Yet another case of religious murder

Alas , the decision of whether that was a recognition of the futility of their actions or just being flat scared is neither yours or mine. A court did decide .
. Im involved in several environmental cases in which one side always says that they didnt understand the consequences of dumping their mine wastes into an aquifer. (That may have been true up until, say 1972 when the first clean water acts were passed) Aftter that, the same argument passes itself off as being brazenly defiant of the laws of science and the laws of the states (and the Feds). So, thats what courts do, they adjudicate based on the weight of evidence. In civil cases its only a preponderance of evidence while in a cap criminalcase, its beyond a reasonable doubt (the test which, I understyood that was met in this case).

Im merely arguing that the basis of criminality in whichtotally robbing ones civil rights to placate anothers silly moral code needs some harsher metrics.

I dont buy the diminution of responsibility based upon finally calling the EMTs when the cult exhausted their own voodoo.

We punish orthodox Mormons for Sodomy, we punish Hutterites for " enhanced punishments" and we should severely punish "Christian SCientists" for practicing their Mideival rituals while knowing full well of the consequences that their "pray to cure" will have






I believe that ypou are arguing with yourself

I respect christian parents rights to inadvertently kill their children.

Good on them for sticking to their beliefs.

natural selection by un-natural belief

Fine Farmerman, I get your point. You want them punished-- and I probably agree with you.

What I am objecting to is the knee-jerk dismissal of the complex issues involved. I feel like I am standing in front of a mob with pitchforks, accusations of witchcraft and cries of "murder".

It is the extremism in your position, where you refuse to give even the slightest thought to the complex issues that give some of us pause that I am objecting to.

There are two separate issues that I don't think are resolved by the black and white, simplistic arguments you offer.

1) First is the issue of what crime these parents committed. Even the courts dismissed the cries of "murder". We all agree that the parents were tragically wrong, and I probably agree that the parents should face legal consequences (although I haven't heard a cogent argument on this yet).

This kid was killed by a disease. If the kid did not have this deadly disease, he would not have died. Yes this is wrong... but there is a difference between a parent who willfully kills his kids (for example drowning them) and a parent who doesn't act to save his kid (which is the case here).

Parents whose kids don't wear seatbelts and die in car crashes aren't charged with murder. Even parents of kids who drive drunk aren't charged with murder.

In each of these cases, the parents were negligent to the point of death... but it ain't murder. (If you are going to argue any of these case is murder, you are going to have to show real evidence that the parents knew their actions would lead to death).

Again, I am not objecting to the idea of these parents serving jail time. What I am arguing against is your absolute rejection of the shades of gray in cases like this. This is not a open and shut case of murder.

2) It is wrong to treat religious (or ethnic) groups more harshly simply because they are religious. In a pluralistic society, we need to be able to deal with competing interests of different groups and society at large in a way that is just.

There are many reasons that a parent might not get a child the medical attention he clearly needs, from making the wrong decision about priorities, to be distracted to a mistaken belief that that they are able to treat the child themselves.

The religion of the parents should be irrelevant in any fair judgment. If the parents are drunk when their kid is dying (instead of praying) should they be treated less harshly than the parents who were praying, or more harshly?

The kind of bigotry shown in this thread-- which suggests forced sterilization for people of certain religions, is clearly an impediment to the type of reasoned thinking needed in a diverse democratic society.

Hell with the legal meaning it is cold blooded murder by someone who had a duty to protect the defenseless murder victim.

Sorry ebrown not acting by a parent to save his or her child when it is within their power to do so and at no risk to themselves in murder.

And yes the disease did kill him however if the parents had not given the child food then hungry would had kill him also.

Not at all complex it is a simple case of murder in cold blood by someone who have a overriding duty to protect and love the victim.

There IS NO COMPLEX ISSUE. And this apologist bullshit angers me almost as much as the actions of these freaks.
It's extremely simple.
Child gets sick.
Child needs treatment.
Child is refused treatment.
Child dies.
It's ******* murder you ****, and you're just as guilty by being part of the group that enables this behaviour.

you are one angry bastard.

ebrown?
****?

will you get a grip and be able to have a conversation instead of a heart attack for once ?

part of the conversation is discussing the laws, reactions, and beliefs.

You know in my state if I did not provide needed vet care for my cats and therefore allow them to suffer, I would be guilty of a crime up to the possible level of a minor felony!

Somehow not providing needed medical care for a child that you have a duty to protect might be a little more serous matter then for a pet and I see no complex concerns here no matter what the religion beliefs of the parents/care givers are.

If they wish to die for lack of medical care for whatever reason that is their right but not their children.

Spare me the drama puhhhleeeeze. We all know that all you and one other are is arguing a word. You brought in the issue of Cheney's stance . You fail to understand in that case that the "Pray for cures " is SENTENCING AFTER judgement where the Gitmo case is just the contrary.

According to the AP
THATS UTTER AND COMPLETE BULLSHIT. What era is this sect living in?
The sad thing is that, just like pro-life folks usually contend (by inference only of course, I dont want you to accuse me of making a specious argument based upon a single word),all rights of a fetus end after birth. In this case the mothers "Constitutional"rights have been heavily weighed in the court decision

BS Brown (your new name) do you just believe in just "spicing up "the discussion by dreaming up points that were nowhere in my original posts"?

I saw nothing in either accounts that I read in wich there were "mobs" yelling murderer.I believe Wilso and I agree that this homicide falls under our personal definitions of murder, and youve decided to get on some silly soap box to try to argue an unarguable point. As far as punishment, She now faces up to 25 years but sentencing will be much later and she has an appeal planned.(Obviously she doesnt wanna do the "TIME" so her remorse doesnt seem to be an issue does it?. PS 25 years is consistent with many states "bargaining for murder 2"


Heres where you sound like a Libertarian whose just left the planet for an excursion. The kid had a CHRONIC CONGENITAL CONDITION, not a "DEADLY DISEASE" a condition that , today, can be managed as easily as near sightedness. Did the kid wear glasses? Was there some gret deal of hypocrisy involved with the "Holy Rollers and Snake Handlers" who were responsible for turning this manageable chronic condition into a fatality.(I SAY YES INDEED)

JEEZUS H CHRISE E, this is 2009 not 1839. Christian Science(or whatever sect) MUST come to an accomodation with modern medicine , and the only way I see it happening is to stop DANCING around and playing PC games with significs. There are several "separatist" Christian sects , such as Shakers, Amish < Dukhabors, Hutterites, and several others. Yet these all have accomodated their beliefs with the wonders of modern medicine.
ALLOWING your kid to die by witholding easily dispensed meds is unconscionable and is IMHO MURDER.

Drunk drivers ARE often charged with murder 2 (vehicular homicide without intent) The extreme indifference and recklessness lets the murder 2 threshold be attained. Usually the jury is given instructions as to the specific count and the prosecutors are trying the case based upon what they feel they can WIN, its not a matter of standing by principles.(Maybe , had a murder 2 charge been sought, the prosecutors didnt feel that they had enough to make that case stick.




Now youre trying to escalate your argument by inferring Im a racists TOO. Man, will the drama never end. In a pluarlistic society , the many end members of the spectrum had better understand that the Constitution is blind to both color and creeds. (Why do you think that all these Creationist cases are being shot down by Conservative Courts?


Thats just a damn whacky statement if I ever read one. You are in the game of extending an argument into the looking glass. Im not even gonna dignify tht last one.

IN summary, the Constitution is supposed to protect our rights of and from religion. The mother, and her accomplices must be held to a standard That does not interefere with the religious rights of others and that certainly includes her own children.
Now Ill bet your gonna sic Roe v Wade on me as your territory of argument spreads further from the origin.(Lessee , Im a racist, bigot , so I guess Ill have to live with "baby killer" . WAIT A MINIT, Im on the other side of baby killer. OHHH FRABJUS DAY, Ive attained a degree of high morel standing.

I pretty much support this , with the exception of the "****" part. E. is a dude.

ACTUALLY, e, what was said (I went back a few posts) is that YOU hould be sterilized. Now, I dont necessarily agree with your sentence, I think that you are only guilty of poor acting. Thats hardly a felony that should be addressed by mandatory sterilization.

I think , instead,that you should be forced to listen to "The Best of Barry Manilow", for a week straight.

A question to you worthless arseholes supporting these scum. I want to know what the take on the situation would be if there was no religion involved. If this was just a case of negligent parents failing to provide appropriate medical care for their child. Would you still be defending their right to murder their child?

Say E_Brown . . . i just wanted to point out to you that you continue to fail to support that bullshit you attempted to peddle about the majority of the American people believing that prayer can heal disease. Do you have a source for that, or are you willing to admit that you were just talking out of your ass?

Here you go Setanta (and it wasn't that difficult to find).



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/04/29/opinion/main8285.shtml

This is a side point (and I don't think arguing semantics of the poll is worth either of our time. If you want further evidence... search for "healing prayer service [insert city here]". You will find that the use of prayer specifically to heal medical disease is quite a common practice in the US.

Note I am not advocating the practice. I am simply using is to refute the idea that these parents "knew" that their child would die.

I remember reading that someone did a double blind study on payer being in fact helpful or not and found not connection.

However that is completely beside the point as I question if most of those who are of the opinion that payer might help the sick would also agree that paying should in any way replace normal medical treatments or the obligation of parents to see to it that their children get needed treatment.

Does Prayer Help Healing?
80% - Yes
14% - No

Should Doctors Pray If Asked?
63% - Yes
25% - No

Should Prayer Be Standard?
34% - Yes
55% - No


That does not state that they believe prayer heals the ill, but that it merely HELPS.

Yes I know the information below is a little off tropic however I had already address the issue that the poll have nothing to do with if people was of the opinion that payers should replace needed treatment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer

Efficacy of prayer healing
Main article: Efficacy of prayer
In 1872, Francis Galton conducted a famous statistical experiment to determine whether prayer had a physical effect on the external environment. Galton hypothesized that if prayer was effective, members of the British Royal family would live longer, given that thousands prayed for their wellbeing every Sunday. He therefore compared longevity in the British Royal family with that of the general population, and found no difference.[2] While the experiment was probably intended to satirize, and suffered from a number of confounders, it set the precedent for a number of different studies, the results of which are contradictory.

Two studies claimed that patients who are being prayed for recover more quickly or more frequently although critics have claimed that the methodology of such studies are flawed, and the perceived effect disappears when controls are tightened.[63] One such study, with a double-blind design and about 500 subjects per group, suggested that intercessory prayer by born again Christians had a statistically significant positive effect on a coronary care unit population.[3] Critics contend that there were severe methodological problems with this study.[7] Another such study was reported by Harris et al..[4] Critics also claim Byrd's 1988 study was not fully double-blinded, and that in the Harris study, patients actually had a longer hospital stay in the prayer group, if one discounts the patients in both groups who left before prayers began,[64] although the Harris study did demonstrate the prayed for patients on average received lower course scores (indicating better recovery).

One of the largest randomized, blind clinical trials was a remote retroactive intercessory prayer study conducted in Israel by Leibovici. This study used 3393 patient records from 1990-96, and blindly assigned some of these to an intercessory prayer group. The prayer group had shorter hospital stays and duration of fever.[65]

Several studies of prayer effectiveness have yielded null results.[5] A 2001 double-blind study of the Mayo Clinic found no significant difference in the recovery rates between people who were (unbeknownst to them) assigned to a group that prayed for them and those who were not.[66] Similarly, the MANTRA study conducted by Duke University found no differences in outcome of cardiac procedures as a result of prayer.[67] In another similar study published in the American Heart Journal in 2006,[68] Christian intercessory prayer when reading a scripted prayer was found to have no effect on the recovery of heart surgery patients; however, the study found patients who had knowledge of receiving prayer had slightly higher instances of complications than those who did not know if they were being prayed for or those who did not receive prayer.[6][69] Another 2006 study suggested that prayer actually had a significant negative effect on the recovery of cardiac bypass patients, resulting in more frequent deaths and slower recovery time for those patient who received prayers.[70]

Many believe that prayer can aid in recovery, not due to divine influence but due to psychological and physical benefits. It has also been suggested that if a person knows that he or she is being prayed for it can be uplifting and increase morale, thus aiding recovery. (See Subject-expectancy effect.) Many studies have suggested that prayer can reduce physical stress, regardless of the god or gods a person prays to, and this may be true for many worldly reasons. According to a study by Centra State Hospital, "the psychological benefits of prayer may help reduce stress and anxiety, promote a more positive outlook, and strengthen the will to live."[71] Other practices such as Yoga, Tai Chi, and Meditation may also have a positive impact on physical and psychological health.

Others feel that the concept of conducting prayer experiments reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of prayer. The previously mentioned American Heart Journal study published in the American Heart Journal indicated that some of the intercessors who took part in it complained about the scripted nature of the prayers that were imposed to them,[6] saying that this is not the way they usually conduct prayer:

Prior to the start of this study, intercessors reported that they usually receive information about the patient’s age, gender and progress reports on their medical condition; converse with family members or the patient (not by fax from a third party); use individualized prayers of their own choosing; and pray for a variable time period based on patient or family request.


[edit] See also

I would certainly not suggest that the parents knew anything at all--it is all to evident that they suffered an appalling ignorance of human physiology and disease. Your statistics don't demonstrate that more than half of Americans believe that prayer can heal diseases, and as such, i have every right to rub your nose in the snotty remark you made about a ridiculous and unfounded assumption--which is precisely what you were doing. It is hardly a side point in a debate to note that one party to a debate is making accusation virtually in the same breath as an example of violating the same principle of which they accuse the other.

Note the following from your CBS poll:



Finally, note that no part of the poll you cite suggests for a moment that a majority, or even a significant minority of Americans believe that prayer can substitute for medical practice, and that all the questions were asked in a context of someone receiving expert medical care from professional staff.

Frankly, i think it is you who have no argument, and that the strongest argument you could make is that these clowns, these holy roller creeps, let their child die through sheer ignorance, and that to that extent, they are guilty of involuntary man-slaughter rather than murder.

. ONce again, you are trying to make an issue from mere semantics. The standard in the law is NOT that someone "knew", but that someone "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN", big difference. The second disallows shucking the responsibility of the act of (in this case) killing ones kids by witholding normal routine medical help.

I wont belabor this further because we seem to be at an impasse.