Parents who tried to pray away illness charged with murder

Excuse me, but....... what are you babbling about?

This topic is about an 8 month old baby, of course, totally dependent upon his parents care and they let him die from pneumonia. Pneumonia is not a rare, complicated illness, but can be deadly if IT"S NOT TREATED BY A PHYSICIAN! And the patient needs ANTIBIOTICS.....

When my oldest was a couple yrs old, I met a neighbor who had 4 kids. One day Carolyn told me she had a son named Steven and when he was 5, he got sick w/a cold. Carolyn treated him according to a cold, didn't take him to a dr b/c it was just 'a cold' and just kept him in bed w/cold/cough meds. I don't remember how many days went by w/her nursing his 'cold', but one morning she went into his room to check on him and he was dead. It wasn't a cold - it was walking pneumonia........ this mother wasn't a religious zealot, praying over him. She made the mistake of assuming something that wasn't true and it cost her son his life......

The parents in this case are the reason why cults grow - to many gullible, brain-washed people willing to believe anything, even when it's dangerous to their own children and their lives.

And again, why is it these adults will take themselves to drs - eye dr, dentist, ear dr, Md if they break a leg or whatever, but not their sick, dying kids b/c their cult leader tells them 'prayer will heal their child'....

 

Laws aren't created on a case by case basis . The point is where is line drawn ? Obviously this case is sad , but what if his illness wasn't as common ? Just food for thought but obviously many here can't think in a greater scope .

 

There is no greater scope...

They let that baby die...

Why do you feel the need to defend this appalling behavior!?

 

A baby gets very sick and you ask 'where is the line drawn'? And unlike the baby's brother, whom the parents let die 4 yrs earlier, who was 6-7 yrs old and could TALK and tell his parents how he felt, this 8 month old couldn't ...... all he could do was lay there, weak and fight to breathe until he finally DIED.... while his parents were praying over him.

I guess losing their other child didn't affect them at all - obviously. "What if" just doesn't cut it when it comes to a child's health and well-being. If the child has symptoms of any illness, the parents takes the kid to the doctor!

I had raised a son who never showed any signs of having strep throat, which if not treated leads to serious complications like rheumatic heart disease. He was around 1.5 yrs old when I found out that he had it. He was bouncing all over while his sisters had it, but the pediatrician insisted on me bringing him in to be checked for it. I was positive he didn't have it b/c he showed no signs of it - but I took him in anyway and sure enuf he had it. I asked his dr why isn't he sick w/it and he said it's just his system and to always have him checked if someone else in family came down w/it and sure enuf, thru out the yrs he never showed the signs of step, but it was there....

The judge showed those parents some mercy after they deliberately let their 1st child die, then 4 yrs later they let another child die....... and all you can come up w/is 'laws aren't created on a case by case basis'? What the hell isl that supposed to mean? This case is about a couple who have a bunch of kids and they're letting them die b/c they refuse to get medical treatment for them when they come down w/something serious like pneumonia, thinking their prayers and "Hallaleujahs!" will cure their sick child!

This couple needs to be neutered and sent to prison.......

- - - Updated - - -

That's what I can't understand.....

 

Haven't defended the behavior one bit... Why do you have to fabricate ?

 

Then what the (*)(*)(*)(*) is your argument!?

 

How do we approach a less cut and dry case and how do we govern such ? As said before , what if the illness has different medical approaches ? If a parent picks one and the child dies , can they be liable if opposing doctors say that their treatment would have saved the child ? Laws cover wide scopes , and I am curious as to what would happen if the illness didnt have clear cut treatments ... Or for another example an 8 year olds 6th chemo attemp. Where does the line get drawn , How , and by who ?when I see things like this , I wonder how it will be applied to more challenging cases . Obviously this is a simple one , but I don't think they will always be this easy.

 

This is not a "different medical approaches" scenario...

The baby had pneumonia...

Pneumonia has a known, effective treatment...

They let the baby die...

 

Do you read my post or just troll the same thought over and over and over and over. I have said 5 times now that this case was easy. I have clearly posed the question, NUMEROUS times, what if it wasnt that cut and dry of a case? If you think all cases will be this easy that is incredibly ignorant line of thinking, IMO.

 

If a parent decides to pray as opposed to getting a child proper medical care, it's the exact same in every scenario...

You should bring the off-topic hypotheticals to a halt...

 

Lol, off topic? Report it to a mod and lets see how that works out. Seems pretty on topic , just hard questions.

So what if a parent chooses to pray instead of trying the 6th chemo session after 5 other unsuccessful attempts? Doctor Brown says the 6th would have saved the child, the parents say the child was too weak for any more.... Exact same scenario everytime? Not quite...

 

The OP discussed this case specifically, not any hypothetical future instance...

You have been unable to do so...

 

............... another lie busted. Just because you don't like the answers given does not mean one is not discussing the topic at hand. I clearly formulated my opinion, and then as I read other opinions I adapted and came to a more rounded conclusion.... Sorry you dont like it!

 

A lie, my dick....

None of those, outside of one sentence, directly discuss the topic at hand...

It's just more babble to try & support your ever-blooming bouquet of hypotheticals...

The topic is parents who failed to seek proper medical attention for their children, not parents who actually seeked medical attention, and, seeing that it's not working after several attempts, don't wish to see their child suffer anymore...

This is about a pair of neglectful non-parents, plain & simple...

 

"So onto my point, it may not be your business whether or not a parent lets their child die through lack of medical care, but it is danmwell that childs and someone needs to speak for him... you know what i mean? The law should speak for those who cant when needed, and this is needed."

........


You say the topic is ' parents who failed to seek PROPER medical attention' ...... discussing who determines what is proper medical attention is CLEARLY on topic by YOUR own admission.... LOL what is going on???

 

"...outside of one sentence...

Thank you...

 

Looks like 2 , possibly 3 or 4 if you eliminate my run on sentence.

 

The one sentence addresses the child in question...

The rest of them talk about some law...

Anyway, this bores me now...

 

the law and how it pertains to the subject at hand....

I once heard that only boring people get bored.

 

Right wing conservatives really need to get over this pathetic, ignorant attitude that if they are the guardian of their children it means they legally own them as property and can do whatever they want with them.

 

Can you imagine the number of child deaths if all parents believed in the same religion as those parents that allowed their children to die without getting the medical attention they deserved?

 

Huh? You talking about the parents in the topic who let their 2 children die by refusing to get them medical treatment? If so, what did it say about their political views? I missed that part.....

I'm an Independent w/strong Conservative values and raised 3 kids who always had their pediatrician. Never tho't of my kids as my 'property' but as my kids and was responsible for their health and well-being......

This case is not about politics.....

 

Do you want to read that back to yourself? Ok, your child is sick, very sick, but you'd rather pray than take him to a professional because there's "no guarantee" that it would have been saved? >>>MOD EDIT:BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER<<<constitution if that's the excuse you're relying on here.

 

A trained professional medical person makes that determination, not an unqualified and obsessed religious lunatic whose only answer is 'leave it to 'god', it knows best'.

 

Fortunately for the vast majority of children much of the world has moved on from Bronze Age belief in fairytales which maintain that it is 'god's will' that a sick child should be denied anything more efficacious than chanting.
Let these cretinous bastards pray for freedom in prison, and see how far it gets them.