Wisconsin parents go on trial in daughter's death

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/should-parents-who-call-god-instead-doctor-be-punished

Quote :

Last Easter Sunday, 11-year-old Kara Neumann of Weston, Wisconsin, lay motionless on her bed, too weak to walk or speak. If her parents had called the hospital that day, Kara might have lived. Instead, Dale and Leilani—followers of the Unleavened Bread Ministry, an online church that shuns medical intervention—knelt in prayer beside her. Kara died a few hours later of diabetic ketoacidosis, a result of undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes.

Are Dale and Leilani guilty of reckless endangerment? That's a question juries will start to answer this week as Leilani stands trial May 14.

As sad is this story is, at least one state Senator in Wisconsin wants to change the law to protect parents from criminal prosecution in cases like this.How this Senator can justify protecting parents who allow their children to die by witholding medical treatment is beyond me.

Quote :

Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) and the Church of Christ, Scientist in Wisconsin are currently working on legislation that may further impact children's health care by creating an "affirmative defense" for religious parents who choose "faith healing" over mainstream medicine.

I wonder what the "pro-life" crowd thinks of this.

Heretic wrote:

I wonder what the "pro-life" crowd thinks of this.

Simple. Once out of the womb,they're on their own.

Over half of the states have laws which shield parents from prosecution in cases like this. The parent's right to religious freedom supercedes the children's right to life. How can any parent put dogmatic beliefs above the health of their children. Here is what one "so-called" minister says about the subject.

Quote :

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."

It's really a shame that the media doesn't focus more attention on cases like these. We treat killers on death row better than these parents treat their children.

Quote :

An Oregonian couple was charged last year with criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, who died from complications of a severely painful but easily treatable urinary tract infection. Earlier this year, a judge refused to drop criminal charges against another Oregon couple in the death of their 15-month-old daughter, who likely would have survived had she received antibiotics.

Can anyone say Jett Travolta?

Karen, you hit the nail.

Parent(s) should be thrown in the pen under the guise of pure NEGLECT.

The churches should be held responsible as well as the parents when it comes to believing prayer heals, and medical attention is not sought. It's just wrong.

This is where the gov't should step in and make it a law that prayer isn't the answer.

What about a case like the one a couple of years ago, when the 16 year old boy had been fighting cancer for years, and was losing his battle. He was in terrible pain from the treatments, and wanted it to stop. His parents wanted it to stop, too. The courts made them continue radiation and chemo, and of course, the kid died anyway, painfully.

Another case of where a teenager already had 3 kidney transplants which had failed. He was getting dialysis again, and his other organs were being affected. He wanted to stop, and his parents wanted to stop, but the courts said he had to continue. He died shortly afterwards.
Neglect is differant, but when you let the government do all, you are no longer a parent, the government is.

Tiger1 wrote:

What about a case like the one a couple of years ago, when the 16 year old boy had been fighting cancer for years, and was losing his battle. He was in terrible pain from the treatments, and wanted it to stop. His parents wanted it to stop, too. The courts made them continue radiation and chemo, and of course, the kid died anyway, painfully.

Another case of where a teenager already had 3 kidney transplants which had failed. He was getting dialysis again, and his other organs were being affected. He wanted to stop, and his parents wanted to stop, but the courts said he had to continue. He died shortly afterwards.

Any links to support this?

Add a decade to those kids, and you have Terry Schiavo. There is a difference between exhausting all treatment options and accepting the inevitable and not getting medical attention at all. If the kids and parents agreed, who stuck their nose in and alerted the court?

UrRight wrote:

Karen, you hit the nail.

Parent(s) should be thrown in the pen under the guise of pure NEGLECT.

The churches should be held responsible as well as the parents when it comes to believing prayer heals, and medical attention is not sought. It's just wrong.

This is where the gov't should step in and make it a law that prayer isn't the answer.

I think holding the church responsible if a child dies because the parents were following the church's teaching would save children's lives. Lock up a few of these crackpot ministers who are using religion to shield themselves from the law and I bet their attitudes would change in a hurry.Children should not be dying because medical care is deliberately withheld.

KarenT wrote:

Add a decade to those kids, and you have Terry Schiavo. There is a difference between exhausting all treatment options and accepting the inevitable and not getting medical attention at all. If the kids and parents agreed, who stuck their nose in and alerted the court?

I would hope the coroner did. In this case in Oregon, a 15 month old baby died because the parents withheld medical treatment.

Quote :

Earlier this year, a judge refused to drop criminal charges against another Oregon couple in the death of their 15-month-old daughter, who likely would have survived had she received antibiotics.

Heretic wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

What about a case like the one a couple of years ago, when the 16 year old boy had been fighting cancer for years, and was losing his battle. He was in terrible pain from the treatments, and wanted it to stop. His parents wanted it to stop, too. The courts made them continue radiation and chemo, and of course, the kid died anyway, painfully.

Another case of where a teenager already had 3 kidney transplants which had failed. He was getting dialysis again, and his other organs were being affected. He wanted to stop, and his parents wanted to stop, but the courts said he had to continue. He died shortly afterwards.

Any links to support this?

Any links to support that?

Here's one judge that knows how parents should act when their children has a life threatening disease.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo

Quote :

MINNEAPOLIS – A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services....
Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent....
Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.
The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.

That's awesome. Not only are they stopping the religious wingnuts, they're going after the alt med morons, too.

I wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

What about a case like the one a couple of years ago, when the 16 year old boy had been fighting cancer for years, and was losing his battle. He was in terrible pain from the treatments, and wanted it to stop. His parents wanted it to stop, too. The courts made them continue radiation and chemo, and of course, the kid died anyway, painfully.

Another case of where a teenager already had 3 kidney transplants which had failed. He was getting dialysis again, and his other organs were being affected. He wanted to stop, and his parents wanted to stop, but the courts said he had to continue. He died shortly afterwards.

Any links to support this?

Nothing? I gotta agree with KarenT. If this situation was as cut and dry as you claim, I have to wonder what legal authority the courts had to intervene. It sounds suspicious.

Tiger1 wrote:

What about a case like the one a couple of years ago, when the 16 year old boy had been fighting cancer for years, and was losing his battle. He was in terrible pain from the treatments, and wanted it to stop. His parents wanted it to stop, too. The courts made them continue radiation and chemo, and of course, the kid died anyway, painfully.

Another case of where a teenager already had 3 kidney transplants which had failed. He was getting dialysis again, and his other organs were being affected. He wanted to stop, and his parents wanted to stop, but the courts said he had to continue. He died shortly afterwards.
Neglect is differant, but when you let the government do all, you are no longer a parent, the government is.

I agree with you, Tiger, what I was referring to was this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_re_us/us_med_forced_chemo;_ylt=AqCxOC5oXFFfImm3A5ZoNgYDW7oF

Minn. judge rules teen must see cancer doctor


This photo taken on May 8, 2009 shows Daniel Hauser, 13, in New Ulm, Minn. His family, who wants to treat …
Slideshow:Parents object to restarting son's chemo
By AMY FORLITI, Associated Press Writer – Fri May 15, 6:53 pm ET
MINNEAPOLIS – A Minnesota couple who refused chemotherapy for their 13-year-old son was ordered Friday to have the boy re-evaluated to see if he would still benefit from the cancer treatment — or if it may already be too late.
Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, who belong to a religious group that believes in using only natural healing methods practiced by some American Indians.
The judge allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, noting they love him and acted in good faith, but he gave them until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray and select an oncologist.
If the tumor has not grown and if Daniel's prognosis remains as optimistic as doctors testified last week, then chemotherapy and possible radiation appear to be in Daniel's best interest, Rodenberg wrote.
"The state has successfully shown by clear and convincing evidence that continued chemotherapy is medically necessary," he wrote, adding he would not order chemotherapy if doctors find the cancer has advanced to a point where it is "too late."
If chemotherapy is ordered and the family refuses, the judge said, Daniel will be placed in temporary custody.
It was unclear how the medicine would be administered if the boy fights it, which he said he would do, according to his court testimony unsealed Friday.
According to Daniel's court testimony, he believes the chemo will kill him, and said: "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."
Calvin Johnson, an attorney for Daniel's parents, said the family is considering an appeal. For now, he said, Daniel is following the order and will have X-rays Monday.
Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, diagnosed Daniel with Hodgkin's lymphoma in January and recommended six rounds of chemotherapy.
He underwent one round in February, but stopped after that single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs.
Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent. Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect, and went to court seeking custody.
Court testimony indicated Daniel's tumor shrank after the first round of chemo, but has since grown. His mother, Colleen Hauser, testified last week: "My son is not in any medical danger at this point."
She has been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water, and other natural alternatives — despite testimony from five doctors who agreed Daniel needed chemotherapy.
Rodenberg wrote that state statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough.
"If the Minnesota Legislature ever reconsiders the relevant statutes, I am confident that I join all of the others involved in this matter in hoping, and indeed in praying, that Daniel Hauser lives to testify at that hearing," Rodenberg said.
Rodenberg found Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."
Because of that, and other evidence in the case, Rodenberg said the state's interest in protecting the child override the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and a parent's right to direct a child's upbringing.
Medical neglect, Rodenberg said, clearly took place both on April 29, when the Hausers did not seek the advice of one doctor who told them to return to an oncologist, and on May 7, when they disregarded with their family doctor's recommendation to get the tumor X-rayed. Up until then, Rodenberg wrote, the family was seeking second opinions and alternatives.
A court-appointed attorney for Daniel, Philip Elbert, called the judge's decision unfortunate.
"I feel it's a blow to families," he said Friday. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."
The phone line at the Hauser home had a busy signal Friday.
Johnson, the parents' attorney, said everyone should be able to get medical care in line with their conscience.
"The Hausers believe that the injection of chemotherapy into Danny Hauser amounts to an assault upon his body, and torture when it occurs over a long period of time," Johnson said Friday. "They believe that it is against the spiritual law to invade the consciousness of another person without their permission."
The Hausers, who have eight children, are Roman Catholic and also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band. The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.
In his ruling, Rodenberg noted that at age 13, Daniel can't read. "He lacks the ability to give informed consent to medical procedures," Rodenberg said.
Bostrom said if an X-ray shows that there is still hope Daniel can be cured, it's possible doctors will recommend the same treatment plan.
Fear of chemotherapy is common among his patients, and Children's Hospital has a program that incorporates herbal supplements, massage, acupuncture, and other alternative methods to help patients deal with the side effects of the medication. It's unclear where Daniel will seek treatment.
"The bottom line is we just want to get through this, have him get better," Bostrom said. "And I'm happy the judge ruled that he could stay with his family because they are wonderful people ... We want what's best for Danny."

Poor kid. One round of chemo for a highly treatable and survivable cancer and then the parents stopped it.

Quote :

As mentioned before, Daniel has Hodgkin's disease, which is a form of lymphoma. In its early stages, it is highly treatable with chemotherapy and radiation. Whenever I see a case like his, I always try to figure out exactly what stage his tumor is at, so that I can get a better estimate of what his true chances of survival with treatment are. I found more information in a more detailed account of the beginning of the court hearing, which included an account of the testimony thus far. Specifically, Daniel has nodular sclerosing Hodgkin's disease and a mass in the middle of his chest. He was diagnosed earlier this year after he suffered symptoms of fatigue and weight loss, the latter of which is important, because such symptoms are known as "B" symptoms and portend a poorer prognosis. In any case, according to this account, Daniel has stage 2B Hodgkin's disease (more than one lymph node basin involved but on the same side of the diaphragm, plus B symptoms), which explains why chemotherapy is being recommended. Patients with stage 1 Hodgkin's disease can be treated effectively with radiation therapy alone, but stages 2 and above generally need multimodality chemotherapy, usually a regimen abbreviated ABVD, which consists of Adriamycin, Bleomycin, Vincristine, and Dacarbazine. With such a regimen, a boy like Daniel could expect a chance of long term survival of around 85-90%, possibly higher.

Without therapy, Hodgkin's disease is a death sentence.

Then they bolted from the next court hearing, the one where the doctor testified that the x-ray taken the day before court showed that the tumor's grown since they stopped chemo, and back to its original size. Meaning... the magic water or whatever alt med nonsense he's been on since ain't working. So now, instead of killing ill through the course of treating his cancer, he slowly get ill through the course of dying.

Poor kid. He's also completely illiterate, despite being homeschooled by two geniuses of parents.

Barring a return for treatment, of course, I can only hope the mother gets to watch her slowly die of cancer and her completely irrational and dangerous beliefs, shortly before her beliefs and the disease kill her, just like HIV denier and wackjob Christine Maggiore. Then David's death will have at least some semblance of justice.

tiger1 wrote:

Neglect is differant...

Is it neglect... providing a sick child with only prayer and nothing else? I believe it is, but if a Christian does, isn't that a recognition and glowing indictment of the ineffectiveness of prayer?

I wrote:

I wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

What about a case like the one a couple of years ago, when the 16 year old boy had been fighting cancer for years, and was losing his battle. He was in terrible pain from the treatments, and wanted it to stop. His parents wanted it to stop, too. The courts made them continue radiation and chemo, and of course, the kid died anyway, painfully.

Another case of where a teenager already had 3 kidney transplants which had failed. He was getting dialysis again, and his other organs were being affected. He wanted to stop, and his parents wanted to stop, but the courts said he had to continue. He died shortly afterwards.

Any links to support this?

Nothing?

And I'll just throw that back up there in the vain hope I'll actually get an answer.

Is he illiterate because of a mental problem or the lack of teaching? I would think the state should throw the other 7 kids (spares?) in school and see how all of them are doing. Seems like the parents are raising a bunch of future non-productive citizens!

You know I think it's a matter of what age is a kid old enough to make an informed decision like that on their own. Personally, I was about 12 or 13 when I first started thinking about stuff like that. However that doesn't mean someone else is ready for that, and at the same time there might be people who are younger who were ready before I was. I guess my point is that I don't believe in enforcing or denying treatment on an informed unwilling participant.

Now Kara, the girl in question was 11 years old, and that's all we really know about her. Maybe she didn't believe in the treatment either. Maybe she did. I don't make a claim to know her faith or her lack of faith or her personal choices.

If there's evidence that this lack of treatment was not what she wanted then I hope her parents get what's coming to them, but if she really didn't want treatment either then I hope she's resting in peace and that her parents can overcome their grief.

If a child that age CAN get "medical care", birth control, abortion, etc, WITHOUT a parents consent, would they not be considered old enough to make other medical decisions?

Would a home-schooled illiterate child ever go against a parent's decision?

Tiger1 wrote:

If a child that age CAN get "medical care", birth control, abortion, etc, WITHOUT a parents consent, would they not be considered old enough to make other medical decisions?

I hate confusing you with the facts,Tiger, but in Wisconsin, a minor cannot get an abortion without a parent's consent. Here are a list of things that are illegal for a 13 year old to do. Drink, have sex, drive a car,open a bank account,vote,smoke,drop out of school,borrow money,etc. However, you are making the argument that a 13 year old child has the maturity to make an educated decision about health care? I think it is really scary that people who think like you have actually been elected to office. As a country,we must work harder to improve public education until we start graduating students who have the ability to make responsible decisions about the lives of their children.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/wisconsin.html

Quote :

The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.

KarenT wrote:

Would a home-schooled illiterate child ever go against a parent's decision?

Not only that,but you could bet your bottom dollar they'd be playing the whole religious angle too,in an effort to manipulate her.

According to the paper today, mom and kid returned to Wisconsin.

Kara Neumann's mother: Guilty.

Quote :

A mother accused of praying instead of seeking medical help for her dying 11-year-old daughter was found guilty Friday of second-degree reckless homicide.

A Marathon County jury deliberated for about four hours before convicting Leilani Neumann, 41, of Weston. She faces up to 25 years in prison, but no sentencing date had been set.

Quote :

Neumann's stepfather, Brian Gordon, said his stepdaughter did nothing wrong in trusting in God to heal her daughter.

Which raises the same point I brought up to tiger1 above. As a commenter from Orac's write up of the incident puts it:

Quote :

If these parents are so "solid" in their faith that God will intervene for them, why did they have a lawyer?

Seriously! If they thought that God would save their daughter from diabetes - something that is not amenable to reason or pleading - why wouldn't they trust God to "soften the hearts" of the judge and jury trying their case?

. . .

If they believe that God will protect them (and their children) from mindless, heartless disease but won't protect His own "true believers" from "injustice" (or, as I see it, "justice"), what sort of "faith" is that?

They wouldn't take their daughter to a doctor, even as she spent weeks dying in front of their eyes, but the moment they run into a spot of legal bother, they bleat for their court-appointed lawyer? It seems that they are only willing to risk their children's lives for their faith.

It's a strange dichotomy. These people fully believe that prayer works at the same time they are cognitively aware that it doesn't.

Great link,Heretic. I am going to add Orac's blog to my favorites.It seems that the grandparents were just as delusional as the parents. As they say,the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I'm glad the parents were convicted of killing their daughter. They deserve to be in prison. IMO, the minister who encouraged their horrific behavior should have been charged as an accessory to murder too.

Orac wrote:

Consistent with being religious zealots, the family remain unrepentant and defends their actions:

Linehan said Neumann didn't realize her daughter was so ill and did all she could do to help, in line with the family's belief in faith-healing.
He said Neumann was a devout Christian and took good care of her four children.

"The woman did everything she could to help her," Linehan said. "That is the injustice in this case."

Neumann's stepfather, Brian Gordon, said his stepdaughter did nothing wrong in trusting in God to heal her daughter.

"We should have that right in this country," he said