Is it ethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor children? Consider the recent cases of Daniel Hauser and Madeline (Kara) Neumann in your response.
In the case of Daniel Hauser, his parents refused chemotherapy to treat his cancer (Hodgkins Lymphoma). In the case of Madeline (Kara) Neumann, her parents withheld insulin and chose to treat her Type I Diabetes with prayer.
Background info on both cases is below, followed by video clips.
Daniel Hauser:
Science Blogs (Respectful Insolence) 05/12/2009
Science Blogs (Pharyngula) 05/15/2009
Fox News 05/19/2009
NY Daily News 05/19/2009
USA Today 05/21/2009
KSTP 05/26/2009
CNN 05/26/2009
MPR 05/27/2009
Star Tribune 05/29/2009
MPR 06/23/2009
Madeline (Kara) Neumann:
FoxNews 03/26/2008
CBC News 03/28/2008
Journal Sentinel 04/29/2008
WTMJ 05/15/2009
Religion News Blog 05/20/2009
WTMJ 06/15/2009
Court Filings - Courtesy of WTMJ
AZ Central 07/27/2009
MSNBC 08/01/2009
BBC 08/02/2009
Pharyngula Blog 08/02/2009
BBC 10/07/2009
Daniel Hauser Related Video Clips:
Madeline (Kara) Neumann Related Video Clips:
In the case of Daniel Hauser, his parents refused chemotherapy to treat his cancer (Hodgkins Lymphoma). In the case of Madeline (Kara) Neumann, her parents withheld insulin and chose to treat her Type I Diabetes with prayer.
Background info on both cases is below, followed by video clips.
Daniel Hauser:
Science Blogs (Respectful Insolence) 05/12/2009
Science Blogs (Pharyngula) 05/15/2009
Fox News 05/19/2009
NY Daily News 05/19/2009
USA Today 05/21/2009
KSTP 05/26/2009
CNN 05/26/2009
MPR 05/27/2009
Star Tribune 05/29/2009
MPR 06/23/2009
Madeline (Kara) Neumann:
FoxNews 03/26/2008
CBC News 03/28/2008
Journal Sentinel 04/29/2008
WTMJ 05/15/2009
Religion News Blog 05/20/2009
WTMJ 06/15/2009
Court Filings - Courtesy of WTMJ
AZ Central 07/27/2009
MSNBC 08/01/2009
BBC 08/02/2009
Pharyngula Blog 08/02/2009
BBC 10/07/2009
Daniel Hauser Related Video Clips:
Madeline (Kara) Neumann Related Video Clips:
Posts
13 comments:
The case of Daniel Hauser seems like child abuse to me. I would be a little understanding if the parents were Amish, but even they know the technology of the world, in which that is why they stay secluded to their own ways. But the Hauser’s seemed to know about technology benefits and advancements since they run and own a dairy farm. My parents are from Mexico with 6th grade education and don’t speak English, and they even know and understand the benefits modern medicine has to offer. A person that withholds medical help to a child is just plain wrong in this day and age for me. I once saw a show on television about a child who had a brain tumor and her parents were against her getting help from doctors because of their religion, so she went blind. Her Grandma said to her, if god created people and doctors here on earth, maybe they were put here with us to get help from them. So obviously she went to the doctor and got well again. To me that would make perfectly good sense if I was a religious person.
I don’t agree on the parents using the excuse of their religious belief to deny him treatment. It’s surprising to me to see people still believe in old medicine techniques and prayer after all the advancements and treatments medicine has proved. The courts couldn’t decide if Daniel was IEP or if he is the way he is because of the result of him being home school by intellectual parents. When the judge question him about being a medicine man in trial, Daniel didn’t quite understand what he was talking about. To me that would’ve been a sign that this kid does not comprehend of why there even in trial. So to me it seemed like the parents were making the decisions for him by not taking to treatments in which I think that is child abuse. I agree on the court’s decision on putting a manhunt on them when they fled and forcing him to take the chemo treatments for his own good. It may seem like he’s rights were taking away by the courts decision by forcing him to get help, but I don’t think the kid had a clue that he was going to die if he didn’t get help. But I’m glad the parents came to their senses to agree with the treatment for Daniels sake. It would have been a horrible ordeal to prosecute the parents for being that naïve.
In the case of Kara, in what the parents did is unbelievable to me. Knowing and using technology for everyday use is a poor excuse for them, for not calling for medical help. Again I have to bring up that in this day and age, how could the parents seeing their daughter like that grasping for air not think she was dying. The way Kara died could’ve been prevented with a single shot. But it seems more to me that the parents were on a quest of faith. That’s something that was not brought up or questioned in their case from what I read. I think they out to prove to everybody that miracles do exist. Even though they said they didn’t belong to any religion group, it could’ve been their own personal agenda and since it didn’t work they didn’t bother to bring it up.
It’s hard to believe that throughout all those years their children or they have never taken any kind medicine like they mention. It makes wonder if they even use everyday health products, since it seems to be against their religious belief. I agree on the court’s decision on putting the other children on watch alert, and forcing them to see a doctor. Who knows what other prayers they had plan for them if they ever got sick. It makes me wonder if they should even keep the kids with a mentality like that. Even the Pope has personal doctor in case he ever got sick. It would’ve been tragic to send both parents to a twenty –five year sentence but at least they didn’t get off easy. But still the mentality of theses parent is inexcusable thinking people get sick for being sinners.
In the United States of America, it is a Constitutional right to life. “Life” is the very first Natural Right addressed in the United States Constitution. It simply says that every person is entitled to personhood by others, by not being killed, injured or abused. It is every parent’s duty to ensure this right for their children. That being said, I find it unethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving treatments for their minor children.
I find this especially true for the case of eleven year old Daniel Hauser. Daniel Hauser’s parents refused chemotherapy for him, even after being told that his (Hodgkin’s) Lymphoma could be treated (and most likely cured) with a survival rate of 95%. They were also told that if he did not receive treatment, his odds of survival were only 5%. They based their decision to deny him treatment on their religion. Their religion (Nemmenah) was founded in 1990 by a man who has been convicted and served time for fraud. They have to pay dues (money) to be a part of. Daniel was deemed an elder and a medicine man (for which he has no understanding, let alone an educated idea of what this is and/or why he holds such positions) in this religion. Daniel’s parents were unable to see the long-term, positive effects of the chemotherapy, which would increase and better Daniel’s overall long term quality of life.
With the Kara Neumann situation, I feel that her death was a result of her parent’s outright medical negligence. Kara could have gone on to live a much fulfilled, very prosperous life, had her parents gotten her the medical treatment she needed. Because the parents didn’t know what to do, they hid behind their religion, and sat there on the floor & watched their daughter die. Any parent, religious or not, can tell when their child is ill enough to need medical attention & most would not have the fear that God did not properly train the medical staff that would be working on their children. Most would put their trust into the medical staff to save their child. Even those who just follow the Bible know that God works in mysterious ways, like those ways that produce life saving doctors.
Children put their trust and faith in their parents with the mindset that their parents will never do them wrong and always do anything to maintains that child’s well-being. This was the case in Daniel’s situation. Daniel didn’t really know what was going on so he trusted that his parents knew best. This also appears to be the case for Kara.
In both these cases, it’s not like there was borderline decision (20% chance to live vs. 80% of not surviving). Both of these cases could have had much different and healthier outcomes if their parents had not medically neglected their children and had made a valiant effort to save their children’s lives. Proper medical attention could have ensued adulthood and livelihood for these two children.
I do not believe that it’s ethical to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for a minor child. In Daniel Hauser situation, he was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma which is a cancer that can be successfully treated and possibly cured with chemotherapy. Unfortunately his parents refused all medical treatment for his cancer. If Daniel gets the treatment he has a 95% chance of survival. If Daniel doesn’t get the treatment, his chances of survival are extremely slim leaving him with only a 5% chance of survival. On the other hand the methods that his parents chose to use to treat Daniel according to their Nemmenah religious beliefs are natural herbal medicines. Using those methods on cancer when the methods haven’t even been tested with caner patents, produces 0 results.
Not to mention, Daniel is only 13 years old (according to CNN) and has only attended school for not more than a year. Due to his lack of education, Daniel can’t even read and he is in the 5th grade. Since Daniel’s diagnostic of the Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, his mother told him that he is deemed medicine man. When the judge asked Daniel about what a medicine man was and how he came to be one, Daniel had no idea himself and had no understanding of what a medicine man is.
With all that being said, I believe it goes to show that Daniel doesn’t even realize how big the situation is. It doesn’t seem clear to Daniel that this is a life and death situation and that treatment can save his life. So I do not believe that Daniel’s parents are making an ethical decision based upon his medical needs and his lack of understanding the whole situation.
In the case of Madeline (Kara) Neumann, this young 11 year old girl has type 1 diabetes and her parents haven’t taken her to see a doctor since she was 3 years old. The parents believed that prayer would save their daughter. Since Madeline’s parents refuse to seek proper treatment for their daughter, Madeline died from lack of medical care. I believe what Madeline’s parents did was completely unethical, by that I mean not seeking medical treatment that could save their daughter’s life. Reading the CBC news article, it was said that Madeline was probably sick for about a month, throwing up, loss of appetite, weakness and excessive thirst before she died. She showed obvious signs that she was suffering and I’m sure no 11 year old girl wants to go through such suffering. Yet, her parents saw what she was going through on a day to day basis; getting more sick and eventually dying. The parents knew the benefit to proper treatment, which would in the end save their daughter’s life and more than likely end the suffering or lessen the symptoms to a great degree.
Another interesting text that I read in the CBC news article was that the parents didn’t even belong to a religious organization or faith. So no one is telling them to not treat their daughter with the treatments that could save her life. In addition, the father was a police man. He use to save lives, carry a gun and I’m sure call the paramedics when it was necessary for someone who had been in harm’s way. So I’m assuming that, that went against his “beliefs,” yet he had a career as a police officer and has refused to take his daughter to get life saving medicine and has watched her suffer. One can only imagine what was going on in Kara’s mind and what she actually went through. She had so many years ahead of her. Kara’s suffering could have been avoided and she could still be alive today.
I believe parents have the right(s) to care for and protect their children, and the responsibility to seek professional medical help and to follow that advice when their children are ill. In most cases I do not believe it is an ethical decision for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment(s) for their minor children. I believe it is within an individual’s rights, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (14th amendment), to refuse medical treatment for themselves. However, when it comes to minors and especially in dire situations, if parents are not acting in the best interest of their children then the state needs to intervene. In most cases where the risk of death is substantial, I believe parents should be compelled either by laws or courts rulings to follow the treatment(s) that medical professionals have agreed upon. However, I am also not in favor of some kind of blanket law that would dictate parents unquestionably do whatever medical professionals say is necessary for their children. Each situation and circumstance for sick children is unique to some varying degree and therefore calls for individualized attention. In cases (life threatening only) where parents are at stark disagreement or refusal to adhere to recommended treatment(s) then, the state needs to intervene and give each case individualized prudence. Regarding the case of Daniel Hauser, the parents were acting beyond the boundaries of their rights (as parents) in refusing to follow the advice of medical professionals and the ruling of the court. I believe that the Hauser’s proved through their actions that the state needed to step in. The Hauser’s argued that their opinion and religion contradicted the use of chemotherapy for Daniel. I disagree that the parent’s (in this case) may use their religion to negate the Doctor’s recommendations and the Court’s orders. The parent’s may do so for themselves, but in this case they were doing it for a 13 year old boy. On top of that they were arguing that Daniel did not want the treatment either. Daniel has a learning disability, is not able to read, and appears to have the competency of child in the 5th grade. Additionally, Daniel and the parents make the argument for him based off of the fact that he is an “elder” and “medicine man” of his faith. In his religion, Daniel’s titles derive from no competency in his religion or herbal/medicinal knowledge, but from simply monetarily paying into the religion. In this case, it is obvious that Daniel is not mature enough to make medical decisions of his own. Also, given that Daniel’s medical assessment was that he had a 90% chance of survival with chemotherapy and almost no chance without, his parents were acting negligently. Neither the parents, nor his religion can produce evidence that their methods have any success rate. Consequently, I feel it is morally correct for the state to have intervened (which has saved his life) and force him to undergo chemotherapy.
Regarding “Kara” Madeline Neumann, I feel the parents acted even more and grossly negligent. In “Kara’s” case, the parent’s have even less of an argument to stand behind, because in contrast to chemotherapy, all they were being asked to provide her with was insulin, a naturally occurring chemical compound of the body. I do not see how a valid argument can be made against taking a substance that is resident to the human body and without which a person will die. Being required to undergo an invasive and harmful treatment has it’s own arguments, however taking insulin is neither invasive nor harmful. Ethically, I believe that the Court may purport the argument (which the Judge did) that God may have intended that Doctors and medicine be able to provide “Kara” with the solution to help her. I believe that prescribing insulin to a diabetic is probably even more natural than a prescription for eyeglasses, and that few would argue against using glasses. It is ethical for the state to hold “Kara’s” parent’s responsible for her death.
Yvette Ferguson
I do not think it is ethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor children. Ethical decisions are based on moral judgements. Deciding what is right or wrong, good or bad then having the ability to stick to rhe right or good/better thing, defines character. Maybe what we have here is a character issue and not a moral nor an ethical one. In the case of Daniel Hauser, his mother probably thought she was sparing him the pain and suffering of the chemotherapy, which is a grueling series of events as, is the radiation therapy. His mother may not have been able to bear the thought of putting Daniel through the enduring and grievous processes of those treatments. I do not agree with her ethics, which did endanger his life, but maybe she thought that morally she was doing the best thing for him. There is always a better way and I do not believe that mother sought it out.
In Kara's case, her parents just flat out did her wrong. The advances of science in such in such situations as diabetes are so profound that no one should die from this disease. This little girl was one insulin shot away from keeping conciousness and ultimately staying alive. I believe prayer is effective but sometimes it is meant to be a strengthening agent rather than healing agent. Knowledge is exposed to the medical industry in order to help people live long enough or have a better quality of life while they fight diseases, especially curable ones. These parents did what they did for one reason or another, but if their motives were genuine and pure in their understanding, maybe the question should be if they were psychologically stable enough to deal with ill children, not everyone can cope well with stressful situations.
Considering a person's religious beliefs when medical treatment is needed is a situation that needs to be thought about carefully. An adult has the right to express their beliefs and act accordingly when it comes to medical treatment. When it comes to the children of parents with specific beliefs the issue is not as clear. I feel however a child should be treated medically even if it does go against what the parents believe in certain situations. Some of these situations would be if the child will die without treatment, the child's ability to function in day to day life is greatly impaired or if a treatment is available that will lessen the child's suffering and is known to be highly effective.
In the case of Daniel Hauser I feel these situations applied. The cancer he had carried a high mortality rate if left untreated and the chemotherapy is well known to be an effective treatment. While Daniel's quality of life would be less during the chemotherapy treatment he would still have years of a much better quality of life after treatment was given. So in this situation the benefits far outweigh the risks. At the age this cancer occured I feel Daniel was too young to make decisions about his religious beliefs. For his parents to make a life or death decision for him based on their beliefs I feel is unethical. A child at that age is certainly nowhere ready developmentally to make those kinds of critical decisions on his own. Once he reaches adult age of course he will be free to decide for himself but his parents refusing treatment for him will, most likely, not allow him to reach adult age. There is always concern for respecting religious rights but when those beliefs inflict harm on other people whether passively or actively it is unethical to allow those behaviors to continue.
In the case of Madeline Neumann these conditions also apply. She had a condition that if left untreated would be life threatening and the treatment for her condition is known to be highly effective. In Madeline's case the treatment was also far less invasive than chemotherapy. Insulin injections while uncomfortable are far less uncomfortable than going into diabetic ketoacidosis. The parents could have continued on with their prayers and taken her to a hospital as well. To deprive her of life saving medicine based on their belief that God would heal her is unethical. Their reasoning seems somewhat flawed as well. They had taken their daughter to the doctor when she was younger to get immunizations. Why didn't they just pray that their daughter would not catch the diseases for which she was supposed to be immunized? When medical treatment is readily available and can save a person's life, to withhold that treatment is unethical. Madeline was young and not at an age where she should make decisions with such heavy consequences. In this case the parents made a decision to allow her to die. Whether knowingly or not they made that decision. They were not trained as doctors and did not have proper training to decide how critical their daughter's condition was. Again once Madeline was an adult she would be free to make the decision regarding treatment and how it pertained to her religious beliefs. She may believe as her parents do and just rely on prayer or she may want to continue with insulin injections. The point is that the choice should be hers when she is of an age to make that choice.
In the case of Daniel Hauser who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma a cancer that can be easily treated and was able to be cured by chemotherapy. I did not think that it was ethical for Daniel's parents to refuse life-saving medical treatment that was going to cure their child and save his life. Instead they believed that their Nemmenah religious beliefs of the natural herbal medicine was going to cure Daniel. Unfortunately he had a 95% chance that if Daniel continued his chemotherapy he was going to survive and if his parents went with the natural herbal medicine he had a 5% chance that he was going to survive. His parents obviously did not care for that and insisted and believed that the herbal medicine was going to work. Daniels parents are way out of line with that because it is a matter of life and death and poor little Daniel does not understand his condition and can not make his own decision. I really do not think that Daniel parents thought about their decision.
In the case of Kara's parents I was blown away by the decision they have made. The parents did not even belong to a faith organization. Kara's father was a police officer who helped save lives so what kind of an excuse is it not trying to save his own daughter's life who was grasping for air, as a father he knew the law and could have called paramedics to prevent all that Kara had to go through. I blame Kara's parents for her death.
After reading both major cases, I do not believe that it is ethical for parents to refuse potential life-saving medical treatment for their minor children. I do agree however, that families should have the right to deny potential life-saving medical treatment if it is somehow against their religion. I believe this is an invasion of a person's rights. However, I believe that the parent should not be able to make this decision because it is “their” religion, and not the child’s. If the child does not believe in the parent's religion, they should not be forced to not have the treatment because of their religion. However, this is a problem when the child is very young and cannot decide for themselves if this religion is for them. At a young age, I believe that most children are unable to make major decisions including which religious path they choose to fallow. So they turn to their parents for guidance until they can reach that age where they can "think for themselves". I believe this was a factor in both cases and the children were not old enough to make the religion decision for them.
While every parent may have their child's best interests at heart and all parents have a right to protect their child from unseen or perceived harm, not all parents see that by not complying with recommended medical professionals advice and withholding treatment, their actions can been seen as abuse.
Ethical decisions are based on moral judgments. From my perspective , Daniel Hauser even after learning about his disease and illness did not fully understand the consequences of his actions. I also question his ability to understand the disease and what the consequences of treatment or doing nothing are. While I understand his fear, that his experience with chemotherapy may have been dreadful and given his family history of an aunt passing away after treatment that he may be apprehensive about continuing treatment. However, I feel that he did not fully comprehend that by refusing treatment he would likely end his life. It is for this reason that parents are expected to act on the behalf of their children to make such decisions. I do not believe it is an ethical decision for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor children. I believe it is within an individual’s rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (14th amendment), to refuse medical treatment for themselves. The argument arises when a parent decides to non-medical, religious methods for a life-threatening but potentially curable illness for a child or when a child refuses therapy. It is on such occasions that the state has a compelling interest in superseding the parent’s decision and making sure that the child gets the best medical treatment available. In the case of Daniel Hauser and Kara Neuman they are both proof of medical neglect.
In the case of Daniel Hauser, his parents justified their refusal by stating that it was against his religious beliefs. This is somewhat contradictory. His court appointed guardian, stated that she felt that he did not truly understand his religion or that he was not mature enough to comprehend the severity of refusing treatment. Even so, does that mean that it would be right to use force to make him accept life-saving chemotherapy? Would it be ethical to restrain a child to ensure their treatment was successful. In this instance would the trade for a cure, be a substitution for a different type of abuse.
In the case of Kara Neumann maybe this is an issue of poor education, and misinformation. These parents were obviously secure in their belief that God would take an active role in keeping their family healthy. By refusing medical treatment for Kara when she said she felt sick is parallel to the parents forcing their beliefs and religious practices on their daughter.
However, I do not feel that they were secluded and that they did not watch television or read newspapers. There are stories all the time about the value of making sure your children receive regular checkups and immunizations. I feel that from the time that their daughter was 3 years old that they began to medically neglect her, thus another form of treatment refusal abuse.
This child began to get ill and even when the child's own grandmother suggested that she be taken to the doctor for treatment, the parents refused. They should have called for medical help when it was evident that prayer was not working. They did not know that by simple injections that their daughters life could be spared. And there is no indication authorities knew of the girl's dire medical condition before her death. I feel that this situation of the parents was unethical. The parents can believe whatever they choose, but when their beliefs infringe on another human being's right to life, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Right to refuse treatment
Is it ethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor children?
Consider the recent cases of Daniel Hauser and Madeline (Kara) Neumann in your response.
In the case of Daniel Hauser, his parents were in the wrong. If there is a real chance to save the child and the parents were refusing therapy, they should be held accountable for refusing help for their child. If there was only a small chance for survival then the parents’ wishes should be observed without influence of the doctors. However, when the success rate is in the high chance of survival, I believe all forms of therapy should be tried. Even though a parent’s rights and wishes should usually be listened to and respected. The child’s best interest has to be put first. If Daniel had died, I believe the mother should be held on murder charges for allowing her child to die without the therapy that would have saved his life. Even if the parents were from a verifiable religion that did not believe in certain forms of medical procedures for treatments of certain diseases, the health of a child has to be put first.
In the case of Madeline (Kara) Neumann withholding life saving therapy of a treatable and livable disease is wrong. No matter what religion you are denying medical attention to a child should be prosecuted as failure to protect a child. Parents should be allowed to have a say in their child’s medical treatments but if they decide not to put the child’s best interest first instead of their own, then the state should have the right to step in and make sure the child is being cared for properly.
i think that it is wrong for a parent to refuse treatment for their child especialy if it is not in their best intrest because if the treatment will keep the child from dying as least temperarly than i think its worth it its verry hard to lose a child and not beable to do nothing about it so in my opinion i think any thing that can keep your child with you a little longer is worth it who knows maybee in that little time they can come up with something that will save your childs life in the case of daniel i think that his mother was wrong because as long as they keep up with his chymo he could live a pretty good life i could understand it if the chymo was just gonna make him worse and he was gonna die soon but that was not his case so therefore i think that their was no reason to go on the run with him and in the case of kara i think that the parents were wrong because thousands of people live with diabetes yes some die of complications but thats because they choose not to take care of them selves if her parents would have only accepted for her to get treatment she wouldent have gotten as sick as she did i think that the state did their job when they stepped in they needed to save her life
It is never ok or ethically right for a parent to refuse potentially life saving medical treatment for their minor children who are sick. No child should have to go through pain and suffering when treatment is available and affordable. Withholding medical treatment in this scenario would be child abuse and neglect, in my opinion, especially if they had a life threatening disease that could be treated or even cured. The sooner we are able to detect a disease or sickness the better chances will be to do something about it.
As a society we generally assume that the parents’ decisions are in the best interests of their child, until we are given reason to believe otherwise. Normally parents would be the best advocate in doing what is best for their children. This includes feeding one’s child when she is hungry; if a parent withholds food from a hungry/starving child, it is neglect/abuse. If the child acts up we discipline them, but if a parent beats their child because they feel it is the best way, we hold them guilty of child abuse and no longer presume their decisions are best for their kids. Likewise, when a child is sick we expect the parents to do whatever they can to give them medicine or take them to the doctor to help them. Medicine and health care are the best, proven means to help sick people. Unfortunately, this is not what happened in the case of Daniel Hauser (Hodgkin’s Lymphoma) and Madeline (Kara) Neumann (type 1 diabetes). Their parents believed that prayer alone was the way to respond to their children’s condition. Prayer is not a proven way to cure diseases. It is a faith based approach. Studies showed that with medical treatment these children could be cured or have prolonged lives with a 90% success rate; the parents still refused to follow medical advice for their children, however.
Clearly, when a parent knows that their child has a life threatening disease or shows signs that they are sick, we expect them to do everything in their power to save them. Failing to do this is equivalent to abuse, neglect or worse. In the Hauser and Neumann case the parents knew their children were sick but acted like they didn’t, did nothing about it and even led their children to believe they were not sick. The symptoms were in fact noticeable, according to Disease a Day and Diabetes Association, including weight loss, fever, night sweats, back pain, and even paralysis with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, and with Type 1 diabetes the symptoms being frequent urination, unusual thirst, extreme hunger, unusual weight loss, extreme fatigue and irritability. Neither parent nor any other family members did anything to help their kids, besides praying. The parents of one of the minors believed in a bogus religion, the founder of which happened to once be in prison for fraud charges, so it was a good thing that the courts finally intervened and made them get treatment for Daniel Hauser, and his life has been prolonged because of this. Unfortunately, the courts did not intervene in time for poor Madeline (Kara) Neumann, who suffered and died due to lack of proper medical treatment.
Respecting one’s religion is less important than the protection of basic needs of people. The religious beliefs of parents should not be respected or honored at the expense of their children’s well-being. Medical treatment is the publicly acceptable and proven form of responding to sickness and disease. If people want to pray on their own time, that is ok, but prayer is not an acceptable replacement of medical intervention. Prayer at the most is a supplement to proper medical treatment. If a parent willfully withholds the proper medical treatment of their child (even for religious reasons), they are guilty of child abuse, neglect or worse.
Post a Comment