the stupid burns

[rivendellrose]

Turns out that killing your kid by not getting them treatment for a simple thing like juvenile diabetes is only worth 6 months in prison if you do it for religious reasons.

Because apparently criminal neglect is a-okay if you do it because you thought God would fix it.

Comments

[pat-t.livejournal.com]

I don't know what makes me angrier, the parents or the judge who put such low value on that child's life.

Religion aside, those parents have a lot more wrong with them than the Bible and Christian teaching. I'm a Christian and my religion does not teach you to ignore healthcare. Unbelievable.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

That's the thing. This isn't about religion. Anyone with an ounce of human decency would have seen that child was suffering, and would have done the right thing and taken her in for real medical treatment. I have nothing against prayer, but if its taken to the point of risking the life of someone who is totally dependent on you, that's just wrong.

Personally, I'm angrier at the judge. The parents were obviously criminally negligent. The judge should have thrown the flipping book at them, not to mention taken the rest of their kids away from them to prevent further tragedy.

[narsilion.livejournal.com]

It is written that God helps those who help themselves, which in this case I would take to mean yes, pray, if that's what you believe, but for heaven's sake, take the child to the DR too!!

[windrose.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I saw that. Made me so damned angry.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I don't know how people can dare to claim the moral high ground after doing something like that. Compassionate, sane people do not screw around like that with the life of someone who's dependent on them.

[windrose.livejournal.com]

But GOD will FIX it, you heathen unbeliever. And if He doesn't? Well, then He's just testing my faith.

*headdesk* You can't win with people like that, you just can't.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

And just think - we're the supposedly amoral ones.

[shadawyn.livejournal.com]

Gah. I remember hearing about this last year.

"as part of which they must allow a nurse to examine their two youngest surviving children at least once every three months, and must immediately take their children to a doctor in case of any serious injuries."

.. so they're on probation to make sure they do what people should do for their ill children? O_o

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

.. so they're on probation to make sure they do what people should do for their ill children? O_o

Probation should be the least of it - if that judge had any kind of concern for life, those kids would be out of that household. There is no excuse for this kind of shit, no matter what the supposed explanation. I don't care if the gods themselves showed up on my doorstep and told me not to send a kid to the doctor - there's no fricking way.

[shadawyn.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree the sentence was too light and I'm concerned about the custody issue. I guess one can just hope that the kids don't get any other life-threatening illnesses sometime between those 3 month check-ups.

I'm just boggled. By creating that mandate, aren't they saying that the court doesn't trust them? I guess the judge felt that breaking the family part was potentially worse than risking the that the parents would do something like that again.

There is some merit to that, but sometimes, speaking from having been that child, the best thing is removal.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Totally. I know that throwing a kid into the foster care system is a horrible thing to do - my family cared for some foster kids when I was in my early teens, so I have a bit of experience, albeit from the opposite site, with how screwed up that system is. But for crying out loud - it's better than keeping kids with parents who are this clearly messed up.

[snakewhissperer.livejournal.com]

And this is jus such a case!

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

"My client sees spiritual treatment as the proper medicine and I suspect the people who want harsher punishment see Western medicine as the proper medicine, I guess therein lies the difference," [their lawyer] told the BBC World Service.

No, fucko. The "difference" is that of spiritual "treatment" and Western medicine, one would have easily treated the child's illness and the other resulted in her death by negligence.

The "difference" is that, using one of those treatment methods, your clients killed their daughter.

I suspect the short jail sentence is due to a couple factors: making sure their remaining children still have parents, and the likely fact that no prison term could possibly punish them as much as having to live our their lives knowing that their daughter would be alive were it not for their negligence. Not saying I agree with it, but I can see where the reasoning comes from.

(Also, I think you mean "by not getting" in your link...)

[shadawyn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I suspect that the judge felt that keeping the family together (albeit, monitored), would be better than breaking them apart.

I don't agree with it, though.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I suspect the short jail sentence is due to a couple factors: making sure their remaining children still have parents, and the likely fact that no prison term could possibly punish them as much as having to live our their lives knowing that their daughter would be alive were it not for their negligence.

See, I could see that except for the teensy little fact that they don't seem from the article to see that what they did was wrong. They don't have any remorse! I feel guiltier when I accidentally kill a freaking houseplant or when one of my goldfish dies than these people seem to be over their 11 year-old daughter. Disgusting.

(Yeah, thanks - I noticed and fixed it just before I got your reply!)

If a person "genuinely believes" that poisoning their kid will send them to heaven, does this mean that by court precedent it's okay, then? Because it sure as hell looks like it might to me.

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

Also, I tend to think the bar for taking children away from their parents ought to be pretty high, due to some issues acquaintances of mine have had with overzealous CPS departments sicced on them by religiously intolerant neighbors. Given the probationary requirements, I'm inclined to think the remaining children will be relatively safe.

That said, the consequences of getting that one wrong are pretty severe. I just don't know...

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

It's tough to find the line there, I agree, but surely murdering a child through neglect would have to count. The foster care system has a lot of problems even in the best of states, but... for goodness' sake, that's got to be better than letting these people kill another kid because, oops, we thought God would fix it.

[narsilion.livejournal.com]

As Jen said, having dealt with the foster care system (as a fostering family) We have seen the case workers not come when they are supposed to and not do the things they were supposed to do, The state hosnestly does not hold up it's end of the bargain some of the time, so are these kids actually going to get the monitoring that they are legally supposed to? That is my concern with leaving them there.
I do agree with you that CPS can be overzealous, but it can also be neglident at times.

[narsilion.livejournal.com]

Oops negigent...it really just depends on who your caseworker is. Luck of the draw in some cases, sadly.

[narsilion.livejournal.com]

Negligent....facepalm.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

As a professional angry person, my first thought would be to twist that lawyer's arm up behind his back and break it, and then passionately pray that some god would fix it for him.

[dreamstrifer.livejournal.com]

Apparently these assholes missed the Sunday School lesson where they learned Luke, thought to be one of the writers of the Gospels, was a doctor.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I think they missed a lot in Sunday School. I'm pretty sure I remember a bit about Jesus being a pretty strong advocate of taking good care of children, for one thing. :(

[dreamstrifer.livejournal.com]

Exactly. How can you sit there watching your child waste away and shit and not want to do EVERYTHING you can to make them not hurt anymore? I can't even stand to watch a stranger's child hurting.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I mean, I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most amazing person in the world with kids, and I don't exactly seek out the opportunity to spend time with them (except a friend of mine's daughter, because she's adorable), but... seriously? I couldn't stand someone treating any living creature like that. If you can do something to stop suffering, you do it. Anything else is simply unacceptable.

[ex_mrs260625]

My opinion in these cases is that the child should have the right to refuse medical treatment if they want to, for any reason or no reason, just as adults can. The medical age of consent should be much, much lower than it is. Forced medical care is horrifying to me.

[ex_mrs260625]

I do note that there's no indication in this article about whether the child wanted medical treatment or not. Often, in cases where there's a religious objection to medical care, the press notes that the child has clearly refused it.

[akashasheiress.livejournal.com]

Maybe the judge felt that the death of their child was 'punishment' enough, but they don't even seem to be sorry about what the did (or more accurately, didn't) do. Healthcare is a fundamental human right. Unfortunately, children are often not see as people with individual rights.