I'm a bit surprised no one picked up this story yet. Given some of the topics in the "surrogacy" thread, I think it might be of some interest.
quote:Dale and Leilani Neumann had not taken their daughter to a doctor since she was 3 years old, police said. Leilani Neumann has said the family does not belong to any organized religion or faith but believes in the Bible and that healing comes from God.
The girl died Sunday of diabetic ketoacidosis, a treatable though serious condition of type 1 diabetes in which acid builds up in the blood.
I'm mostly for not interfering with how parents raise their children. But I am incredibly relieved to know that their other children are no longer under their care.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
yes, when there is measurable physical harm.
For any other reason...I don't know. There is damage from emotional harm as well, but so much damage results from taking children from their parents that the parents would have to be straight out of V.C. Andrews to balance that out, I think.
I think intervention in emotionally-damaging homes is a great idea, but taking the kids away? It's burning down the house to get rid of termites. In the absence of physical or sexual abuse, it's possible (probable?) that it does more harm than good.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is it ever okay to take children away from parents?
Yes. Definitely. Like I said in the first post in the surrogacy thread, our culture recognizes the need for society to have the power to remove children from their parents.
It's a hallmark of civilization, IMO. But we need to be very careful about how that power is applied.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think intervention in emotionally-damaging homes is a great idea, but taking the kids away? It's burning down the house to get rid of termites. In the absence of physical or sexual abuse, it's possible (probable?) that it does more harm than good.
In your point, I agree.
However, if you are suggesting that this case is only emotionally-damaging, then I disagree with you. (I don't think you're suggesting that, but you can't always tell.)
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: yes, when there is measurable physical harm.
For any other reason...I don't know. There is damage from emotional harm as well, but so much damage results from taking children from their parents that the parents would have to be straight out of V.C. Andrews to balance that out, I think.
I think intervention in emotionally-damaging homes is a great idea, but taking the kids away? It's burning down the house to get rid of termites. In the absence of physical or sexual abuse, it's possible (probable?) that it does more harm than good.
I'm not even sure how to measure physical harm. What "measure" would we use? I happen to think spanking is wrong, but I don't think most spanking is wrong enough to warrant taking children...but what about when the belt comes out? Or there become bruises on top of bruises? Or when a child is hit so hard they have to go to the hospital?
You'd think that when a child is placed into a pot of boiling water and receives multiple serious burn wounds over his body that never go away that this would be a removable offense, but apparently even this is too gray for certain child and family services people because that's exactly what happened to a child I know and it took his grandparents years to get him away from his parents.
As for emotional abuse...I don't think we're even close to understanding emotional scars but that they can be deeper than physical ones. Unfortunately, I agree that emotional abuse has to be pretty darn severe (by itself...it often accompanies other forms of abuse) to warrant removal on its own because it's just as likely they'll be abused emotionally by someone else and have to deal with that on top of dealing with being removed from their parents.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There are some days when I fervently believe that the bar for becoming a parent is set waaaay too low.
I don't know that there is anything that society can do about restricting which couple gets to have babies that doesn't make my stomach churn, though. I think that, terrible as its reputation is, the model we have now is as good as we can make it.
For right now, anyway.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Considering my girlfriend was adopted by emotionally abusive parents, I tend to agree that it is okay (and also that the bar is set too low....though in reality, there likely is no bar). It's not like you can accidentally volunteer to adopt a baby and now you're gonna take out your misfortune on the poor kid. I'm not sure what bothers me more; unplanned children who are mistreated, or parents who definitely wanted a kid, who then make him or her miserable. Gah.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yes, it is.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't believe so. Short of immediate life threatening abuse. And I don't count whackos who believe in prayer over science either. Their faith is their business. Even if it kills them.
Otherwise, these are their own families. Their own flesh and blood. It is their right and responsibility to raise their kids to the best of their ability in compliance with what they think is right.
As much as the rest of us want to interfere, it is not our place.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Even if it kills them? Fine. Even if it kills their kids? No. Not alright. Never.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't believe so. Short of immediate life threatening abuse. And I don't count whackos who believe in prayer over science either. Their faith is their business. Even if it kills them.
The problem I have with this is that the child has not chosen their faith. At 18, yes, if yo want to pray rather then take drugs, fine. But at 3, the faith isn't your own.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Even if it kills them? Fine. Even if it kills their kids? No. Not alright. Never.
Agreed.
In my book, what the Neumann's did to their daughter was just shy of murder.
The remaining children should be taken away for their safety.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think they should be left with the parents and have court-ordered checkups regularly and court-ordered medical care if necessary.
The damage done by taking them away is enormous. There are other ways of protecting them without destroying their family.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think they should be left with the parents and have court-ordered checkups regularly and court-ordered medical care if necessary.
The damage done by taking them away is enormous. There are other ways of protecting them without destroying their family.
I'd probably be fine with that. But in my perfect world, the parents will be facing charges and possible prison sentences. Which I hope happens in the real world, but one never can tell these days.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: in my perfect world, the parents will be facing charges and possible prison sentences. Which I hope happens in the real world, but one never can tell these days.
Hmm... I'm not sure if that's the best response, Javert. I don't know that it accomplishes anything other than separating children from their parents.
I don't know that a further punishment is necessary-- this couple has already lost a daughter.
I guess I'd have to be able to evaluate how well the couple would comply with court-mandated doctor checkups for the remaining children; the remorse exhibited by the parents for the death of their daughter; and the willingness of the parents to comply with any court-mandated family counseling.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
One of the problems in the children services system is that good people are hounded while those, like the parents of the kid boiled and wounded, don't get in trouble for their actions until serious harm is done. I know a good caring family who struggle like all of us but adopted a sibling group who had undergone serious abuse of all kinds who came under CPS guns when shortly after moving to a different county from the one they adopted in had one child removed because the father spanked the child - just one firm spank on the bottom no where near a beating (it literally was the last resort nothing else had gotten this kids attention). The ordeal this family suffered has caused so many more problems. If this family had been left alone many emotional problems would have been avoided.
Its hard. There is a need yet in so many instances CPS is not being used effectively.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
In the article I read, it said they still believed that if they prayed hard enough she would be ressurected, which does not lead me to believe they would willingly comply with court-ordered doctor visits.
The other kids are, however, staying with other family members, which is better than them being in a foster home as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't believe so. Short of immediate life threatening abuse. And I don't count whackos who believe in prayer over science either. Their faith is their business. Even if it kills them.
Otherwise, these are their own families. Their own flesh and blood. It is their right and responsibility to raise their kids to the best of their ability in compliance with what they think is right.
As much as the rest of us want to interfere, it is not our place.
I can't say I agree. When I had cancer at the age of about 2 years old my mother insisted that I get treatment and surgery. My father's side of the family prefered to bathe my hand in golden seal and pray. If my father's side of the family had won, perhaps I'd be dead which would suck. So I definetly think if parents are endandering their children who have disorders that can be treated and they refuse to treat them, prehaps they should get their children removed because society really doesn't consider what is best for children nearly enough. It's always parental rights. The same mother who prevented me from dying of cancer also frequently used a belt to "discipline" me whenever I "misbehaved" Some things can be handled with children being removed, like if they are clearly being beaten like by all of these people who believe in the Rod and hitting children starting at 4 months of age. The best solution is removal. For minor neglect, young inexperienced parents, in home services. It's such a complicated issue that one solution just isn't enough. There must be a different solution for each situation. One that works.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't know that a further punishment is necessary-- this couple has already lost a daughter.
The way I see it, the couple killed their daughter, much the same as if she had starved to death because they denied her food.
Further punishment is very much necessary to me.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't know that a further punishment is necessary-- this couple has already lost a daughter.
And they should be punished for being so horribly negligent that it lead to the death of their child.
It's the equivalent of leaving your child in a locked car on a hot day and then being surprised that the child dies of heat stroke.
Yes, they may not actually be heartless people. Yes, they have been punished by the death of their child.
But that is not punishment enough if they still hold to the idiocy that caused the problem in the first place. If you lock your child in a car and it kills them, and you show no signs of stopping such behavior, then your children are taken away and you're punished to the full extent of the law. If you show signs of learning from what you did, then maybe you're punished less.
The same applies to this case.
Which is why there should be charges, a trial, and a determination of any punishment (they shouldn't have me on any jury, as I'm obviously quite biased) and the best result for their surviving children.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I can certainly understand that point of view, Javert.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I don't know that a further punishment is necessary-- this couple has already lost a daughter.
The way I see it, the couple killed their daughter, much the same as if she had starved to death because they denied her food.
Further punishment is very much necessary to me.
I'm torn on this one. The thing is that if I lost a child, I'd want to die myself and I can't think of a "punishment" (assuming I'd done something wrong, on purpose or on accident, to precipitate the death) that could possibly be worse.
The trouble is that other people may not hurt that way. Who knows what this couple is feeling? Perhaps in their twisted faith, they've managed to make this all ok. In which case the death of their child is not a punishment (or at least not much of one).
So I guess the real question is this: WHAT DOES PUNISHMENT ACCOMPLISH?
Vengeance? Justice? (Also ill-defined) Discouragement for others who would do the same thing?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If a couple deliberately starved their child to the point that she died, would them being sorry about it later make it something they shouldn't be punished for?
I'm not seeing where the parents here should get off from their crime. Is it because they thought they were doing the right thing? Because it was "religiously" based? Because they can do whatever they want to their child?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
I'm not sure that gets them off punishment, but IMHO, different intents make for different crimes.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:So I guess the real question is this: WHAT DOES PUNISHMENT ACCOMPLISH?
Vengeance? Justice? (Also ill-defined) Discouragement for others who would do the same thing?
Justice and discouragement, certainly.
Vengeance? No. Nor should vengeance and justice be looked at in the same way. Justice is locking them up and protecting their living children.
Vengeance would be locking them up, protecting their living children, infecting the parents with some slow working disease and then refusing them medical treatment.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
I'm not sure that gets them off punishment, but IMHO, different intents make for different crimes.
What if they starved them because they thought it was for their own good? What if their religion told them to starve their children?
---
edit: Alternatively, what if they beat their children with rods because they took the Bible literally on that point? Should they not be punished for their child abuse in this case?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
Intent does make for different crimes. And there are mechanisms within the homicide statutes for making that determination. If the evidence shows that they intended the child to die and purposely withheld care to accomplish that, then they could be convicted of murder 1. If they demonstrated "depraved indifference to human life," murder 2. If they disregarded a known (to them) risk of death, manslaughter. If they genuinely made a mistake about whether care was needed, but that mistake was not reasonable, then involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
Intent does make for different crimes. And there are mechanisms within the homicide statutes for making that determination. If the evidence shows that they intended the child to die and purposely withheld care to accomplish that, then they could be convicted of murder 1. If they demonstrated "depraved indifference to human life," murder 2. If they disregarded a known (to them) risk of death, manslaughter. If they genuinely made a mistake about whether care was needed, but that mistake was not reasonable, then involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Thanks for the breakdown!
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
I'm not sure that gets them off punishment, but IMHO, different intents make for different crimes.
What if they starved them because they thought it was for their own good? What if their religion told them to starve their children?
---
edit: Alternatively, what if they beat their children with rods because they took the Bible literally on that point? Should they not be punished for their child abuse in this case?
I'm not even sure if this is a question of whether they should be punished -- it's more a matter of degree and if the fact that they lost their child is "punishment enough" or not. The truth is that I've heard of situations in which parents did things that were clearly poor judgment and led to the death of their child. For example, I recently heard of a mom getting so distracted by American Idol that she left her 2-year-old and 9-month-old in the tub and the baby drowned. Another time I heard of a woman who wasn't paying enough attention to her 10-month-old on her bed, the baby fell between the bed and the headboard and strangled to death. I think these are pretty obvious oversights -- even negligent -- that led to the death of a child but what punishment is justified for that or is the loss of a baby punishment enough?
The whole "God told me" thing is confusing to me on a lot of levels. There are some extents people take it to that I feel are insane, but again, where do we draw the line? The question of whether or not parents should be required to get medical care for sick kids has been around for a long time and doesn't seem any closer to being resolved. It seems that we basically leave these parents alone as long as their kids don't actually die. When they do die, we get outraged. Well, then it's too late. So what do we do? Punish them? What does that do? We're the ones who didn't act.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So what if a couple's homophobic religion drives their gay child to commit suicide?
There's a lot of ways to abuse a child to death short of starving them or praying to cure their appendicitis.
Don't be so quick to take children away from their parents, even if it seems clear cut.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Don't be so quick to take children away from their parents, even if it seems clear cut.
One of their children is dead. In this case, at least, any action that is taken is anything but 'quick'.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Javert: Should fundementalist parents have their kids taken away if one of their gay ones swallows a bottle of pills?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't understand the connections you seem to be drawing there, Pix. Because there are other ways to abuse their children that may be more ambiguous, we shouldn't punish parents when they clearly, unambiguously abuse their kids? That seems to me to be what you are saying and it doesn't make any sense to me.
---
Christine, I don't see this ambivilence to requiring medical care for sick kids that you do. From my perspective, if a parent is depriving their kids of necessary medical treatment, this is considered by a majority of people as wrong and something the state should step in for. Though I'm not sure about this, my impression is that the legal issue is somewhat settled as well, that the state can force necessary medical treatment over parents' objections.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Javert: Should fundementalist parents have their kids taken away if one of their gay ones swallows a bottle of pills?
Not necessarily.
But that is nothing like the case of the Neumann family. What's your point?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Both are cases of abusing a child to death.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Both are cases of abusing a child to death.
One is much more active than the other.
If the parents of the gay child told him that god would prefer he be dead than gay and then gave him the pills, it would be equivalent.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually, isn't NOT taking your kids to the doctor rather INactive?
Creating an atmosphere of hostility towards gay people is rather active.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
I'm not sure that gets them off punishment, but IMHO, different intents make for different crimes.
What if they starved them because they thought it was for their own good? What if their religion told them to starve their children?
---
edit: Alternatively, what if they beat their children with rods because they took the Bible literally on that point? Should they not be punished for their child abuse in this case?
Hell yeah, they should be punished for child abuse in cases like that. Especially when it's infants and toddlers. If folks don't act as soon as possible, what happens to the kids? Parental rights are all well and good, but not at the expense of a child's health and wellbeing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:One is much more active than the other.
I don't know about active. Denying medical care is much, much more direct than holding and expressing bad opinions of gay people being a possible contributing factor in someone's suicide.
I still don't understand the logic of using the weaker case to argue against the stronger. This seems nonsensical to me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It makes sense only because in Pix's worldview homophobia is the central condition to which everything else gets related.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ok, let's step away from homophobia.
What if parents don't use a child seat? Is it ok to take their kids away after one goes through the windshield? Heck, we used to ride around in the back of my dad's pick up truck. Next thing ya know kids are going to have to be wrapped head to toe in bubble wrap before you can put them in a moving vehicle.
How about Vegans? If their child dies from malnourishment, is it ok to take the rest of their kids away?
What if the parents are Environmentalists and refuse to heat the house? Then their child dies from pneumonia because of it. Shall we take the rest of the kids away then?
When you make it ok to interfere in other people's lives due to their wacky beliefs, eventually it's going to come home to roost due to your own wacky beliefs.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: ... infecting the parents with some slow working disease and then refusing them medical treatment.
Is it truly vengeance if the target doesn't think you're doing anything bad to them? Presumably, they'd think they get resurrected anyways if they die in accordance to God's will.
No, you'd need to infect them with a disease. And if they think that God's will is for them to die, you'd have to *brutally* perform medicine on them thwarting God's will. If they think that God's will is for them to live, *then* you have to refuse them medical treatment
Theoretically anyways. If I was planning vengeance, which I'm not. I'm just saying, if you plan vengeance you have to do it right.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It is illegal in most (all?) states for kids under certain weight/height limits to ride in a car without a child seat. I expect violators to be prosecuted, whether it's found due to an accident or a traffic stop.
If a child dies from malnourishment, I'd subject it to the same intent scale Dag listed above for this case, whether it's from not feeding them at all or intentionally feeding them an inadaquate diet. (Veganism by itself is not an inadaquate diet, and is not going to kill someone.)
If a child catches pneumonia and is not treated, it's the same as this case. If it is promptly taken to the hospital and dies anyway, and it's determined that the rest of the kids are in an unsafe living condition, I'd actually expect the house to be condemed.
People have the right to follow whatever wacky beliefs they want. They don't have the right to inflict ones that a reasonable person would consider dangerous on their kids.
-----
As for this case, if the parents don't end up in jail, I don't actually want to see the rest of their kids taken away from them permenantly. What I'd like to see is a court-appointed non-cusdotial guardian (There's a term for guardians who just have the right to make decisions about medical issues in the interests of the child's welfare, but I can't remember what it is), preferably a local member of the extended family, who has the authority to take them to regular doctor's visits and check up on them on demand, preferably once a week or so. That way the kids get to stay with their parents, and a concerned party makes sure they get annual check-ups and any ongoing treatment they need. It wouldn't necessarily get them timely treatment in the even of, say, a broken arm from falling out of a tree, but it would probably catch most issues.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
If the children had been injured several times from not riding in a car seat, if the Vegan child had shown obvious, visible signs of malnourishment for some time, if the Environmentalist's children had suffered lots of illnesses and injuries from lack of heat, THEN the situation would be parallel.
These parents refused to call on outside help, even when their child had suffered a serious illness for a long time. she was IN A COMA, and her parents still did nothing but pray. The definition of stupidity. They continued to do the same thing that had led to her illness.
Are they bad, horrible, terrible humans? Not necessarily. Are they severely lacking in judgment? Obviously. Will this experience give them the judgment skills they need to raise their other children in a safe way? Sadly, probably no.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just to throw this out there...
What about people who don't provide adaquate care for their child not because of what they belive but because they can't? Homeless families, families with no insurance, who have trouble affording good food and so forth?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: When you make it ok to interfere in other people's lives due to their wacky beliefs, eventually it's going to come home to roost due to your own wacky beliefs.
If your wacky beliefs, whatever they may be, cause the death of a child and have the potential to do it to more children, then we're morally obligated to take your children from you.
The level of 'taking them away' changes based on the severity of the initial problem. Maybe it means taking the children away physically. Maybe it only means taking away the parents' ability to inflict the negative effects of their wacky beliefs on their children.
If my wacky beliefs caused the death of my children, I would hope someone would step in to protect them. As it is, I don't think I have any wacky beliefs at all, let alone ones that could lead to death. Here's hoping, anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Maybe this was said but I didn't catch it as I glossed over the thread.
I sure hope somebody can explain to these parents what a terrible mistake they have made and where they went wrong.
I don't think tossing the parents into jail and dispersing the children around is the best our society can do in these instances.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I do think it's worth noting that the children are with extended family. And, since it was their grandmother who eventually alerted the authorities, it's probable that their family is more reasonable than the parents.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How do the child's wishes factor into this? We generally don't let children make all the same decisions we allow adults to make, especially when their lives are threatened. If the child knew (confirmed in whatever manner you wish to use) that she would likely die without the treatment yet chose to refuse it, should we let her refuse?
Some hypotheticals to explore the boundaries:
1.) How do likelihood of success and side effects factor in? Do we force a child to undergo chemo that doubles the chance to live from 25% to 50%? From 10% to 20%?
2.) How about a situation where a 12-year old girl will face a 40% chance of death if she doesn't have an abortion?
3.) If embryonic stem cells form the basis for a viable treatment for a likely fatal disease, can the child refuse the treatment? How about if the disease isn't fatal, but is crippling (assume the treatment won't work once the child is 18)?
Let's assume that the state of the law on abortion and personhood is the same as it is now.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I don't see any argument for the defense of depriving a diabetic of insulin to the point of ketoacidosis, whatever your god tells you to do. It's stupid to throw away a perfectly acceptable kid's life by depriving him or her of drugs that you need to live. While some could say it's god's will, I, in this case, would say screw god, common sense says we should help this person in the same way we would help someone unknowingly walking in front of a bus, maybe yell at them, offer our aid. No amount of faith and no amount of pleading can justify the knowledgeable maltreatment of a child who died for apparently one specific reason, the withholding of medicine particular and necessary to her disease.
I think this is at least partially a case of uninformed parents relying on the superstition that either their child will get better magically, or otherwise it's not gods will (but then by the same reasoning, one shouldn't yell to people walking in front of buses, for obviously they should have figured out their own way to avoid that catastrophe, in the same way they seem to expect this diabetic to avoid being killed by it) The drugs exist that would have saved this life. The parents chose not to yell out and save her from the bus of diabetes, here, and that is criminal.
I can see, maybe, if the parents did not recognize symptoms of diabetes, but they had to know something was wrong, and therefore not taking the child to the doctor is still on par with not yelling to the bus-walker, and is criminal.
I agree that for other cases of neglect and child endangerment and abuse there is a gradient of responses necessary, but this seems a very sad and clear-cut case of the combination of beliefs those parents hold and the lack of understanding they have for healthcare make them dangerously unfit parents.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I read that 75% of the children that are currently uninsured in the US are eligible for medicaid or chip (so free or nearly free medical care). I found this fairly upsetting. I am not sure how I would fix it, but it does make me think a lot of parents aren't providing medical care for more reasons then just religion. The one person I know who's kids are not covered just doesn't feel like doing the paperwork (or calling the help number and asking them to do it for her).
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Dag, my own answers, with the knowledge that there's no perfect answers.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: How do the child's wishes factor into this? We generally don't let children make all the same decisions we allow adults to make, especially when their lives are threatened. If the child knew (confirmed in whatever manner you wish to use) that she would likely die without the treatment yet chose to refuse it, should we let her refuse?
It depends on how old the child is, for one. In general, I would say that if the child is in their mid-to-late teens, I would be inclined to let them make the choice. For practicalities sake, call it the age where they could legally be emancipated in their jurisdiction. Let them go before a Family Court judge, the same sort of judge that would hold their emancipation hearing, and make their case. If that person holds they are competent to make decisions for their own medical care, so be it.
I think in most places that age is 14 or 15. I'd be uncomfortable with giving blanket responsibility for their own medical decisions to anyone younger than that. For those younger, I'd stick with the "reasonable adult" standard. Would a reasonable adult be likely to accept or refuse this treatment? In your hypothetical 1, I think a reasonable adult would be likely to take the treatment at doubling from 25% to 50%, less likely at 10% to 20%. But who makes that judgement? How about we look at the statistics of how many people accept and refuse treatment at those odds each year? A treatment that 75% of patients in the same situation opt for? Require it. One that 75% of patients refuse? Don't. Ask a statistician to draw the line of where "average" is based on the distribution of answers.
Situation 2 is hard. I'm a 50/50 girl myself, and if there's a better than 50% chance she'd survive I'd say it isn't a a danger of imminent death situation where the state should be intervening, except for to find and prosecute whoever impregnated her. But, so then what do I say when you say okay, make it 60% chance of death? I would want a trained counselor involved in the situation for sure, to try to determine if she really understands the consequences. I can tell you that at 75% I'm definitely in favor of forcing the abortion, but that's at least party because that's about where my own risk analysis would change if it was me. Between 50% and 75%? I don't know.
3), again for children too young to be emancipated, no, the child cannot refuse the treatment. Because if we're assuming the current laws, then we're also assuming the current stem cell compromise, only using approved lines that didn't come from aborted fetuses. I feel fine saying a child under the age of 14 or 15 isn't competent to make that decision and that the majority of adult Americans would accept the treatment.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Actually, isn't NOT taking your kids to the doctor rather INactive?
Creating an atmosphere of hostility towards gay people is rather active.
Parents are legally required to provide their underage children with basic physical necessities such as food, shelter and medical care.
There are no laws requiring parents to provide their children with "emotional" necessities, perhaps their should be but I doubt any one of us could define emotional necessities in a clear and unambiguous way.
I'm general uncomfortable with "emotional abuse" because I think it is so poorly defined.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
ElJay, thanks for your response.
quote:It depends on how old the child is, for one. In general, I would say that if the child is in their mid-to-late teens, I would be inclined to let them make the choice
I would agree that's an important factor. I'm not sure about tying it to emancipation, but the mechanics of guardian ad litem and family court likely work. I think the factors that have to be evaluated include the medical risks, the probability of treatment working, and the reason for refusal.
quote:How about we look at the statistics of how many people accept and refuse treatment at those odds each year? A treatment that 75% of patients in the same situation opt for? Require it. One that 75% of patients refuse? Don't. Ask a statistician to draw the line of where "average" is based on the distribution of answers.
I'm very uncomfortable with using what most people would do as the baseline. The problem, of course, is that I can't think of anything better right now.
quote:I can tell you that at 75% I'm definitely in favor of forcing the abortion
Not surprisingly, I strongly disagree. I can't really cypher out how much of that disagreement comes from my beliefs about how wrong abortion is and how much is about my feelings that the reason should count. Assuming someone thinks abortion is the intentional killing of a human being, I have a hard time forcing them to undergo the procedure. Note that I don't support making an abortion illegal in the 75% case.
quote:again for children too young to be emancipated, no, the child cannot refuse the treatment. Because if we're assuming the current laws, then we're also assuming the current stem cell compromise, only using approved lines that didn't come from aborted fetuses
The approved line requirement only applies to federal funding.
quote: I feel fine saying a child under the age of 14 or 15 isn't competent to make that decision and that the majority of adult Americans would accept the treatment.
Pretty much the same thing here, except that I think this highlights my problem with the "What would the majority do?" solution, because I suspect far fewer people would reject this treatment. However, the moral issue is exactly the same to many people.
It seems as if you don't factor the reason for refusal into your decisions, except to the extent that most people take it into account. That could be because it wasn't as explicitly called out in the hypotheticals, so I'm not sure my interpretation is correct.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Parents are legally required to provide their underage children with basic physical necessities such as food, shelter and medical care.
To expand a little, the failure to perform a legally required duty can fulfill the actus reus element of a crime - from the law's perspective, an omission of an legally required act is an act.
quote:I'm general uncomfortable with "emotional abuse" because I think it is so poorly defined.
And "poorly defined" means "easy to abuse."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The only way I would tie it to emancipation is by using the same age requirements. I think if we as a society say that someone at X age can, after evaluation by a judge, be found competent to make their own decisions, then we can't rightly say that someone at the same age can't be found competent to make their own medical decisions through the same type of test.
I thought for a long time about using what most people would do as a baseline. The only other thing I came up with is a one-on-one evaluation with a counselor to determine if the child really understood the situation and the consequences. But there's several problems with that. One, I don't think a, say, 5 year old could meet that test, but there's definitely procedures I would allow a 5 year old's parent's to refuse for them. Two, then you get into the biases of the individual making the evaluation. I would rather go with a wider pool of what most people would do than let one person who is not the child's parent make the call.
For the most part, I'd rather the parent was making the call, of course. This would only come into play in the case of parents who refused all medical treatment. Perhaps it could be a team of doctors, or the hospital's ethics committee? Although the "pillow angel" case showed that those solutions can be quite flawed. Perhaps instead of using statistics based on the general population, we use them based on the decisions other parents have made for their minor children?
quote:Not surprisingly, I strongly disagree. I can't really cypher out how much of that disagreement comes from my beliefs about how wrong abortion is and how much is about my feelings that the reason should count. Assuming someone thinks abortion is the intentional killing of a human being, I have a hard time forcing them to undergo the procedure. Note that I don't support making an abortion illegal in the 75% case.
Like I said, situation 2 is hard. It was definitely the hardest of the three for me. another factor you didn't mention was what are the odds given on the baby surviving? If the odds are 40% that both the mother and the baby will die in the second trimester and the mother would live with the abortion, does that make a difference? 75%?
I considered including reason for refusal in my evaluations, but the only place I did was in wanting a trained counselor involved in situation 2. I didn't lay it out explicitly, but I would expect finding out and considering the reasons to be part of making sure the girl understood the situation and the consequences. For the most part, though, I left it out because I don't know how we judge what's a good reason and what isn't. We've already decided that the parents' reason isn't good enough, or we wouldn't be in this spot. How can we say they parents' reason isn't good enough, but the child's is? I don't think we can say it's okay to put a child's life in danger by allowing them to refuse medical treatment for reason Y but not for reason X. That gets back to Pix's line -- if you say it's not okay for other people's reasons, eventually someone's going to say it's not okay for your reason. I think we have to say either it's okay or it isn't.
Incidentally, in situation 2, if this was not a family that refused all medical treatment, I would let the family make the decision and wouldn't try to force the abortion on the girl regardless of the possible consequences. I am taking this strictly as applying to situations where decisions about the child's medical welfare have been removed from the parents because they don't believe in modern medicine for whatever reason. If they have been taking their daughter to the doctor regularly and when necessary, consult with the doctor when the girl becomes pregnant, and refuse the abortionand she does not object I'm fine with that decision. I do not think refusing the abortion alone is grounds for removing their parental rights.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And "poorly defined" means "easy to abuse."
I know people who complain that they were emotional abused because their parents didn't praise them enough. Talk about diluting the meaning of the word abuse to a non-nonsensical level.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... non-nonsensical level.
Is non-nonsensical the same as sensical? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The only way I would tie it to emancipation is by using the same age requirements. I think if we as a society say that someone at X age can, after evaluation by a judge, be found competent to make their own decisions, then we can't rightly say that someone at the same age can't be found competent to make their own medical decisions through the same type of test.
That makes sense. I think there are situations where a child might not be ready to be emancipated but might be ready to make this kind of decision, though.
quote:This would only come into play in the case of parents who refused all medical treatment.
This changes my perception of your original post on the subject dramatically.
quote:Perhaps instead of using statistics based on the general population, we use them based on the decisions other parents have made for their minor children?
I'm still uncomfortable with this, but less so. Based on my prior understanding, there didn't seem to be room for medical decisions made outside the mainstream. So my biggest objection is gone.
There are other objections, some of which you've pointed out yourself (difficulty of determination, for example).
quote:Perhaps it could be a team of doctors, or the hospital's ethics committee? Although the "pillow angel" case showed that those solutions can be quite flawed.
This brings up an ugly possibility - that continuing treatment might be abusive. I've seen arguments made that certain forms of aggressive treatment amount to child abuse in certain situations. I can see situations where it might be, but I have little doubt that some non-significant number of those decisions would be based on characteristics such as the presence of a disability (see pillow angel again).
quote:I considered including reason for refusal in my evaluations, but the only place I did was in wanting a trained counselor involved in situation 2. I didn't lay it out explicitly, but I would expect finding out and considering the reasons to be part of making sure the girl understood the situation and the consequences. For the most part, though, I left it out because I don't know how we judge what's a good reason and what isn't. We've already decided that the parents' reason isn't good enough, or we wouldn't be in this spot. How can we say they parents' reason isn't good enough, but the child's is? I don't think we can say it's okay to put a child's life in danger by allowing them to refuse medical treatment for reason Y but not for reason X. That gets back to Pix's line -- if you say it's not okay for other people's reasons, eventually someone's going to say it's not okay for your reason. I think we have to say either it's okay or it isn't.
I think there's a qualitative difference between a child putting herself in danger for an ethical (to her) reason and a parent putting the child in danger for an ethical (to them) reason.
I'm not particularly concerned about judging the reason to be good enough, but rather the child's understanding of the reason and the child's understanding of her medical condition, including the implications of treatment. Assume we had a perfect means of determining whether the child was really making a fully-informed decision. Then I would support the child's right to refuse insulin because she believes she should pray rather than receive medical treatment. At the same time, if we knew the child did not want to refuse treatment or didn't understand either the ethical or medical aspects of the situation, I would favor legal intervention to get her treatment.
We don't have that perfect information, of course. Therefore we will have errors going in both directions - treating when we shouldn't (according to the principle I've outlined above) and not treating when we should. I prefer a system that emphasizes avoiding the second type of error.
In making that determination, the reason stated by the child will be an important factor. And the perceived "quality" of the reason will make it more or less believable whether the reason is fully understood and sincerely held.
Obviously, the whole enterprise is fraught with peril.
****
Ultimately, it sounds as if, given good parenting (for some definition of "good" we won't precisely express here), you favor allowing a child to refuse treatment for ethical reasons. I agree as a general principle. I think a good parent-child relationship will be a far more effective means of determining if the child understands the implications of her decision than any legal mechanism we could create.
I think we should still have such a legal mechanism, of course, and we should make it as good as it can be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Further developments in this case:
quote: Two followers of a fundamentalist Christian church that favours faith healing over conventional medicine are to be prosecuted for manslaughter after their daughter died of a treatable infection.
Carl and Raylene Worthington were indicted by a grand jury in Oregon's Clackamas county following the death of their 15-month-old daughter Ava in March.
The toddler died of bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection, according to the state medical examiner's office - both conditions that could have been treated with antibiotics.
The parents, who surrendered to police on Friday, are members of the Followers of Christ, a fundamentalist church in Oregon with about 1,500 members. They were released on $250,000 (£126,000) bail.
So manslaughter charges, sounds reasonable enough.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It depends on how old the child is, for one. In general, I would say that if the child is in their mid-to-late teens, I would be inclined to let them make the choice. For practicalities sake, call it the age where they could legally be emancipated in their jurisdiction. Let them go before a Family Court judge, the same sort of judge that would hold their emancipation hearing, and make their case. If that person holds they are competent to make decisions for their own medical care, so be it.
Just for clarification,14 year olds can consent to medical care in Alabama - medical consent laws vary by state.
From the Alabama code Section 22-8-4:
quote:Any minor who is 14 years of age or older, or has graduated from high school, or is married, or having been married is divorced or is pregnant may give effective consent to any legally authorized medical, dental, health or mental health services for himself or herself, and the consent of no other person shall be necessary.
They also have the right to refuse medical treatment, and as long as they are at least 14 the parent cannot override that - my husband has seen it come up when parents will call 911 and the child doesn't wish to go to the hospital. If they're 14, they can refuse treatment and he can't take them to the hospital. Or if they're pregnant - at any age (and yes, my hubby has treated pregnant girls who were under 14).
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
This topic has made a few turns since I left it! I just wanted to address one thing, though:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Christine, I don't see this ambivilence to requiring medical care for sick kids that you do. From my perspective, if a parent is depriving their kids of necessary medical treatment, this is considered by a majority of people as wrong and something the state should step in for. Though I'm not sure about this, my impression is that the legal issue is somewhat settled as well, that the state can force necessary medical treatment over parents' objections.
Ambivalence? I'm actually outraged that the people who are supposed to protect children didn't get this child care when it would have done her some good -- before sue died. But we (society) are reluctant to make those decisions for a parent for all the reasons Dag pointed out and more. So instead of making a decision (as a society) we're wishy washy about it, don't take action when it does any good, and then want to talk about punishment as if that will solve anything. It's the punishment I'm ambivalent about -- not the medical care. We won't make up our mind whether something is right or wrong and then we want to come around and punish a person for it after the fact? Well, I guess I'm not sure why that does anyone any good.
Parents cannot raise their children any way they want. They have quite a bit of latitude, but we have stepped in and said no to certain things -- such as starving them. We haven't said no to no medical care, possibly because we don't want to step on the toes of religion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mucus, that's a different story, isn't it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Christine, I'm puzzled by your reaction. What do you think I mean when I'm talking about ambivalence?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*checks* *double-checks*
Yikes. Indeed you're right. I just saw this in my RSS feeds and I assumed it was the same case. It didn't really come to my mind that something so similar would have happened/been reported twice this close together.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Christine, I'm puzzled by your reaction. What do you think I mean when I'm talking about ambivalence?
I guess I thought that you thought (wow that's awkward ) that I wasn't sure whether parents should be required to get medical treatment for their children. I am definitely of the opinion that parents should be required to get life-saving medical care for their children.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, I was talking about the general public. The problem with these cases, as far as I can tell, is not that people feel two ways about them, but, generally, that people don't know about them. Where you see wishy-washy no decision making, I see the idea that whackos should be prevented from killing their kids by denying them medical care as being widely accepted.
But how do you tell when this is happening?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Oh, I see...and that does answer the question of what purpose punishment solves. If we can't always detect when these things are happening, then punishment shows others who are living the same lifestyle that such behavior is unacceptable. Thus potentially preventing another such case.
Still, it seems to me that every time this topic comes up people debate whether or not we should force parents to get medical care for their children. And if so, under what circumstances? Do we require yearly physicals? If not, many things may get missed anyway. Do we just require treatment when they're sick? How sick? If my son gets a cold, I don't always call the doctor.
One thing that has always bothered me about this area of law is the ambiguity. When has a parent crossed the line? What measure do we use? Actions (ie no checkups) or results (ie child dies)?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Still, it seems to me that every time this topic comes up people debate whether or not we should force parents to get medical care for their children. And if so, under what circumstances? Do we require yearly physicals? If not, many things may get missed anyway. Do we just require treatment when they're sick? How sick? If my son gets a cold, I don't always call the doctor.
But the discussions are mostly about drawing a line, and I seldom see anyone draw such a line that comes close to the news stories that trigger the discussions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
With the exception of some hard core libertarians, most people believe that it takes a village to raise a child and therefore the entire community and not solely the parents has some responsibility for its children.
I also think that with very few exceptions, most people feel that children's needs are best met by loving caring parents. As a result most of us feel that the community's responsibility to its children is best filled by providing support for the parents and intervening only when parents are in violation of community values.
In a monoculture, that balance is easy because nearly all members of the community share the same value system and standards for acceptable parenting are well established in tradition.
Unfortunately, that isn't at all an accurate description of our society. Our culture isn't just culturally diverse,our values and standards are also in flux. Even if you look at a very narrow slice of our society (say my family) you see an enormous diversity in what is considered good parenting. The change that has occurred over three generations (my grandparents, my parents and then my syblings) is truly remarkable.
When you extend that to the entire community it is no mystery that we are struggling with these issues. There is no easy simple answer to how to balance the communities responsibilities with the parents rights.
There are two easy extreme solutions. 1. The community assumes full responsibility for the child, negating all parental rights. Perhaps raising all children in some sort of communal boarding school.
2. The community abdicates all responsibility for its children allowing the parents the right to do whatever they see fit even if that means severe neglect or even murder.
I hope I'm right when I say that very few of us would feel comfortable with either of those extremes even if they are the simplest solutions. I think our consciences tell us that both are wrong and so we must continue to grapple with the middle ground even if we do not have clear answers.
[ April 01, 2008, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Circumstantially, neither extreme seems to be the simplest solution, just the easiest solutions to write down hypothetically.
Typically the most workable solution is to have law enforcement structures in place to take children away from abusive and/or neglectful parents, and make it a communal cost to pay for this structure and foster care.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Typically the most workable solution is to have law enforcement structures in place to take children away from abusive and/or neglectful parents, and make it a communal cost to pay for this structure and foster care.
And that solution becomes extremely complicated when you try to define what constitutes abuse or neglect in a society with diverse values and standards. Which was the entire point of my post.
But you will note, I absolutely did not endorse either of the simply defined extremes. The fact that defining abuse and neglect is a challenge does not absolve us of the ethical responsibility to keep children from being abused and neglected.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is interesting to read this thread in the light of the rescue of children from the compound in Texas.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) that I wasn't sure whether parents should be required to get medical treatment for their children. I am definitely of the opinion that parents should be required to get life-saving medical care for their children.