Faith-healing parents charged in death of infant son

[ronronnie1]

Last time I checked, I wasn't under oath.

Yeah, we get it, Midtowner, you're a lawyer (have fun paying off that debt.) Try answering the questions like a normal person without all the legalese. No need to try and impress me (you won't.)

But, like I said, it doesn't take a lawyer to see that these kook parents are in some trouble.

[betts]

mug, I'm not saying the state should stand by and let it happen. I'm saying criminally prosecuting for involuntary manslaughter shouldn't fly. The state had an adequate remedy here -- it could have had child protective services pick the kids up because the parents' decision to not treat was doing irreparable harm to the child. This would have been an easy case because the standard would have been different. You wouldn't have to show that the parents' beliefs were criminally negligent, just that they were doing harm to the child and that the child needed to be in the state's protective custody.

It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but that's the way the law sometimes works. While the two ideas may seem similar, they're legally worlds apart.

But, in this situation, child protective services had no way to know about the child. I might not have as much of a problem with this if the government weren't already legislating all sorts of morality. We make laws regarding what people CAN do to themselves in the privacy of their own homes, and then we don't have a law regarding what they CAN'T do to someone else? Our society bends over backwards protecting some rights of the individual, but wants to pick and choose precisely which rights they're going to protect. What those parents did was child abuse in my mind: he had a potentially curable disease (nevermind that the article seemed to imply that Tylenol might have saved his life, which is ridiculous) for which they refused to seek treatment. They allowed him to suffer while they prayed. If there isn't a law that applies, there should be.

[Midtowner]

Try answering the questions like a normal person without all the legalese.

Once you've gone through any sort of professional training, your ability to answer questions "like a normal person" ceases to exist. Otherwise, your post is a bunch of flamebait which I don't care to respond to. Should I apologize for knowing a hell of a lot more about law than you do? For understanding that the splitting of hairs sometimes really, really matters? I think not.

[Midtowner]

But, in this situation, child protective services had no way to know about the child.

Well, we don't really know that. You're a medical professional, right? If you are (and you probably know this anyway) anyone who has reason to suspect child abuse is going on has a legal duty to report it or they are subject to criminal penalties. We don't really know if child protective services knew anything here, but if they did, I highly doubt they'd be forthcoming with that information at this time.

I might not have as much of a problem with this if the government weren't already legislating all sorts of morality.

There is a major difference between punishing thoughts and punishing actions. These parents, according to their own wacky belief system actually thought they were doing the best to protect their kid. Sure, they were mistaken, but that ain't the point. You're asking a court of law to say that a religious belief can be criminally negligent. The belief in faith healing is rather commonplace in this country (scary enough), but what is essentially objectionable is that we're asking a court of law to rule on whether a religious belief was good or bad and whether someone can be punished for that belief. Not a good path to go down, IMHO.

Our society bends over backwards protecting some rights of the individual, but wants to pick and choose precisely which rights they're going to protect.

Since dead people don't have rights, I'm wondering what you're even talking about here?

What those parents did was child abuse in my mind: he had a potentially curable disease (nevermind that the article seemed to imply that Tylenol might have saved his life, which is ridiculous) for which they refused to seek treatment. They allowed him to suffer while they prayed. If there isn't a law that applies, there should be.

There would have been if a deprived action had been brought. That didn't happen, so procedurally, we've moved to a criminal prosecution. The state will argue that the parents were criminally negligent and that resulted in the death of a human being (the elements of involuntary manslaughter). The defense will be that they were not negligent because they were engaging in constitutionally protected religious practices and that the state is without power to rule on whether a religious belief or practice is right or wrong, good or bad. I think the defense's argument wins. I might be wrong, but that's how I see this playing out.

[ronronnie1]

Get over yourself. It's not like you attended Harvard (or even OU Law School), but yeah, you do know a hell of a lot more about the law then me. That's not being argued. I was simply stating that I heard about another case similar to this one where the parents went to jail. I didn't ask you to recite West's Law Encyclopedia. Trust me on this - you come across as a know-it-all, but I guess that's your intentions. Laterz.

[kevinpate]

The law is not uniform from state to state. However, I think the vast majority of states are close to what Mid is suggesting, with only a handful of states having laws on the books that are of a 'Thee shall not rely on prayer alone when it comes to your kiddos' varierty.

[Martin]

get over yourself. it's not like you attended harvard (or even ou law school), but yeah, you do know a hell of a lot more about the law then me. that's not being argued. i was simply stating that i heard about another case similar to this one where the parents went to jail. i didn't ask you to recite west's law encyclopedia. trust me on this - you come across as a know-it-all, but i guess that's your intentions. laterz.

the only person being uncivil in this thread is you. if you can't carry on an intelligent discussion without devolving into personal attacks, then don't bother posting. -M

[HVAC Instructor]

Once you've gone through any sort of professional training, your ability to answer questions "like a normal person" ceases to exist. Otherwise, your post is a bunch of flamebait which I don't care to respond to. Should I apologize for knowing a hell of a lot more about law than you do? For understanding that the splitting of hairs sometimes really, really matters? I think not.

Aw come on MT, LOL! Be nice. I'm a Master Electrician and an unrestricted HVAC (highest license level possible) contractor with 27+ years of skilled dirt under my fingernails plus many arbitrations on top of that, and I can explain what the consumer needs to know with a crayon if necessary, and so can you. Most of your clients won't be lawyers will they?

Besides, nothing for anybody to get upset about here, so let's just discuss it nicely, ok everybody?

[Midtowner]

I think you're understanding what I'm talking about. I don't think you're grasping the gravity of it. That's not the product of a lack of ability, but rather, in all likelihood, a rather strong bit of cognitive dissonance. That's understandable. Oftentimes, the law doesn't seem to produce a just conclusion.

[gmwise]

I think there's this..
Lawyers HAVE to speak concisely using words thats more precise then the words (laymen) non lawyers, we normally used, and theres a feeling of being talked down too.
My boyfriend is a medical student and sometimes I feel talked down too, but they like law related persons have to be really precised,medical diagnosis is important to treat not only the symptoms but the disease.
Its a mature moment I wanted to share..lol

[Midtowner]

I think there's this..
Lawyers HAVE to speak concisely using words thats more precise than the words (laymen) non lawyers, we normally used, and theres a feeling of being talked down too.
My boyfriend is a medical student and sometimes I feel talked down too, but they like law related persons have to be really precised,medical diagnosis is important to treat not only the symptoms but the disease.
Its a mature moment I wanted to share..lol

Thanks for that.

[JohnDenver]

I think there's this..
Lawyers HAVE to speak concisely using words thats more precise then the words (laymen) non lawyers, we normally used, and theres a feeling of being talked down too.
My boyfriend is a medical student and sometimes I feel talked down too, but they like law related persons have to be really precised,medical diagnosis is important to treat not only the symptoms but the disease.
Its a mature moment I wanted to share..lol

My wife is a surgeon and speaks the medical-ese as well. It is filled with jargon to help them communicate with one another effectively in their professional lives. When I tell her to "speak English", she then speaks in layman's terms. She inadvertently goes to the jargon mode, but reels it in on demand. I am an engineer, but I can easily communicate in layman's terms when not talking to one of my peers.

The inability to do that, makes people feel 'talked down to.' Nor does the inability to speak the jargon make the other party immediately less informed.

Regarding legalese, it is a strange profession, because in every ruling, there is a lawyer on the "losing" end that believed the law stated their case. Then the court ruled against them. Therefore, all this talk in certain terms about what IS and WILL BE, really should be voiced as SHOULD and SHOULD BE.

[Midtowner]

Then again, we find using weak language makes for poor advocacy. In this case though, taking a very regimented, technical look at things, I'm quite sure I'm framing the issue correctly. The only remaining question is whether a court can actually do what I'm saying they're going to have to do. I don't know the answer to that, but I hope for the sake of the next case and the case after that, that the answer is no.

[ronronnie1]

I'm gonna do something I RARELY do. I appologize for being an assh*** to you Midtowner. I have a professional degree (accounting), and my brother/biz partner is always complaining that I'm talking down to him or acting like I know more them him (I do) when I'm simply wanting to do things by the book. I'll try to be more civil to you, that is if you didn't put me on ignore yet lol.

Water under the bridge.

[Midtowner]

I'm gonna do something I RARELY do. I appologize for being an assh*** to you Midtowner. I have a professional degree (accounting), and my brother/biz partner is always complaining that I'm talking down to him or acting like I know more them him (I do) when I'm simply wanting to do things by the book. I'll try to be more civil to you, that is if you didn't put me on ignore yet lol.

Water under the bridge.

Believe it or not, there's only one person on my ignore list. He might not even know he's on it. For one thread, he was just so insufferably willfully ignorant about something he knew nothing about, so I felt, perhaps wrongly, that I wouldn't be interested in anything he'd ever have to say on other subjects. The guy doesn't post much, so no big.

Thanks for the apology. I think your heart's in the right place, FWIW. It would serve these folks right to get some extremely curable, yet extremely painful form of deadly illness, but the moment we start to talk about the government coming in making judgment calls on religious beliefs, we're asking for big trouble down the line.

[mugofbeer]

Believe it or not, there's only one person on my ignore list. He might not even know he's on it. For one thread, he was just so insufferably willfully ignorant about something he knew nothing about, so I felt, perhaps wrongly, that I wouldn't be interested in anything he'd ever have to say on other subjects. The guy doesn't post much, so no big.

Thanks for the apology. I think your heart's in the right place, FWIW. It would serve these folks right to get some extremely curable, yet extremely painful form of deadly illness, but the moment we start to talk about the government coming in making judgment calls on religious beliefs, we're asking for big trouble down the line.

Awww, how nice. Ronronnie would be far more interesting, and he/she has some good points, if he/she were able to make a point without being so insulting to those who disagree with him/her. He/she isn't the only one who is that way on here so there is no monopoly held but it would be nice for him/her to be a tad more civil - such as on this posting! Just saying....

[HVAC Instructor]

Awww, how nice. Ronronnie would be far more interesting, and he/she has some good points, if he/she were able to make a point without being so insulting to those who disagree with him/her. He/she isn't the only one who is that way on here so there is no monopoly held but it would be nice for him/her to be a tad more civil - such as on this posting! Just saying....

We're all condecending assholes on here at one time or another, even (especially in this post) you mugsy.

As to ignore lists? What a bunch of BS. Not me. No matter how nasty or ignorant somebody is, I won't put them on ignore. If I can't ignore them on my own, well then it's my problem, isn't it? Besides, some folks sometimes deserve a good bitch-slap.

[gmwise]

We're all condecending assholes on here at one time or another, even (especially in this post) you mugsy.

As to ignore lists? What a bunch of BS. Not me. No matter how nasty or ignorant somebody is, I won't put them on ignore. If I can't ignore them on my own, well then it's my problem, isn't it? Besides, some folks sometimes deserve a good bitch-slap.

if its not for ignore button some of these posters would be obits..lol

[mugofbeer]

We're all condecending assholes on here at one time or another, even (especially in this post) you mugsy.

As to ignore lists? What a bunch of BS. Not me. No matter how nasty or ignorant somebody is, I won't put them on ignore. If I can't ignore them on my own, well then it's my problem, isn't it? Besides, some folks sometimes deserve a good bitch-slap.

Thanks, I needed that - and call me on it whenever I do it but at least I try not to be an ass. I just think good debate without the condecention (sp?), namecalling and personal insults is far more enjoyable than reading commentaries like in the DOK. rronnie has such good points to make but so buries them in the garbage they lose their meaning.

[betts]

I suspect child protective services had no idea this child existed. Most of the parents who belong to these sorts of religions never bring their children in for medical care. They are not immunized, and do not have well-child checks. Choosing not to seek preventative medical care for your child is not considered child abuse, so children like this are not reported to social services. Now, is it child abuse if a parent chooses not to feed their child? Perhaps a parent believes that God will provide food and prays that he will drop manna from the skies. Both have the same end result: the death of a child. In both cases, the parents have withheld something from their child essential to life, and, what is worse, is that in both instances, the child suffered prior to death. Is the failure to remediate a situation that causes pain child abuse? I'll be interested to see what a jury thinks.

[Midtowner]

If I'm right, there's not going to be a jury involved in this.

[PennyQuilts]

I think Mid has the law right. That is not to say that I agree with the outcomes all the time. But once the child is gone, nothing the law can do can make it right, anyway. I haven't weighed in on this thread before now because it just makes me ill to think of the kids suffering for any reason. Poor darlings. And for those parents who make religious decisions and then it swarms on them, I feel for them, too. Plenty of religious parents take their kids in, eventually, if they realize how bad off the child is. For those that wait too long, how horrible when they realize they made a mistake.

Children who are sexually abused in the name of religion are the clearer case. There is no mushiness on the criminal law. But medical treatment is a whole different thing, quite frequently. They used to bleed kids, not that long ago. Treatments change as we learn more. I think they give the parents the benefit of the doubt unless it is so clear that an idiot would know better.

But all that is just talk. The law is unsatidsying to many but it is what we have and most of the time it works.