Wisconsin parents go on trial in daughter's death

Orac's got some good stuff on his site. There's also a lot on the Hauser case, too.

I don't know how I feel about prison time for the mother. I think the loss of a child is more devastating than any sentencing could be and I wouldn't want my taxpayer money feeding this moron. Maybe a long probation sentence or DCS involvement to make sure the rest of the kids aren't neglected, too.

Yeah. Gramps looks like a piece of work:

Quote :

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

Yeah... she did everything to help her, 'cept for what would have actually worked. :bangwall:

Yet another Law and Order episode for next year.

SVU did one along similar lines. A HIV/AIDS denier (patterned of the now deceased denier Christine Maggiore) was on trial for the death of her daughter after doing nothing to prevent the transmission during pregnancy and treating her with only vitamins. Maggiore, however, was never arrested.

I'll be honest. I don't know what to make of this. For me it's a matter of personal choice. I've seen a lot of the so called mainstream frankenstein treatments. There are quite a few things I would not allow a doctor to do to me. But that's just me.

I think the bigger issue here is separation of Church and State. I can't scream at the top of my lungs to keep some ridiculous church out of our government one day and stand by silently while the government imposes itself on a church the next.

That brings me to the Unleavened Bread Ministries. What should we accept as a valid religion? The UBM is an online church. It's so easy to sit behind a keyboard and say whatever you want. I strongly question the credentials of this organization.

Which brings me to my next point. What does or doesn't classify a cult? What's the driving point that separates a religion from a cult and when is it ok to intervene?

See for me it's a little more complicated because I do not see this case as cut or dry from a secular or a religious standpoint.

paul87920 wrote:

I'll be honest. I don't know what to make of this. For me it's a matter of personal choice. I've seen a lot of the so called mainstream frankenstein treatments. There are quite a few things I would not allow a doctor to do to me. But that's just me.

I think the bigger issue here is separation of Church and State. I can't scream at the top of my lungs to keep some ridiculous church out of our government one day and stand by silently while the government imposes itself on a church the next.

That brings me to the Unleavened Bread Ministries. What should we accept as a valid religion? The UBM is an online church. It's so easy to sit behind a keyboard and say whatever you want. I strongly question the credentials of this organization.

Which brings me to my next point. What does or doesn't classify a cult? What's the driving point that separates a religion from a cult and when is it ok to intervene?

See for me it's a little more complicated because I do not see this case as cut or dry from a secular or a religious standpoint.

I don't see this as complicated at all. When a parent's religious belief causes them to withold lifesaving medical treatments from their children,it is time for the government to step in. Do you really believe that giving insulin to an eleven year old girl is a "Frankenstein" treatment? I believe that the real monsters in this case are the parents who allowed their daughter to die a horrible death because they wouldn't seek medical treatment for their child.

paul87920 wrote:

I'll be honest. I don't know what to make of this. For me it's a matter of personal choice. I've seen a lot of the so called mainstream frankenstein treatments. There are quite a few things I would not allow a doctor to do to me. But that's just me.

I think the bigger issue here is separation of Church and State. I can't scream at the top of my lungs to keep some ridiculous church out of our government one day and stand by silently while the government imposes itself on a church the next.

That brings me to the Unleavened Bread Ministries. What should we accept as a valid religion? The UBM is an online church. It's so easy to sit behind a keyboard and say whatever you want. I strongly question the credentials of this organization.

Which brings me to my next point. What does or doesn't classify a cult? What's the driving point that separates a religion from a cult and when is it ok to intervene?

See for me it's a little more complicated because I do not see this case as cut or dry from a secular or a religious standpoint.

I couldn't agree with you more, Paul.

sparks wrote:

I don't see this as complicated at all.

In this individual case or the broader spectrum?

sparks wrote:

When a parent's religious belief causes them to withold lifesaving medical treatments from their children,it is time for the government to step in.

Well there lies a fault in your reasoning. You are claiming that you know for a fact that this girl wanted the medical treatment and that it was denied. It's upsetting for me because my beliefs are conflicting here. If I didn't want medical treatment, then I'd want my wishes to be respected, and at the same time this was a sad case of people that were misguided by what I believe to be a ridiculous online cult.

sparks wrote:

Do you really believe that giving insulin to an eleven year old girl is a "Frankenstein" treatment?

No, that was a statement I made on the broader spectrum. However, I do believe in the case of that 13 year old though that chemotherapy is a frankenstein treatment. He has made his wishes known. And just so you know I believe in assisted suicide too. Keeping laws off of peoples bodies isn't only applicable to abortion in my opinion.

sparks wrote:

I believe that the real monsters in this case are the parents who allowed their daughter to die a horrible death because they wouldn't seek medical treatment for their child.

And I believe that the real monsters in this case are the Unleavened Bread Ministries who go around and spread their word from the safety of their keyboards.

paul87920 wrote:

No, that was a statement I made on the broader spectrum. However, I do believe in the case of that 13 year old though that chemotherapy is a frankenstein treatment. He has made his wishes known.

'Cept that he's a 13 year old boy, and mentally handicapped to boot; he can't even read. He has a 90 - 95% of surviving his illness, provided he gets the treatment necessary for it. How could that possibly be a frankenstein treatment? Sparing him chemo will not spare him any suffering. As I stated before, instead of getting ill through the course of treating and curing his cancer, he'll slowly get ill through the course of dying. This is abuse, plain and simple, regardless if the child agrees to it or not (brainwashing children is easy); the same as a parent justifying physical abuse as trying to "beat out the devil" or creepy adults in sex cults sleeping with willing children since it's the path to "enlightenment".

paul87920 wrote:

sparks wrote:

I don't see this as complicated at all.

In this individual case or the broader spectrum? Anytime a parent witholds lifesaving medical treatment from their children, it is child endangerment and should be prosecuted.

When a parent's religious belief causes them to withold lifesaving medical treatments from their children,it is time for the government to step in.

paul87920 wrote:

Well there lies a fault in your reasoning. You are claiming that you know for a fact that this girl wanted the medical treatment and that it was denied. It's upsetting for me because my beliefs are conflicting here. If I didn't want medical treatment, then I'd want my wishes to be respected, and at the same time this was a sad case of people that were misguided by what I believe to be a ridiculous online cult.

Self preservation is a fundamental instinct. If a child doesn't possess the will to live, they are suffering from mental illness. They should receive help for their emotional problems once they have received life saving medical treatment.

sparks wrote:

Do you really believe that giving insulin to an eleven year old girl is a "Frankenstein" treatment?

Paul87920 wrote:

No, that was a statement I made on the broader spectrum. However, I do believe in the case of that 13 year old though that chemotherapy is a frankenstein treatment. He has made his wishes known. And just so you know I believe in assisted suicide too. Keeping laws off of peoples bodies isn't only applicable to abortion in my opinion.

It's hard for me to imagine any society that would allow assisted suicide for minors

sparks wrote:

I believe that the real monsters in this case are the parents who allowed their daughter to die a horrible death because they wouldn't seek medical treatment for their child.

Paul87920 wrote:

And I believe that the real monsters in this case are the Unleavened Bread Ministries who go around and spread their word from the safety of their keyboards.

There are always going to be people who prey on the weak and the ignorant. That doesn't excuse the parents from taking responsibility for their actions. Anytime a parent causes serious injury or death to their children by failing to seek medical care, they should be held accountable for their actions.

According to our laws, a minor child, at the age of 11 or 13, or even younger, can have medical procedures without the parents knowledge or consent, under "reproductive rights". They have access to birth control, treatment of venereal diseases, and abortion. But, they cannot decide for themselves on other medical treatments? The law is an absolute hypocrite.

Heretic wrote:

'Cept that he's a 13 year old boy, and mentally handicapped to boot; he can't even read. He has a 90 - 95% of surviving his illness, provided he gets the treatment necessary for it.

What kind of quality of life is an illiterate mentally handicapped suicidal 13 year old living? So you save him from his cancer? Then what? Sparks took an interesting swipe at the pro-life crowd on either this thread or another thread when he accused them of only giving a shit until they are out of the womb. Yeah he gets the chemo that he doesn't want to be put through and lives. How has that made the world a better place for him? He gets to cling onto another couple of decades being illiterate and mentally handicapped?

sparks wrote:

Self preservation is a fundamental instinct. If a child doesn't possess the will to live, they are suffering from mental illness. They should receive help for their emotional problems once they have received life saving medical treatment.

Well this kind of brings me to the same questions I posed to Heretic. See above.

sparks wrote:

It's hard for me to imagine any society that would allow assisted suicide for minors

I was making the point that I don't believe in life at any cost. I have no desire to walk around missing a limb, living as a vegetable, or any of the numerous other hideous conditions other there.

sparks wrote:

There are always going to be people who prey on the weak and the ignorant. That doesn't excuse the parents from taking responsibility for their actions. Anytime a parent causes serious injury or death to their children by failing to seek medical care, they should be held accountable for their actions.

What I want to know is, where everyone was before this happened. We're all aware of groups like this. I'm sure the UBM isn't the only anti-medical faith healing group out there. I haven't seen one person on this forum be bold enough to say that child protective services should remove all children from these situations whether there is a medical condition or not. I mean obviously you guys don't see these people fit to be parents. I don't know if I see them fit to be parents either.

Like I said for me it's a very touchy and internally conflicting subject. It's hard to articulate an exact position when I'm wary of the medical community, I'm wary of an over invasive government, I'm wary of religious institutions of any type, and at the end of the day I don't want to see anyone suffer either.

Tiger1 wrote:

According to our laws, a minor child, at the age of 11 or 13, or even younger, can have medical procedures without the parents knowledge or consent, under "reproductive rights". They have access to birth control, treatment of venereal diseases, and abortion. But, they cannot decide for themselves on other medical treatments? The law is an absolute hypocrite.

Earlier in this thread,I provided a link that contained an extensive list of the state by state laws laws regarding minors,birth control,abortion and parental consent. If you had bothered to look at the link, you would have seen that once again, you really don't know what you are talking about. Here are the facts about state laws concerning minors and abortion in the US, just in case you care to learn what the truth about the issue is.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PIMA.pdf

Quote :

BACKGROUND: A majority of states require parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. In light of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings that prohibit parents from having absolute veto over their daughters’ decision to have an abortion, many states require the consent or notification of only one parent, usually 24 or 48 hours before the procedure. 34 states require some parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion.

Paul, Christian Scientists do not do medical treatment, from what I understand, and Jehovah's witnessess do not believe in blood transfusions.
These are just 2 somewhat major religions who might be in conflict with a court ruling like this one.
Also, who is to say that this 13 year old is mentally retarded and illiterate? Has he been tested as to the degree of his alleged disabilities? If they are minor, then he should have a valid say so in his treatment.
Even one of the doctors at the hospitol said they would have a real problem forcing treatment on this boy that he does not want. The government needs to butt out unless there is a proven case of child abuse.

BTW, Hodgkins and non-hodgkins lymphoma are indeed treatable, but curable is not the case, a lot of the time. Even with aggressive treatment, my kids father lived a little over a year after diagnosis.

Tiger1 wrote:

Paul, Christian Scientists do not do medical treatment, from what I understand, and Jehovah's witnessess do not believe in blood transfusions.
These are just 2 somewhat major religions who might be in conflict with a court ruling like this one.
Also, who is to say that this 13 year old is mentally retarded and illiterate? Has he been tested as to the degree of his alleged disabilities? If they are minor, then he should have a valid say so in his treatment.
Even one of the doctors at the hospitol said they would have a real problem forcing treatment on this boy that he does not want. The government needs to butt out unless there is a proven case of child abuse.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree. Just conflicted is all. As far as the 13 year old's mental health and literacy goes, my response was based off of Heretic's post who said that he was.

Tiger1 wrote:

The government needs to butt out unless there is a proven case of child abuse.

Withholding medical treatment that might save him is child abuse.

Artie60438 wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

The government needs to butt out unless there is a proven case of child abuse.

Withholding medical treatment that might save him is child abuse.

"MIGHT" is the key word here. Cancer is TREATABLE, but in many cases, UNCURABLE. The most the doctors can do, in many cases, is just buy you some time. Why torture the kid in pursuit of a cure that may not be?

Tiger1 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

The government needs to butt out unless there is a proven case of child abuse.

Withholding medical treatment that might save him is child abuse.

"MIGHT" is the key word here. Cancer is TREATABLE, but in many cases, UNCURABLE. The most the doctors can do, in many cases, is just buy you some time. Why torture the kid in pursuit of a cure that may not be?

Yeah,well withholding treatment "won't" help him at all,will it?

Withholding tortuous medical treatment just might give him a better quality of the time he has left.

sparks'][quote="sparks wrote:

It's hard for me to imagine any society that would allow assisted suicide for minors

paul87920 wrote:

I was making the point that I don't believe in life at any cost. I have no desire to walk around missing a limb, living as a vegetable, or any of the numerous other hideous conditions other there.

I am pretty surprised that you would say that the mere loss of a limb would cause you to end your life. Unless you are already familiar with his story,I suggest you read the link I have included for the physicist Stephen Hawking.When he was 21, he was diagnosed with ALS. Instead of committing suicide, he used his illness to motivate himself to achieve greatness.

sparks wrote:

There are always going to be people who prey on the weak and the ignorant. That doesn't excuse the parents from taking responsibility for their actions. Anytime a parent causes serious injury or death to their children by failing to seek medical care, they should be held accountable for their actions.

Paul87920 wrote:

What I want to know is, where everyone was before this happened. We're all aware of groups like this. I'm sure the UBM isn't the only anti-medical faith healing group out there. I haven't seen one person on this forum be bold enough to say that child protective services should remove all children from these situations whether there is a medical condition or not. I mean obviously you guys don't see these people fit to be parents. I don't know if I see them fit to be parents either.
Like I said for me it's a very touchy and internally conflicting subject. It's hard to articulate an exact position when I'm wary of the medical community, I'm wary of an over invasive government, I'm wary of religious institutions of any type, and at the end of the day I don't want to see anyone suffer either.

When you say that you are wary of an "over invasive" government, can you give me any examples of how our government has negatively impacted your life?

sparks wrote:

When you say that you are wary of an "over invasive" government, can you give me any examples of how our government has negatively impacted your life?

You're questions are starting to get incredibly personal, and I've watched you ask other people on this forum personal questions just for you to use answers as a way to take a swipe at them in the future. We're done asking me personal questions, and I'm done answering them.

paul87920 wrote:

What kind of quality of life is an illiterate mentally handicapped suicidal 13 year old living? So you save him from his cancer? Then what? Yeah he gets the chemo that he doesn't want to be put through and lives. How has that made the world a better place for him? He gets to cling onto another couple of decades being illiterate and mentally handicapped?

Wait... what? So it's perfectly acceptable to withhold life saving care from the handicapped: children suffering from down syndrome, quadriplegics, coma patients, learning disabled...? That's a dark, dangerous road I don't want to go down. Abuse should be abuse, regardless of the mental acuity or handicap of the abused.

Besides, we're talking recovery vs. dead, a difference that even a mentally handicapped 13 yr old can recognize.

And let's make something perfectly clear: These are not kind and concerned parents attempting to spare their son the ravaging effects of a treatment that has little chance of curing his fatal condition (which would be reasonable). These are full-on delusional f**kwits who believe their magic voodoo vitamin water will cure their son's cancer. They are not heroes. The rest of us, existing in a rational, evidence based universe, know their hippie cure will not work and understand that the child will die as sure as a bullet to the face.

Sorry, that's abuse, whatever the reason the parents are peddling for justification.

paul87920 wrote:

I was making the point that I don't believe in life at any cost.

I don't either, but that's exactly what this case isn't.

paul87920 wrote:

I haven't seen one person on this forum be bold enough to say that child protective services should remove all children from these situations whether there is a medical condition or not.

They're entitled to believe whatever they want and should maintain custody so long as they remain beliefs, but once their beliefs become actions, and the parents endanger the lives of their children... game over. Endangering the lives of children is endangering the lives of children regardless if its by running a drug lab out of the home or refusing to provide them with adequate medical treatment.

tiger1 wrote:

"MIGHT" is the key word here. Cancer is TREATABLE, but in many cases, UNCURABLE. The most the doctors can do, in many cases, is just buy you some time. Why torture the kid in pursuit of a cure that may not be?

By that logic, why should anyone bother practicing medicine at all? The only thing doctors can ever do is buy time, whether its treating the flu or a gsw.

tiger1 wrote:

BTW, Hodgkins and non-hodgkins lymphoma are indeed treatable, but curable is not the case, a lot of the time. Even with aggressive treatment, my kids father lived a little over a year after diagnosis.

Actually, Hodgkins is considered one of the most curable forms of cancer, and in Daniel's specific case, his has a 90% cure rate with treatment. It's a small but significant difference.

tiger1 wrote:

Even one of the doctors at the hospitol said they would have a real problem forcing treatment on this boy that he does not want.

Where again? I must have missed that part.

Heretic, when the full story first broke, the article on MSN qouted the doctor, who said he would have a real problem forcing treatment on this 13 year old boy.