Trials For Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine

The New York Times > Log In

Quote:

WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.

“Basically everything stops,” said Dr. Louis Philipson, who directs the diabetes center at the University of Chicago Medical Center, explaining what occurs in patients who do not know or “are in denial that they have diabetes.”

About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

Spoiler:

“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”

Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.”

About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes.

Shawn Peters, the author of three books on religion and the law, including “When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law” (Oxford, 2007), said the outcome of the Neumann case was likely to set an important precedent.

“The laws around the country are pretty unsettled,” said Mr. Peters, who teaches religion at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and has been consulted by prosecutors and defense lawyers in the case.

In the last year, two other sets of parents, both in Oregon, were criminally charged because they had not sought medical care for their children on the ground that to do so would have violated their belief in faith healing. One couple were charged with manslaughter in the death of their 15-month-old daughter, who died of pneumonia last March. The other couple were charged with criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, who died from complications of a urinary tract infection that was severely painful and easily treatable.

“Many types of abuses of children are motivated by rigid belief systems,” including severe corporal punishment, said Ms. Swan, a former Christian Scientist whose 16-month-old son, Matthew, died after she postponed taking him to a hospital for treatment of what proved to be meningitis. “We learned the hard way.”

All states give social service authorities the right to go into homes and petition for the removal of children, Ms. Swan said, but cases involving medical care often go unnoticed until too late. Parents who believe in faith healing, she said, may feel threatened by religious authorities who oppose medical treatment. Recalling her own experience, she said, “we knew that once we went to the doctor, we’d be cut off from God.”

The crux of the Neumanns’ case, Mr. Peters said, will be whether the parents could have known the seriousness of their daughter’s condition.

Investigators said the Neumanns last took Kara to a doctor when she was 3. According to a police report, the girl had lost the strength to speak the day before she died. “Kara laid down and was unable to move her mouth,” the report said, “and merely made moaning noises and moved her eyes back and forth.”

The courts have ordered regular medical checks for the couple’s other three children, ages 13 to 16, and Judge Howard ordered all the parties in the case not to speak to members of the news media. Neither Ms. Falstad nor the defense lawyers, Gene Linehan and Jay Kronenwetter, would agree to be interviewed.

The Neumanns, who had operated a coffee shop, Monkey Mo’s, in this middle-class suburb in the North Woods, are known locally as followers of an online faith outreach group called Unleavened Bread Ministries, run by a preacher, David Eells. The site shares stories of faith healing and talks about the end of the world.

An essay on the site signed Pastor Bob states that the Bible calls for healing by faith alone. “Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital,” the essay says. “Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.”

A link from the site, helptheneumanns.com, asserts that the couple is being persecuted and “charged with the crime of praying.” The site also allows people to contribute to a legal fund for the Neumanns.

In the small town of Weston, many people shake their heads with dismay when Kara Neumann is mentioned. Tammy Klemp, 41, who works behind the counter at a convenience store here, said she disagreed with the Neumanns’ passive response to their daughter’s illness but said she was not sure they should go to prison.

“I’ve got mixed feelings,” Ms. Klemp said. “It’s just such a terribly sad case.”

Chris Goebel, 30, a shipping department worker for a window maker, said many people in the area felt strongly that the parents should be punished.

“That little girl wasn’t old enough to make the decision about going to a doctor,” Mr. Goebel said. “And now, because some religious extremists went too far, she’s gone.”

TL/DurrR: Christian Scientists could be convicted of murder for letting their diabetic child die without seeking treatment.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Well, uh, yeah? I mean, if you never fed your kid you'd go the fuck to jail, and your religious rights as a Breatharian wouldn't be relevant in the least. "Try to keep your kid from dying" is pretty much #1 on the list of basic parental responsibilities.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

It totally just seems like one of those times to say, "Where is your God now?" (Yes, that's horrible to say, but completely relevant here).

But they totally deserve to be sent to jail. Sure, believe in what you want, but when you're endangering your child, religion means nothing. The parents failed to carry out their parental duties. It's as simple as that.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I had to think about this one before saying anything.

This is going to be an AWFUL analogy, but bear with me:

When you bring a pet into your home, you become responsible for it. You must provide food, shelter, and health remedies to it since you become the person responsible for that animal's life.

If you do NOT do this, you are subject to the laws of the land which state that you can pretty much serve time if you don't take care of your animal's well-being.

Now. We can implement these kinds of rules for our pets, but not for our children? And just because there's some kind of "religion" involved means that some people are excluded from taking care of their responsibilities to their children as parents?

Any religion which allows your child to die when there are remedies available is pretty much bullshit. You'd think people could figure that out on their own. OOPS, MY KID DIED FROM SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN AVOIDED! Morons.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I had to think about this one before saying anything.

Really?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Really?

Are you taunting me, Brady.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

It's been a year or two since the last time, I was almost afraid you'd forgotten what it's like.

FELIPE NO

Anyone who knows my religious beliefs would probably guess that I would say these two should be sent to the guillotine on general principle. Even the vast majority of deeply religious people that I personally know will say, "Yes. God is all-powerful but he alone can not champion your well-being. You have to do your part to heal yourself as well."

I mean, this always seemed like a moot point to me because if god is all-powerful and has the power to heal them unquestionably, why wouldn't he do it? Is it because curing a cold isn't in his DIVINE PLAN? If even the most devout christians I've met admit that god won't always come to their aid for every little thing that ails them, why would anyone think otherwise and just outright neglect life-threatening illnesses?

Like Chaotic (tamely) said: Where is your god now?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It was just her time, you know? God let her die.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

So he was nowhere to be found in a time of dire need then? Good to know.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Paco takin' God to the mat ITT

epic battle

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Would anybody else be surprised to see this one go to the supreme court?

'Cause I honestly wouldn't.

ALL DA WAY TO DA TAWP, BABY

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

In the context of this issue, I would suggest that it may be God's will that we have the available healthcare that we have today. Therefore, using that which God has provided, to save the child's life, would fit into their requirement that God heal the child. These people are pretty amateur when it comes to applying context based logic.

How ya doing, buddy?

This is not normal Christianity though, which would whole-heartedly agree with you. This is the Christian "Science" cult, which believes that the whole of the physical world is an illusion and any bad experience therein can be overcome by prayer and devotion.
Though those who speak for said cult declare that their theology does not preclude the use of medical science, the logical end of those subscribing to a "there is no spoon" philosophy is exactly what we see here.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by packrat

Christian "Science"

There's an oxymoron, if I ever read one.

FELIPE NO

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

When the person is an ADULT (18 or so), I guess s/he has acquired the necessary maturity to take such a decision (given s/he wasn't indotrinated to some superstition).

Otherwise, life should always prevail, unless life after the operation would be worse (heavy handicaps, eg.). If we push it a little, noy healing someone we could save violates one of god's (if he even exists) command : thou shalt not kill

Jam it back in, in the dark.

'Thou shalt not kill' is very different from 'Thou shalt save'. I know in Protestantism this differs, but we're not talking about Protestantism. For that matter, we're not talking about Judaism or Hinduism or Islam or even Catholicism. The only relevant information is that of Christian Science doctrine.

The fact that you don't like a certain religion means nothing, so far as the protections the Constitution guarantees all religions are concerned. Now, I know this is much different than just discriminating against a religious group, since the issue of children dying is in play, but you really have to consider how touchy a subject this is.

If the government were to limit or take away the rights of Christian Science parents to raise their children as they wish, according to their doctrine, the implications and possibilities would be vast. It opens the door for the conversation of so much more, as delicate an issue as it is. I think people tend to forget that with the placement of a law, so goes the precedent, and the eventual snowball effect that could result.

Yes, this kinda sounds a whole lot like the argument of those against gay marriage, but I truly don't think the rights of religions and their adherents should be imposed upon, especially if those rooted in culture go untouched while others are subject to scrutiny.

Basically, it comes down to the wording of the verdict. So much depends on how one judge chooses to place his words. If he does it right (restricting possible prosecution to those parents who neglect their children in life-threatening situations, regardless of religion) I see no problem. I'm just worried he'll be more inclusive, his ruling more wide-reaching and with greater implications. And that wouldn't be good.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Capo

If the government were to limit or take away the rights of Christian Science parents to raise their children as they wish, according to their doctrine, the implications and possibilities would be vast. It opens the door for the conversation of so much more, as delicate an issue as it is. I think people tend to forget that with the placement of a law, so goes the precedent, and the eventual snowball effect that could result.

I am absolutely comfortable with the snowball effect of prosecuting gross child neglect.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

There are already examples in place in US law that make religious practice less than 100% protected. Just ask the Rastafarians.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Capo

The only relevant information is that of Christian Science doctrine.

No, the relevant information is whether parents have the right to deny their children medical treatment.

Originally Posted by Capo

If the government were to limit or take away the rights of Christian Science parents to raise their children as they wish

Plenty of such restrictions already exist. We call them "laws." You don't even need to get as specific as what Pang's getting at--it's common sense that you can't do whatever you want to your children.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Janus X

When the person is an ADULT (18 or so), I guess s/he has acquired the necessary maturity to take such a decision (given s/he wasn't indotrinated to some superstition).

We're not talking about an adult's decision for their own well-being . We're talking about the decision adults can/will make for their OFFSPRING.

Quote:

Otherwise, life should always prevail, unless life after the operation would be worse (heavy handicaps, eg.). If we push it a little, noy healing someone we could save violates one of god's (if he even exists) command : thou shalt not kill

Yea, maybe that works for you, but I don't the government has any right to tell a person they can't commit suicide if they want to.

You have no right to decide how or when a person should die.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

We're not talking about an adult's decision for their own well-being . We're talking about the decision adults can/will make for their OFFSPRING.

Why do you have to frame these situations with PEOPLES IS JUST MEAT language?

This is about whether legal guardians can practice neglect as a religious observance.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Why do you have to frame these situations with PEOPLES IS JUST MEAT language?

This is about whether legal guardians can practice neglect as a religious observance.

Are you taunting me, Brady.

How ya doing, buddy?

It's like you don't even know who I am anymore.

Additional Spam:
Why do you use biologically neutral language anyways?

Jam it back in, in the dark.