelevant and should not be given special protection in cases like this. It doesn't fit in with what we already DO.

 

[kgeaux]

Absolutely.

Which makes it so important that "faith" not be given special dispensation or protection across the board in the eyes of the law.

WHO designates which "faith" is protected and which "faith" should not be protected as a constitutional right? The individual can decide up to a point, but society must have a line that cannot be crossed without consequence or it would be bedlam.

This child had a life that belonged to her. She should have been allowed to live it. We protect that right except if the child is a fetus below 20 weeks or so. I think the subjective value of "faith" is irrelevant and should not be given special protection in cases like this. It doesn't fit in with what we already DO.

I believe our constitution, when it insures the right to freedom of worship, sort of defines what "faith" is protected. It would have to be faith in a worshiped being that is recognized by many as "God", I guess. Like you, and like I am certain our forefathers meant, I believe the line should be drawn when the exercising of one's faith causes harm to another. I'm not certain about the wording of the relevant portion of the constitution, so I don't know if this is clearly spelled out or if it was just assumed and boundaries were never defined.

I don't know the couple involved, but I think they never had any intent to cause harm to their daughter. The lack of intent to harm or kill is what separates them from other "faith practices" which are clearly intended to harm, maim and kill, such as militant Islamic men crashing planes into buildings. That is why the courts were so lenient on them, I think.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I believe our constitution, when it insures the right to freedom of worship, sort of defines what "faith" is protected. It would have to be faith in a worshiped being that is recognized by many as "God", I guess. Like you, and like I am certain our forefathers meant, I believe the line should be drawn when the exercising of one's faith causes harm to another. I'm not certain about the wording of the relevant portion of the constitution, so I don't know if this is clearly spelled out or if it was just assumed and boundaries were never defined.

I don't know the couple involved, but I think they never had any intent to cause harm to their daughter. The lack of intent to harm or kill is what separates them from other "faith practices" which are clearly intended to harm, maim and kill, such as militant Islamic men crashing planes into buildings. That is why the courts were so lenient on them, I think.

Yeah . . . if you take into account BOTH the intent as well as the result of their actions, they did not intend to harm their daughter but for her to be healed. That's a far cry from homicide.

If the law only took into account the results, we would live in a very different world :waitasec: .

Their "punishment" from the law is a drop in the bucket to what living the rest of their life without their daughter. In spite of their "faith", they are thinking human beings and must know, in the quiet corners of their heart, that what they did caused her death, unnecessarily. The natural consequences of their action is the most appropriate punishment

 

[Nova]

I believe our constitution, when it insures the right to freedom of worship, sort of defines what "faith" is protected. It would have to be faith in a worshiped being that is recognized by many as "God", I guess. Like you, and like I am certain our forefathers meant, I believe the line should be drawn when the exercising of one's faith causes harm to another. I'm not certain about the wording of the relevant portion of the constitution, so I don't know if this is clearly spelled out or if it was just assumed and boundaries were never defined.

I don't know the couple involved, but I think they never had any intent to cause harm to their daughter. The lack of intent to harm or kill is what separates them from other "faith practices" which are clearly intended to harm, maim and kill, such as militant Islamic men crashing planes into buildings. That is why the courts were so lenient on them, I think.

Here's the First Amendment:

"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."

(Emphasis added.)

Of course, we also have 200+ years of court rulings that have become part of the amendment as well. (For example, courts have ruled that an utter lack of religion, atheism, is also protected.) But I think the idea that religion must be well-established and accepted to be protected flies in the face of the original language. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers had rather individual ideas about theology and I doubt they meant to leave those ideas unprotected by this clause.

Of course, every right is mitigated by other rights and I have no problem with the government stepping in to protect children from violence and neglect.

 

[kgeaux]

Yeah . . . if you take into account BOTH the intent as well as the result of their actions, they did not intend to harm their daughter but for her to be healed. That's a far cry from homicide.

If the law only took into account the results, we would live in a very different world :waitasec: .

Their "punishment" from the law is a drop in the bucket to what living the rest of their life without their daughter. In spite of their "faith", they are thinking human beings and must know, in the quiet corners of their heart, that what they did caused her death, unnecessarily. The natural consequences of their action is the most appropriate punishment

I don't believe I said anything about the law, PeteyGirl. However, the law DID only take the result into account. The officers and prosecutors obviously did not believe that the intent of the parents had any merit at all. My post was trying to express the belief that the COURT took into account the INTENT as well as the RESULT.

How else could we explain the extremely light sentences? The fact that the sentences are staggered so that both will not be jailed at the same time?

I almost hate to add this next part! I think the parents are truly sorry their daughter died. They surely must know her death was the result of their failure to get medical care for her. But deep down in their hearts, they may well believe that they did the right and only thing their faith allowed, and they may (while grieving for the child) believe her death was part of God's plan. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in spite of the death of their child and the court sentence, I am not sure these people have changed the way they believe. If they haven't, and they believe that God's perfect will was worked out in this situation, I don't think they will suffer near as much as one might imagine.

 

[southcitymom]

Dale and Leilani Neumann Sentenced To Spend Time In Jail, On Probation, and Serve Community Service

Dale and Leilani Neumann will serve 30 days in jail each year for the first 6 years of a 10 year probation term.

Their jail time will be staggered, with Dale serving 30 days in March, the month of Kara's death, and Leilani serving in September.

(snipped)

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/63630282.html

WTH? They're gonna go to jail for a month once a year for 6 years??

What a wise sentence! My continued prayers for this family.