http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...th-prayer?lite

Wasn't sure if this belongs in here or in OOT.

Thumbs up. They did not even give their daughter the option of choosing.

I wonder what ramifications this might have for less extreme cases.

A very loosely similar case happened in 1974 in Germany - as a result the german congregation of catholic bishops convened a longish investigation into the case by a panel that included theologists, psychologists, medical experts etc.

As a result, they changed the so-called big exorcism into a liturgy against evil and effectively ended the liturgical/theological tradition of exorcisms in germany (which was fairly sparse and obscure even before then).

So, nutjobs gonna nutjob, I guess, but at least occasionally, the churches actually go "Whoa, this **** is crazy! We have to do something about this."

While I think normal people see the gruesome in a case like this, I think the underlying debates are more interesting. Not to be callous and disregard the event itself, but we all think it is horrible that the girl died. There is not really a debate there for anybody but extremists.

a) Should you be able to reject any medical treatment.
b) Should you be able to reject any knowledge regarding medical treatments?
c) Who takes decisions on behalf of children.

I think it is interesting, because I think this is an area where using "principle" will not get you anywhere... I think you can only consider consequences.

In legal terms there is of course also the question of intent vs neglect, which I'm sure will come to play a role in the courts. I'm not too interested in this here, however.

I think this case raises questions about the efficacy of prayer just and how far believers are willing to believe before they decide not to leave something in the hands of their god.

Does it undermine the credibility of prayer as something that can actually invoke a divine response for a believer to say 'I'll pray for personal guidance, for a good result in tomorrow's poker game, but I think I'll take my kid to the doctors rather than pray to my god for that, just in case'. Just in case what? God ignores you? Pray doesn't work? There is no god?

If there is a god, and prayer really achieves something, how do believers decide where their threshold of belief ends and reliance on medical services takes over?

I think that this just boils down to how the legal system in our various countries view Responsibility.

a) As a sane and informed adult, absolutely.
b) I'm going with yes again, but I'm a bit unsure of what rejecting knowledge regarding a medical treatment would entail. Functionally, it might be the same as a), but it also might be irrelevant. I could reject the medical consensus on bacteria but still believe in the efficacy of antibiotics.
c) I almost don't want to touch. Parents are first in the line of responsibility, but because we all know that abuse and negligence occur too frequently, we have some sort of ladder of authority that can override them. Where the overriding kicks in is going to be very difficult to pin down exactly, but a clear and present risk to the child's life has gone beyond that point.

I think (b) is supposed to mean something like "Should you be able to reject information, in effect preventing yourself to be able to make an informed choice?"

In both (a) and (b) a psych. consult or something is warranted, imo, but in general, of course.

(c) Generally, the life of the child takes precedence over the religious beliefs of the parents. However, the point where this gets tricky is that there are many cases where parents might decide against treatment (terminally ill cancer patients and such) and not, in "our" eyes, act against the kids best interest. So I think a reasonable approach would be to create some guidelines by some kind of ethics commission or something, that lay out ground rules. Within the confines of these rules, parents decide. Representatives of the major religious factions should be included in the ethics commission, and more or less any religious faction that has some kind of legal standing within the country should have a chance to be heard in the proceedings of the commission.

1-- I'm not so sure this says anything about the efficacy of prayer. When you consider how many people adhere to this kind of faith-and-prayer program, and how rarely we hear about this, it might say more about how much we overvalue contemporary medical practice.

For example, I have read of two cases in the news over the last year. Almost everybody knows somebody who has died from medical malpractice. Almost no one knows someone who has died because they chose to pray instead of seeking medical treatment.

Also, I would say, there are far more people who choose to not to go to doctors based on a non-faith-based fear of the medical establishment. I know of family and friends who haven't been to a doctor in years, even a decade or two.

2-- I've checked these people out. The Bible contains hundreds and hundreds of medical-related instructions. If you read their literature, you will find that they don't trust medicine, in general. There is some scriptural justification proffered, sure. But I feel that their religious faith just serves to complement their fear of science. I'm not even sure this is a religious issue.

3-- We are clearly commanded not to "test" God. Jesus could have thrown Himself off the pinnacle of the temple so that the angels would save Him. The angels are there to catch Him should He stumble, and not commit a suicidal act. Quite honestly, there is no sound biblical justification for these beliefs. Crazy is going to crazy.

4-- In one case, a child had pneumonia, and died. I'm sure they will be convicted. But honestly, I have mixed feelings about this. There was no malicious intent, and ultimately, we will be convicting them for "stupid," more so than intent to harm. This is not a case of beating a child until he dies, because ultimately, it was pneumonia that killed the 7 month old. If they had treated the infant, he may have died anyway. Pneumonia is serious and deadly to infants and the elderly, especially. If your religion forbids you from seeking medical care for you or your children, then is it a violation of religious liberties to criminalize follow-through on this belief?

I don't feel comfortable jailing these people and taking away their kids (I think the people that do have more issues than these people, and are more dangerous). But I don't feel comfortable doing nothing, either. I think they should be exiled. Revoke citizenship, and send them all off elsewhere, making them someone else's problem.

That's what the sentence reflects: "But the Supreme Court disagreed in a 6-1 ruling, upholding the Neumanns' sentences, which call for each of them to serve a month in jail every year for six years and 10 years' probation."

They were trialed for homicide. Show me another homicide perp who gets off with an effective 6mo in jail.

I agree that an individual case says little about the efficacy of prayer. In the same way that an individual dying of cancer says nothing about chemotherapy.

The difference is in the established and demonstrable methodology behind chemo.

This is simply because an awful lot of people rely on medical practices, and not many are relying on prayer. And of those that do rely on prayer, well, I imagine they aren't writing up many case studies.

2. I'm glad that you've checked the people out. Are you a doctor? They need one.

3. How awkward. So if we pray to sick people, that might be effective, but if we're measuring the efficacy of prayer, might God get mad at being simultaneously tested and skew the results with a few deaths?

4. Malicious intent should not be required to establish gross negligence.

Regarding C, I've attended a few Child Protection meetings in my work capacity (even though I'm not directly involved in that area of work) and a group of professionals such as social workers, health workers etc would get together to discuss the case and decide on an appropriate action, which could involve taking it to the courts to remove the child from the parents, or other action as appropriate.

Obviously the parents should be making decisions for the child but in cases where there is abuse or neglect it has to be taken out of their hands. This seems obvious.

We're not talking about an individual case. Millions of religious people take their children to medical experts every day. Why don't they all trust the power of prayer? What does that lack of trust say about prayer.

Ok.

So you think the state has no responsibility to protect children from gross negligence? The bolded is classic doggg, People responsible for the death of a child (and could very well be again if they continue to hold these views) are less dangerous than people who want to protect children...

Your views are honestly so absurd that I dont know how to handle it. I would feel better if you were actually a troll, so I didnt actually have to think people like you existed, but I don't think that's the case.

That last line is pure Christian compassion as well. Nice work. Just make it someone else's problem!

I don't think it is necessarily gross negligence. Their children are for the most part fed, clothed, loved, and provided for.

Furthermore, can "the state" take better care of the rest of their children than they can? If you'd like, we can start looking into statistics concerning criminality and lifespan rates among those raised by the state, and not by their biological parents.

Let's assume that every parent in America believed as they did, and raised their children as they do, in a church-attending christian household, parents together, etc, but no standard medical care until they are 18.

What would that look like?

Denying access to basic medical care is definitely negligent.

Denying your children basic medical care not negligence?

Don't have kids.

The last line is not so much a personal attack as it is pointing out yet more inconsistencies in your worldview, I do find you contemptible, tho, can't deny that

It could be rather difficult to make the case that the parents in these cases do not care about their child, or that they do not want them to get better. But why they are not doing what other Christians do, have them receive trained medical care and then thank God for the results. Ok, that was tongue in cheek, but if this is the case I am thinking of, the parents did send the child for medical care at least once, so they are aware that medical care exists (and it is unconvincing that anyone in the West is unaware of the existence of expert medical care). They made the choice to withhold medical assistance.

What is the law for JW, Christian Scientists etc that have strict rules about medical procedures, when it comes to their children? I can understand a non-consenting adult can decline treatment, but that should not apply to the children of such adults, until the child reaches the age of competence and can deny it for themselves.

Agreed but I don't see how that's relevant here. I would grant that in their insane negligence, they thought they were doing what was best, but its still negligence.

I had deleted a sentence referencing 'Intent vs Neglect' from that earlier post, and was just referring to how unlikely it was that the parents intended harm, despite their 'insane negligence'. It is, admittedly, stating the obvious.

a) yes
b) yes
c) the parents until they are shown to be unfit by for example unnecessarily endangering the child

Sigh. Seriously?

You think that after saying this:

I wasn't talking about more than just this case?

In the same way that there's an argument for why any Christian is failing in their duties if they don't try to proselytize, I'm now wondering what the Christian justification is for using medical services and not simply praying and having Faith that god will heal?

Death rates at child birth would skyrocket through the roof, the same would child deaths. A loose estimate that about 20% of children would die before the age of 10 isn't too big a stretch. This number is equivalent to the start of the 1900s, a bit lower so we can account for advances in other areas - though it is likely that such a distrust for medicine would also lead to a drastic decline in such disciplines of knowledge as well.

Some might argue that there are some infrastructure today that would alleviate quite a bit of those early 1900s problems, such as sewers, waste disposal and whatnot. This is true, and those mechanisms are probably even more important than medicine. However, the population of the current day US is a) more urbanized (80% today compared to 40% of the 1900) and b) 4.5 times denser. This will exponentially strengthen problems related to lack of modern healthcare.

Ethically speaking, you would also be indirectly killing a lot of people from other countries, by not doing your part to stop disease from spreading. You would likely become a chief cause of pandemics, if we assume you as a modern western country with your current levels of trade/travel in other countries. However, I think we can safely assume that any status developed nation would soon be lost and you would be looking at nationwide societal collapse and the US would become an underdeveloped country after a generation or thereabouts.

That's my guess at least.

I believe Obvius 3:21 says "Yea, verily, be not a sap."