Posted on 07/27/2009 6:35:50 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
AUSAU, Wis. — A Wisconsin man accused of killing his daughter by praying instead of seeking lifesaving medical help considered her illness "a test of his faith," a prosecutor told jurors Saturday.
Dale Neumann, 47, is a "full-Gospel Christian," who did not know his 11-year-old daughter had diabetes, his defense attorney said. There's also not "a shred of evidence" Neumann knew his prayers would fail to help his daughter or cause her death, the lawyer said.
Neumann is charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the 2008 death of his daughter Madeline Neumann, called Kara by her parents. His wife, Leilani, was convicted of the same charge this spring and faces up to 25 years in prison when sentenced Oct. 6.
The girl died from undiagnosed diabetes on March 23, 2008, surrounded by people praying at the family's rural home in Weston in central Wisconsin. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If God had wanted us to become faith healers he would not have given us the brains to become doctors. Prayer helps. I think he would appreciate a little effort on our part. You know, like using the “Talent on loan from God”. By the by that means you’ll be giving it back.
Badger State PING?
What is wrong with these people? Where do they get ideas like this? I can’t imagine they just arrive at it themselves after serious study of the Bible.
Any reputable faith healer prays for you and sends you to a doctor. I was told that the doctor may be the healing vehicle that God uses. People like this man are idiots.
A conciousness of power is the strongest drive. Some people prefer collecting tax.
In a free society there can be more than one answer to this question. In our current society, there is only one answer: Call the doctor, do what he says, or face the wrath of the government.
As terrible as this is, the ‘cure’ of a Big Government being able to force these parents to take their children to a doctor is a hundred million times worse.
One only has to look at the lessons of the twentieth century to see what a ‘compassionate’ Big Government means.
While I agree this man may have taken his belief in prayer healing too far as his child died, we have to be careful in balancing the rights of our families to make decisions on the care of our children with the power of the state to intervene to protect an individual’s (the child) rights.
Government, the state, will always grow its powers to the detriment of the citizens if we do not resist this trend and draw lines based on our original Constitution’s limitation of government powers. Be careful when the state uses an worse case fact situation (this man’s mistaken beliefs) to set laws in place that will deprive all of us of of a freedom. The freedom here is practice of religion, but it applies to all our freedoms.
Here the child could have been saved had another adult, such as the mother, relative or neighbor, acted to ask law enforcement and the court to intervene and review whether the child should have been medically treated. There are child protection laws in Wisconsin in place that will allow that to happen.
Is that really relevant to this?
Well said.
1. Suppose an embryonic stem cell cure pops up and as a Catholic you and your family are not to go there... how morally wrong can the cure be before the government can no longer force it upon your children?
I understand your concerns, but the child has no choice in the matter. At some point, it becomes obvious that prayer and faith aren’t working.
Everyone agrees that there ARE limits on your freedom of religion. How far does freedom of religion go? We can all agree that human sacrifice is unacceptable as well as mutilation, ritualistic rape or beatings or physical harm of another human, etc.
But how about allowing someone to become harmed through inaction? Does freedom of religion go to the point of allowing a parent to let a child die when medical care is available?
These are tough questions and I am not ashamed to admit that they are WAY above my pay grade.
What if your faith tells you the entire family should take a 40-day fast, and the child starves to death? Should that be protected?
It's a good question, and I don't pretend to have an answer. But I will say this:
A 40-day fast? A child who starts to fade and seems to be starving to death? Well, I'd say that intentionally withholding food to the point of causing death is not acceptable. Our bodies require food at all points of our lives, and to withhold food from someone to the point of feath is immoral.
Human sacrifice? Physical harm? Again, I would say that these are wrong. To physically assault another human as a "method of worship" is not something I would want to justify.
Now, here's where I would draw the line: A modern medical technique, which can only be developed by an advanced, industrialized society ought to be optional.
Progress is fine for those who want it, but I don't think "progress" ought to be mandatory. I don't like the idea of government forcing whatever is latest and greatest on my family. I would never take the step of trying to withhold progress from your family, should they wish to take advantage of insulin or chemotherapy -- but if some family were to tell me that their relationship with God requires them to pass up the latest medical techniques, I just don't see how (or why) society should force them.
I would also say that this gets into socialized medicine and the cost of that. Cancer treatments are not cheap. I say I don't want it -- but government says I must have it. Okay. That means government will pay for it, right? Don't we run the risk of going down the road of unfunded mandates -- you MUST buy this level of healthcare! Or, alternatively, everyone's tax dollars will be used so that your sick child will get whatever medical care the government thinks is appropriate. Obama thinks like that -- but I don't.
On the basis of religious freedom, medical freedom, economic freedom, and personal responsibility, I think that choosing to pass up on medical care ought to be a legal option.
Okay, but passing up medical care on behalf on another who has no say so? Just as a person who claims to be a conscientious objector on religious grounds must defend that position with specific religious doctrine, the child’s parents must be able to defend THEIR belief that prayer and faith alone WILL work to heal their child. The Christian faith DOES NOT support that argument.
Yes, it is totally relevant. See every post following yours.
Many, many people think a political answer is the solution to this very real problem. It is not.
In fact, based on the last 100 years of world history, it has been proven that political answers have been AT LEAST one hundred million times MORE dangerous than doing nothing.
They are not above mine.
See my post above this one. The politcal danger is so clear, so huge, even a blind man can see it with 20/20 clarity.
OK
Understood. Here is basically a repost of my post #15 above.
Just as a person who claims to be a conscientious objector on religious grounds must defend that position with specific religious doctrine, the child’s parents must be able to defend THEIR belief that prayer and faith alone WILL work to heal their child. The Christian faith DOES NOT support that argument.
Defend it to who?
They shouldn’t have to legally defend it to anyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.