[CraigD]

Originally Posted by REASON

I think you make some excellent points as usual Craig, but this may be a matter of the law. It would be inappropriate not to conduct a proper inquery into the circumstances, which I'm sure you're not advocating. And while I agree that it is wrong to pre-judge the situation, there appears to me to be enough information to warrant a charge if this qualifies as negligent homicide in their state.

The legal issue is, I think, a complicated one.

So far, I think Wisconsin Social Services are handling the matter well. As of yesterday, they’ve moved the Neumanns’ 3 other children, ages 13 to 16, from their home to other relatives, and are proceeding to carefully conduct an investigation to determine if it’s safe to return them (see The Associated Press: Praying Parents' Other 3 Kids Removed).

So far, this appears to be a tragic collision of poor medical knowledge and profoundly superstitious beliefs. To quote investigating police chief Dan Vergin from the above AP article:

"There is no intent. They didn't want their child to die. They thought what they were doing was the right thing," he said. "They believed up to the time she stopped breathing she was going to get better. They just thought it was a spiritual attack. They believed if they prayed enough she would get through it."

Apparently the Neumanns were not purposefully avoiding appropriate medical treatment for religious reasons, but were misguided by their religion-based world view into believing she was suffering not from a medical condition, but from a “spiritual attack”. As these parent appear to have no history of prior neglect of their children, it’s likely had they understood the medical nature of her condition, they would have seen she got medical attention that would have prevented her untimely death. The tragedy is deepened by mother Leilani Neumann’s sister’s efforts to see that she was treated by making a 911 call prior to daughter Madeline Neumann’s death, and father Dale Neumann’s efforts to resuscitate her using CPR after she stopped breathing.

IANAL, but where the Neumanns may have crossed the line from understandable error to crime was, I think, when their daughter became incoherent, and eventually, unconscious. It appears that their supernatural world view caused them to see this not as life-threatening, but as spiritual, a fatally misperception. However, from a legal perspective, I’m uncertain if this is a more criminal error than the more common one of s parent refusing to believe their child’s medical complaint in time to have them treated.

[CraigD]

Though off-topic for a theology thread, I think it’s important to discuss Mike’s medical claim.

Originally Posted by Mike C

My Opinion
…
Consuming these sugary foods and excessive simple carbohydrates are generally the cause of the diabetes.

This is, in my experience, a common misconception, for which I’ve seen no credible scientific or clinical evidence. Mike, as with any claim made at hypography, you should back this one up with evidence, not simply state it is your opinion.

Diabetes is caused by the failure of the hormone insulin to signal cells, primarily muscle and fat, to take in serum glucose (blood sugar). There are 2 main potential points of failure in this metabolic regulatory process: the production of insulin by the pancreas (known as Type 1 diabetes); and the reception of it by specialized receptor sites in target cell walls (Type 2). Type 1 diabetes is more prevalent among people who develop diabetes at a young age, Type 2 with people who develop it older. The possibility of developing diabetes increases as one ages, though late-onset diabetes are usually more mild than early-onset, and less dangerous, as such cases have less time to damage ones body.

Excessive eating and drinking of high-calorie foods – not just sugary one or simple carbohydrates – can lead to obesity, which can contribute to the development of diabetes. However, sugars and carbohydrates are not known to affect insulin producing or receiving cell sites, so are not believed to cause diabetes.

Some controversial but reputable speculation exists that some cases – possible 50% or more - of diabetes is caused by food allergies, which are most prevalent in complex plant proteins. However, most diabetes involves loss of the insulin-producing pancreatic cells (islets of Langerhans) either due to one own body’s immune system attacking them, or less commonly. Susceptibility to diabetes, especially Type 1, is strongly genetically determines – nearly all identical twins of people with diabetes also develop it.

For most cases of diabetes, especially adult and later onset, there are many effective treatments, including some “natural” entirely non-intrusive diet and exercise-based ones. Diabetes among non-obese children, however, almost always requires medical treatment, either via pancreas-stimulating drugs, or injected insulin.

As Madeline Neumann appeared in news photos to by a non-obese 11-year-old, she likely was suffering the onset of Type 1 diabetes, and would have required medical treatment, including injected insulin, for the rest of her life (or until new therapies became available). It’s unlikely that her diabetes could have been controlled or cured with diet and exercise alone.

I’m hopeful that our growing understanding of physiology and molecular biology will lead, perhaps within the next decade, to therapies capable of actually curing diabetes by replacing or repairing lost or damaged insulin-producing cells and receptors.

[TheBigDog]

This is always a sensitive topic, and the feeling of helplessness one gets when they see people making choices of such bizarre logic makes them reach for a way of intervening. But there is a fine line of family choice that must be respected in society.

I hesitated to bring it up, but there is a similarity to the Schiavo case here. In that case family members were intervening, and the government was intervening to provide treatment that was being refused by another part of the family for a woman who could not speak for herself. In the end she was put into the situation of suffering a slow death from starvation. Medicine? All she needed was a feeding tube.

As I recall there was outrage in these threads about the interference in that private family matter. Here we have another case that is quite dissimilar in its details, but we have the opposite outrage. We should have stepped in and treated this child against the wishes of the family. If we are going to look at these issues on a case by case basis then we need some sort of guidelines for the decision making which allows a measure of latitude for circumstances. If we are going to just make black and white rules then we have a situation where you cannot have it both ways. If you wanted the feeding tube pulled from Schiavo, then you cannot force the treatment of this girl against the wishes of the family.

Freedom of choice sucks when people make decisions you don't agree with. What is the alternative, and how will you react when it is your decision being thrust into the news?

Bill

[Buffy]

Given that these Extreme Fundamentalists are procreating in greater numbers than more rational believers and non-believers, I see their freedom to "treat their children as they see fit" as an essential evolutionary mechanism for keeping what is apparently genetically derived brain damage from polluting the gene pool further.

While it is certainly sad, I can hope that the subsequent questioning of the value of religious belief will help far more than the one death that could have been prevented with a government that feels it should have the right to override the decisions of anyone who holds an unpopular belief.

It would of course be appropriate to send the parents "Pro Choice" t-shirts.

Consistency, madam, is the first of Christian duties,
Buffy

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Mike C

...However, my religious views here are that a Naturopathic physician would have cured the girl by 'natural' means....

"Alternative Medicine [including natural and homeopathic]
is defined as that set of practices that cannot be tested, that refuse to be tested, or that consistently fail tests".
-- Richard Dawkins

[Zythryn]

Craig, very well said, thank you for correcting Mike's statement.
I should have added 'type 1' to anywhere I mentioned 'diabetes'.
There have been some fascinating ideas brought up and I thank each and every one of you for participating in this thread.
I think there are significant differences between this and the Schivo case. However, there are a lot more similarities than I would have thought at first glance.
The biggest, and most significant difference in my mind is this:
In the Schivo case, the medical doctors came to the conlucsion that there was no hope of the patient ever regaining consiousness.
In this case, the medical consensus was/is that this is an easily treatable issue and the patient can live a normal life.

The 'right to choose' was a fascinating turn which I never considered. I am really curious how these people that make a choice, leading to the death of a child, feel about others making a choice which prevents a childs life from beggining/continuing.

I love this place, I love the exchange of ideas and observations. I never fail to come away from here with a new appreciation of other positions

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Mike C

My opinion...
There are natural medicines that can stabilize the blood sugars and dietary corrections can also do this.

Just one more note in case anyone that isn't well versed in type one diabetes and is considering this line of treatment.
As Mike stated, this is his opinion.
It is my opinion that this is a line of snake oil and is extremely dangerous. I had a brother in law (not deceased, just no longer my brother in law), who had type 1 diabetes and followed this line of treatment.
His kidneys shut down breifly and he almost died. He went back to insulin and started recovering nicely.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

This is always a sensitive topic, and the feeling of helplessness one gets when they see people making choices of such bizarre logic makes them reach for a way of intervening. But there is a fine line of family choice that must be respected in society.

I hesitated to bring it up, but there is a similarity to the Schiavo case here. In that case family members were intervening, and the government was intervening to provide treatment that was being refused by another part of the family for a woman who could not speak for herself. In the end she was put into the situation of suffering a slow death from starvation. Medicine? All she needed was a feeding tube.

As I recall there was outrage in these threads about the interference in that private family matter. Here we have another case that is quite dissimilar in its details, but we have the opposite outrage. We should have stepped in and treated this child against the wishes of the family. If we are going to look at these issues on a case by case basis then we need some sort of guidelines for the decision making which allows a measure of latitude for circumstances. If we are going to just make black and white rules then we have a situation where you cannot have it both ways. If you wanted the feeding tube pulled from Schiavo, then you cannot force the treatment of this girl against the wishes of the family.

Freedom of choice sucks when people make decisions you don't agree with. What is the alternative, and how will you react when it is your decision being thrust into the news?

Bill

The Schiavo case is not similar to the diabetic child that died.
In that case, the woman had a brain injury from an accident and was comotose for ten years.'Her brain shrank by 25%.

The girl could have been saved by intervention but a naturopathic physician has a number of herbs that can be used. One in particular is an herb in India that actually 'regenerates' the 'pancreas'
Type 2 diabetes can be easily cured but I am not familiar about no.1. But I am sure that they have capable treatments for type one as well.

The natural treatments with dietary corrections to strengthen the 'IMMUNE system is the way the ND's treat their patients. Also. any deficiencies in their blood tests are corrected with the required vitamins and minerals.
There are many other ways to cure their patients also. This is just a sample of their methods.

For your information, the JAMA says that drugs kill over 100,000 patients a year and this is with prescribed and directed use.
Anothe one and a half million are hospitalized for the side effects.

The ND's cure patients that are rejects as terminals by the government approved health care syatem.
These are from 'testimonials' of the patients themselves.

Mike C..

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

"Alternative Medicine [including natural and homeopathic]
is defined as that set of practices that cannot be tested, that refuse to be tested, or that consistently fail tests".
-- Richard Dawkins

These 'double blind placebo' tests require hundreds of thousands of dollars to do.
Only the drug companies can afford to do them.

The ND's rely on 'clinical' results that are proven by the patients testimonials themselves.
I cannot think of a better way to prove a treatment.

I have subscribed to about a half dozen newsletters of these ND's.

So I am familiar with their ways and methods.

Mike C

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Mike C

The girl could have been saved by intervention but a naturopathic physician has a number of herbs that can be used. One in particular is an herb in India that actually 'regenerates' the 'pancreas'.

Fascinating, do you have a name of the herb, or perhaps a study of any sort? BTW, the pancreas isn't damaged, but the islet cells which reside there are, perhaps this is what you are referring to?

Originally Posted by Mike C

For your information, the JAMA says that drugs kill over 100,000 patients a year and this is with prescribed and directed use.

Do they also tell you how many people die in their care?
Do they also mention that a million type 1 diabetics are alive solely because of modern medicine?
Of those 100,000 people, how many are intentional (if any).
How many are mis-diagnosis?
How many are due to drug interactions, of which the doctors weren't informed?

Seeing as how this 'natural medicine' nearly killed my brother in law, I am skeptical, but open to seeing any documentation.