Faith-Healer Parents Charged after Daughter’s Death
The parents of Kara Neumann, an eleven-year old who died of untreated juvenile diabetes are being charged with reckless endangerment after refusing to seek medical care for their daughter due to their religious beliefs. The court has ordered regular medical checkups for their two surviving children.
The case might help to set precedent for an unsettled area of law: where does an adult’s religious freedom end and society’s responsibility to children begin? Can parents who believe strongly that medicine is morally wrong be allowed to let a child die of a treatable condition while they pray for recovery?
Can the law dictate that children must get certain kinds of medical treatment?
It seems obvious enough that an insulin-dependent diabetic child should be treated. But what about vaccination resisters? Should they be forced to allow their children be immunized? Where do you draw a line between society’s responsibility and parental authority?
Defenses of the parents will probably draw on freedom of religion. Prosecutors will charge child abuse. What do you say? Should these parents go to jail, their children sent to foster homes? Or do they have a right to allow a child to die if they believe it is for the salvation of something beyond–and more important than–her physical body?
See Also:
Peanut Allergies, Peanut Schmallergies
image: Kara Neumann, Associated Press
I always appreciate yours too.
Manjari – thanks so much for your comments, I really appreciate them!
“Not taking a kid to the doctor isn’t against the law.”
Actually, in most states, it is. Especially if you elect not to take your sick kid to the doctor and the child dies from lack of care. You’ll be charged with negligence at the very least and very likely lose custody.
I am really conflicted about this one. Clearly this little girl had a condition that 99.9% of us are going to agree should have been treated. But where do we draw the line. Do we force parents to medicate ADD? Do we force parents to treat each and every small allergy attack? Cold? Low grade fever? The list really could go on and on.
I think insulin is a well-proven treatment for diabetes, and it prevents diabetic ketoacidosis. The urinary tract infection could have been very easily cleared up with antibiotics. That’s not even a chronic condition! That 16 year old boy could have simply recovered from the infection and gone on with his life. Instead, he died from very painful complications. Do parents really need the right to allow their children to die horrible, painful deaths instead of taking medicine? In these particular cases, there was no good reason for these children to die.
My family’s religion is Jainism. Sometimes Jains fast for religious reasons. If I didn’t feed my 11 year old for over a week, would that be ok? Should we be allowed to neglect and abuse our kids as long as there is a religious reason for it? It’s never clear where to draw the line, and we’ve all heard of people refusing blood transfusions for themselves and family members, and many, many other instances of religion being at odds with medical science. But wherever that line is drawn, I think Kara Neumann’s parents are very far on the wrong side of it.
This is a tough one for me. I don’t think people should be allowed to break the law because of their religion, but there is not a law about this issue. Not taking a kid to the doctor isn’t against the law. And if we were to say, it’s illegal not to treat a life-threatening illness, at what point do we consider something life-threatening? A 16-year old boy referenced in the article died of an untreated urinary tract infection–not something we’d jump to assume is life-threatening necessarily, though obviously any infection can ultimately kill.
And what kind of treatment would be required? How much and to what extent? At what age could a child be said to be allowed to make her own decision based on her own conscience? 12? 14? 16?
I’m very torn about it. This is obviously a high-profile, extremely sad case, but I hate to think a doctor could force me to treat my child if I felt it was not in her best interest.
Oddly, though, I’m more in line with gpgirl’s beliefs about vaccines. It’s more emergency situations or chronic/terminal illness treatments I worry about, not long-standing, well-proven preventative ones.
I agree with you Leahsmom, that the idea of doctors forcing a procedure on a patient is scary. I don’t think that’s what was happening in this case. It’s not the medical community vs. these parents. The state has to have some ability to say when parents are abusing or neglecting their children, even though individual situations can be very complicated.
I don’t know if you clicked on Shannon’s link to the article, but it mentions other, similar cases. Children are being made to suffer very painful medical problems because of their parents extreme religious views. Imagine allowing your child to endure excruciating pain and die rather than allowing her to take something as simple as insulin or antibiotics.
I agree with you that the medical establishment can get things wrong, but they can’t charge parents with anything – only the courts can do that.
It is funny you should compare this to vaccinations. Vaccines are life-savers, but I’ll bet a lot of people would say these people should be charged but that the state should not force people to vaccinate their kids. It is really the same issue.
I actually think that vaccines should be mandatory. Car seats are mandatory, and about the same number of people die from the flu and from car accidents. Why aren’t flu shots mandatory?
If you do not vaccinate your children, you are endangering not only your child but the public health of your community.
Maybe now that Obama is in office the pseudo-science that has driven the anti-vax movement will be pushed aside.
It’s a harder issue for me when it gets wrapped up with freedom of religion than when I think about it as a “right to refuse treatment” decision. When I was a teenaged girl, doctors wanted me to undergo a certain treatment that I certainly did not want. My mom was right behind me, and she promised me that I’d never to have to accept any medical care that I didn’t want to accept – though there might be consequences to my standing firm, such as doctors washing their hands of me. I was so reassured that doctors couldn’t just choose for me what they thought was right, that I had some say in my own body.
What about this little girl? Did she want treatment? If her parents believed this so firmly, she might very well not have wanted treatment – she might have wanted to stick with prayer. Many might argue it’s an uninformed choice, that she shouldn’t have the option to make. And it makes me uncomfortable, too. But when I think about it from a rights to my body issue, especially as a woman, especially when reproductive health care is in jeopardy – then, I don’t think I can side with the folks who want the medical establishment to make decisions for us. (They make mistakes too – see, Vioxx, gastric bypass surgery, Avendia, for examples.)
I am so glad they are being charged. I remember being outraged when I read about this. An eleven year old girl is dead. Her parents’ freedom of religion can’t be more important than her life.