Kara Neumann of Weston Wisconsin died on Easter Sunday.
She died of diabetic ketoacidosis, a result of undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. This is a treatable disease, and Kara should be alive today, but her parents are members of the Unleavened Bread Ministry (I am not making this up), an online church that shuns medical intervention.
When she was dying, they never considered calling 911. Before that, when she was clearly in failing health, their "treatment" consisted of fervent prayers asking God to save her.
Those prayers went unanswered, and I am sure that they have rationalized this in their own minds as punishment by God...of them, or of Kara, or maybe both.
Her parents are presently involved in criminal trials, and each could be sentenced to up to 25 years in prison.
"We are not commanded in scripture to send people to the doctor," Unleavened Bread Ministries preacher David Eells said in a statement to his followers, "but to meet their needs through prayer and faith." Under current Wisconsin law, his followers aren't commanded by the state, either, but the judge on the case has said that, "The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct,"
This makes sense to me. If a church advocates human sacrifice, the government has no interest until someone in the church actually carries out the practice.
But this is a thorny issue. Where SHOULD the state draw the line in enforcing laws that conflict with religious belief? The decision has already been made on home schooling. The law in most states requires that all children must attend school until age 16...except in the case of churches who choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling advocates claim that the education their kids receive is at least as good as the public schools provide, although that is the subject of some debate. I wonder about the socialization of kids who are segregated in a home school environment. Some day, they are going to have to deal with the "real world." Will they be prepared, after their childhood isolation?
But the real fundamental question is: Where should society draw the line? Should the parents of Kara Neumann be allowed to condemn their child to death to honor their religious abhorrence of modern medical practice? Is that any different from the practice of human sacrifice?
It's a difficult question, and one that will not be answered easily, with over-simplified or trivial solutions. I suspect that a lot of soul searching is needed, and a lot of individual cases must be examined before any guiding principles can be established.
What do you think?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
I don't like anybody making life or death decisions for anybody but themselves.
Neither do I, Jeff, but in most states, it is against the law for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in an assisted suicide, so we really do not even have the power to make that decision for ourselves. Because it doesn't involve religious beliefs, I guess.
I wonder what the courts would decide if a church were formed that advocated assisted suicide as part of their religious beliefs.
How you're going to stop these things from happening is another matter.
As for where to draw the line, I don't think there's a single right answer for that. Wherever we draw the line, it will be to some extent arbitrary. I think that wherever the line happens to be drawn, if you deliberately let your child die unnecessarily, you've probably crossed it.
The NT Times...."Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.
“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”
Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.”
This is not a complicated case and this is not a conflict of state intrusion of religious beliefs...unless we have agreed that the church or those who claim religious agenda or beliefs are exempt from our laws.....and we have not....not if specific harm is caused to another as a result of those religious agenda or beliefs.
according to Marathon County District Attorney Jill Falstad....in a statement released at a 1 p.m. news conference, Falstad said the parents' actions meet the standard of the charges (second-degree reckless homicide).
"Second-degree reckless homicide has two elements," Falstad said. "The first element is that the defendant caused the death of another. The second element is that the defendant caused the death by criminally reckless conduct.
"In this case, that conduct was the failure to seek medical intervention. The failure to seek medical intervention created unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to Kara and the Neumanns were aware of the risk."
From Time Magazine Feb 5, 2009:
"Under current Wisconsin law, a parent cannot be convicted of child abuse or negligent homicide if they can prove they genuinely believed that calling God, instead of a doctor, was the best option available for their child. The law is part of the legacy of the 1996 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which included a landmark exemption for parents who do not seek medical care for their children for religious purposes. "
There is no way for this law to be an effective defense for the parents of any sick child. If the decision to seek medical treatment is not made when the child has reached a state of profound weakness... and has shown no level of improvement...the decision to call god instead of a doctor has proved ineffective....not the best option.
All of our freedoms...religious or not...end where the nose of the other man begins....our freedoms are limited to those actions that do not harm or endanger another person.
So, if the condition produces life-long disability or pain, that's okay? I'm sorry. I agree with the judge. If the practice of one's religious beliefs goes against the laws on the books, then the laws take precedence. These parents are clearly in violation of a number of laws, as Wil stated. And the should be tried and serve sentences in prison. What they did is murder their daughter, plain and simple.
Where should the line be drawn?
There are some on the Religious Right who believe that church dogma trumps civil and criminal laws. Here is an extreme example. But for most churches, that is clearly not the case, and most church leaders would readily admit that. I say "most," because clearly the leader of this church disagrees, as do people who vandalize abortion clinics and threaten or even murder their employees.
But I am a firm believer that churches shoouldn't meddle in government...and vice versa, so the problem is, where to draw that line. Home schooling is one exception that the courts have allowed, but in all the cases I know of, the home schoolers are required to demonstrate some level of competence in their education programs.
How about the fundamentalist Mormons (FLDS) who sell their teenage daughters into polygamous marriages? The state governments in Utah and Arizona have looked the other way most of the time, even though polygamy is clearly illegal.
There is a whole spectrum of issues here. Let's talk about some of the other ones.
Jean Harlowe, the Hollywood blonde bombshell, died a needless death at a young age (26?) because of her mother's pray-only religion.
my suspicion: it's okay for people to die. -further: this 'death' stuff is completely normal. our fervid attempts to assert ourselves against its inevitability is...well, sad.
the real answer probably goes a little something like this: (re-)clannalization. a whole slue of lines, chopping the (Human) atlas into palatable pieces once more. that Earth may again find the meal savoury.
to wax wierd.
the smaller our societies are, the more limber their practices can be. before lingos localize, folk could even float from one pod to the next. "i hear they're eatin' people in Kentucky. sounds good. -anybody comin' with?"
it's the best answer to the scariest question of all: over-population, and the indulgence(s) inherent to a certain level of ease. -once we were forced to fight a little harder for food and what-not, things'd get a whole lot cleaner.
even as we began to wash less.
because there's no right answer (or leftist, either.) just a bunch of answers for a bunch of people in a bunch of places.
inside of a single border.
time to stir the pot.
(good to see you again, Bert.)
Using my home state, Texas, as an example, homeschooling is treated the same as sending a child to a private school. As long as there is some kind of written curriculum that includes math, reading, spelling, grammar, and good citizenship, and it is taught in a bona fide manner (although since there's no requirements for standardized testing, home visits, curriculum approval, etc., I have no idea how these things are supposed to be determined), then it's legal, regardless of whether it has anything to do with religion or not.
I have no beef with the concept of homeschooling in general, although I think it's probably best when it's more, rather than less, regulated. I think that, religion or no religion, any time you start looking at laws that involve the regulation of the relationship between parents and children, it be can difficult to work out where the lines should be drawn. But the lines still have to be drawn somewhere.
I agree. There's no one right way to live. But in any given society, large or small (even down to a single family), lines have to be drawn.
Wil...Public and private schools have to jump through a bunch of hoops to attain...and retain...accreditataion. As far as I know, home schools don't have to meet most of those requirements.
So I DO have a problem with that. It allows people to keep their children from getting an education, and to substitute for that education their own narrow, parochial view of things.
How can I make such a statement? Consider that the teachers in a public school have studied for many years to attain their teaching credential. Most of them have Masters degrees. Teaching is their FULL TIME JOB, and each teacher specializes in his/her area of expertise. How likely is it that a parent could attain that level of expertise and commitment to the education of their children, along with all their other homemaking tasks?
It is not impossible, but it is highly improbable.
But the real reason for home schooling is that public schools teach science, including evolution. That is anathema to homeschoolers.
Bert, I think you're making a mistake assuming that all parents who homeschool their kids do it for religious reasons, and/or that they all do it because they don't want their kids to learn about evolution.
"How likely is it that a parent could attain that level of expertise and commitment to the education of their children, along with all their other homemaking tasks?"
Some parents who home school their children are extremely good at it, Bert. I think it's more probable than you think. At one point I was thinking about homeschooling our kids and when I started doing some research and talking to people who were doing it, I was often pleasantly surprised.
But...I still maintain, that most homeschoolers do it to limit their children's contact with secular views.
Despite the naysayers, public schools do a pretty good job. Advocates of vouchers who claim that private parochial schools are better have been shot down time after time by studies that show their students do no better on standardized tests than those in public schools.
Vouchers...that's a whole new subject...a Trojan Horse aimed at getting taxpayers to pay for private, often church-run schools. a clear violation of the First Amendment, and the courts and taxpayers have been pretty consistent in shooting down voucher programs all over the country.
That was one of my concerns about homeschooling too, Bert. But a lot of the people that are (in my opinion, anyway) doing it well are covering those sorts of social aspects of education as well.
"But...I still maintain, that most homeschoolers do it to limit their children's contact with secular views."
I wouldn't have any idea what "most homeschoolers" do, but I know that a lot of the ones I talked to weren't doing it for those reasons. Some of them were doing it because their kids had special needs (behavioral, physical, etc.) that were more than the schools in their area could handle adequately. Others were doing it because they felt the schools (public and/or private) weren't adequate. At the time, I became aware of a number of people who were doing it solely for religious reasons, and do be honest I was a bit surprised at first.
Again, I don't really have a problem with the concept of homeschooling, but if a state makes it illegal then I don't see any sensible reason to provide any exemptions based on religion.
It seems to me there's some sort of weird double-standard going on with all this stuff. And not just the double-standard involved in exempting people from obeying laws based on their religious beliefs. But what about the whole transubstantiation thing. If people really and truly believe they're eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, then aren't they engaging in ritual cannibalism?
Have you checked out the Unleavened Bread Ministries' website??
Just the name of the site will easily give anybody a clue as to the nature of the group:
"UNLEAVENED BREAD MINISTRIES--Warning: These Are America's Last Days"
It gets even better if you type the word "HEALING" in the site's search box......
I always thought that most Catholics believed that it was sort of a symbolic ritual, but I recently read what a church official said about it. He said that when he took Communion, he felt that he was literally drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Christ! I don't know how many Catholics actually feel that way. Regardless of whether they believe it or not, though, they are breaking no laws, because they are obviously NOT devouring the blood and flesh of a man who lived 2000 years ago, no matter what they think they are doing.
They say that becoming "born again" requires one to take a great "leap of faith." To truly believe in trans-substantiation would require an Olympic record leap of some sort.
Then if we're going to refuse to recognize their belief in that instance, I see no reason to take their beliefs into consideration and provide exemptions to our secular laws.
They did seek treatment outside of traditional medicine....they turned to their god for medical treatment (healing). But the point of caring for and protecting their child demanded seeking EFFECTIVE treatment...this is where they failed.
Personal interests (motivations) do not establish or are not justification for the implementation of the efforts to establish those interests as standards or as acceptable for us all.
I can hear the defense lawyer now:
"How can we be certain that Kara would not have died even if her parents had taken her to a doctor? Can we say with absolute certainty that her death was not God's will?"
No amount of expert testimony from doctors can answer that question completely.
Michael...I agree. It is actions, not beliefs that are the relevant thing here. As Ellen says, the test should be whether those actions harm others or infringe on their rights.
About ten years ago once a week for four weeks, I took an afternoon as a half day of vacation from work to attend a class given by an elderly well-known and well-loved botanist. I had heard so much about him that I wanted to experience his knowledge in person. Also in the class and taking it as part of their home schooling were two brothers about 9 and 11. They were obviously very bright, but they were rude and disruptive to the instructor and classmates. Yes, it's good to question and comment, but they came across as needy and showing off, which spoiled my experience of the class and used up two days of my vacation time.
I've heard there now are organized cooperative experiences for home-schooled children to get them together from time to time. Also, I know an atheist who is home-schooling her child.
This isn't the issue Bert. The issue is that Kara's parents didn't try...they didn't SEEK medical care. There is no guarantee given for any kind of medical treatment.
But what does this really mean? How big a difference...how much impact does home schooling actually have? There are too many variables to categorize or assess specific values to each position of this issue. Each home schooling situation is unique.
the answer would partly depend upon how broadly the definition
was applied. Through history, living sacrifices have been offered
as a way of "pleasing" the god, or gods. At certain points,
individuals who weren't really wanted around were placed on the
altar, causing some strict interpreters to remark that kind
of thing really wasn't in the true spirit of things. I only mention
this because some have characterized capital punishment as
a form of human sacrifice, which seems something of a
bleeding heart stretch. Whatever the case may be, it is
fixed in the cultural memory that a true human sacrifice
ought to be along the lines of a lovely virgin.
You could say the Neumann's were willing to sacrifice
Kara for the sake of their beliefs; and, I think this is
close to the way the judges look at it.
Then there is the current case of Daniel Hauser of
Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, similar in the sense that both
the Hausers and the Neumanns place their faith in
spirit healing, unlike in that Daniel's parents are
unwilling to sign on for his chemotherapy. At least
one reformed doctor has stated that chemo never
helped anyone; if anything, it made matters worse.
So, what are you going to do? This is a
culture known for having arrested a mother for
spanking her child. I think the Neumanns might
have taken a look around.
Ed...that is indeed the way I think and hope that the judges will look at it. And as Michael has said, society should not condemn them for their beliefs, but for their actions.
(it'd be easier to take part in The Process with clannalism. your vote, quite literally, would 'count'.)
if we were to remove Law, we might find things to be a lot more tolerable. -while it's an easy leap to start spouting a litany against so-called Anarchy, further investigation would reveal that we did (and do) just fine about interpersonal shit withOUT a Big Book, and Enforcers (of said).
the only thing wrong with a good old-fashioned brawl?
absolutely nothing.
to 'demand satisfaction' from an offending party is not only logical; it is native. built right the heck IN, quite frankly...and it's one of multitudinous things tamped down.
by default.
in the name of Keeping The Peace, we instead simmer.
i ask you: what good is it to cling to Life so hard? -why keep grandma doped up in a corner, nigh-unto catatonic?
how selfish IS that?
at a glance, it's MY stance that might seem the more self-centered. 'thomas,' one could reason, 'just wants to punch somebody's lights out.'
well...yeah. kinda.
more to the quick, though: i'd like to be left alone. failing this, i'd like to be left alone...with MY PEOPLE, whoever those may be. to fend for ourselves; to die well; to take our place in the natural order without requesting a by-your-leave to keel the f*ck over.
i don't want to be a toothless mouth to feed.
and none of us SHOULD want that.
i don't want to tell you how to live.
i don't want to jail you.
i want Freedom to be more than some tricksy word, manipulated at Somebody Else's will.
There was one other reference, in a completely different discussion group, and guess who used it there. Yup.
So, I asked Google to define it for me. Nope.
So...tell me about this word.
Thomas, I agree with you about the futility of clinging to life in hopeless cases, but I fail to see the similarity between that catatonic grandma and a child with a fully treatable condition. And the principle of self-determination is, as its name says, about making decisions about one's own life. I may throw mine away if I feel like (though there is the consideration of how my doing so would affect others), but I may do no such thing with the life of anyone else. And if that anyone else is a minor under my care, I have an obligation to protect them.
Homeschooling--I have concerns about it too, but I agree with Wil that it's done for various and sometimes quite legitimate reasons. (There is a homeschooler here on Gather who's definitely not the religious kind--Andrea R.)
after hearing the testimony of five doctors, ruled that Daniel must proceed
with radiation and chemotherapy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30763438/
I didn't get too much into the facts about the Neumanns, except for the part
about belonging to an internet church called The Unleavened Bread Ministry.
With the Hauser family, there is little to suggest they are not a nice family,
At thirteen, Daniel cannot read. That's unusual. The parents allowed him
to interrupt a five stage chemo session after he complained following
the first; and, they let it be known he is eating a lot of broccoli and
drinking ionized water.
'the Olde Way(s)', to sum it crude. -i think our best-case is to break into smaller groups. (also i wanted to distance myself somewhat from 'clannism', since it's been commandeered by AIDsfricans in the very worst way...which is to say, the reasons are too absurd for me to concur. -so: a koine.)
On the contrary, there is a good chance that the parallel development of larger and larger organizational units and the progressive expansion of the moral circle has not been a coincidence. We instinctively divide people into "we" and "them", into "like me" and "other", and it takes long-term contact and interaction for the "other" to become "like me"--to move into our circle of moral regard. Fragmentation might be a very bad idea, even if otherwise it were feasible.
Maybe it doesn't make any difference. Maybe in the end, it's just human nature. Have we become more civilized, more peaceable in the last thousand or two thousand years? It would be hard to make that case.
I just finished "The Talisman," by Sir Walter Scott, published mid to early 1800's.
Scott, many recall, is credited with inventing the historical novel. The story
is set in the Third Crusade, I think, around 1300. Anyway, it's Christians
and Muslims going at in the neighborhood of Palestine. Any brief review I
would give it, comment, or attempt to summarized, really wouldn't do the
book justice. I'll just enter it into the evidence in the attempt to answer
that question, Bert. Mark it Exhibit A.
Do you have an opinion?
Would you venture that Christians have a moral advantage over Muslims?
My personal opinion is...NAH!
They are equally morally bankrupt.
The problem is...religious views are morally bankrupt...muslim, christian, or anything else.
Let's talk about REAL morality...the kind that relates to the poor people who are oppressed by all of those supposedly moral dogmas.
Do those dogmas make sense? Do they lead to a better, more moral society?
They will have a very hard time proving that. I think it is likely that their moral teachings have led to increased warfare, conflict, bloodshed and oppression.
I invite opposing views to refute this.
On this one, I am close to "two wrongs do not make a right."
Bear in mind, Sir Walter Scott wrote for the money. The crash
of 1825 wiped him out, (he was spending like there was no
tomorrow,) his fortune at the time in excess of 120,000 pounds.
He was wealthy, and knew what to steer clear of. The only religious
figures in "The Talisman" were the court clerics who had come
along with the party and a native holy hermit, an occultist, naturally.
King Richard (The Lionhearted) led a consortium of
European nations that ultimately disintegrated.
Nevertheless, the story makes it clear that the Christian
participants are carrying out the action as a duty to God and
church, relayed by way of the Pope and his associates. Indeed,
one of the main themes of the book revolves around the silk
banner, I think a white cross on a red field, and the importance
attached to the flag by everyone. Also, the code of chivalry
spelled many things for which a good knight was supposed to be
willing to die.
Hollywood has made dozens of movies based on Scott novels.
Scott, himself, was shameless in admitting that he chose "Knights
and Ladies" themes primarily because he knew such themes
guaranteed immediate interest.
As you know, the theme of my studies since around 2002
has asked the (general) question, "How is it that powerful people
have gotten so good at getting the citizens to believe and do whatever
they seem to want them, the people, that is, to do?"
The church is right in the middle of this question -- can't seem
to escape the fact.
Did you note that in the Neumann's case, looking into it,
the elements of the issues of government prying have
become part of the defense?
Isn't this kind of ironic, since so many of us have been
asking, in vain, by appearances, the fundamentalist church
to stick to its knitting.
Anyway, the story continues as we speak, and the
more I study it, the more my considered opinions yield
to plain astonishment.
I taught for a year in a Catholic High School. The nun that was the head of the English department would always say, "God gave us brains and he expects us to use them."
One time we were putting a shelf together ... why? The maintance staff was busy and the directions, a screwdriver and the need to get thing together were all that was needed -- not prayer.
I do not understand why people pray instead of using the medicines we have available. Get medical help and pray as you need.
That makes perfect sense to me, Anita. But apparently it did not to Kara's parents.
The Unleavened Bread Ministries web site contains extensive material on the Neumann case. Interesting reading.