It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Couple Faces Prison After Shunning Medical Care For Baby.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Link to full story.

I will only post the first paragraph because the site says the article can not be redistributed.



"FRANKLIN, Ind. -- A couple convicted of reckless homicide for relying on prayer instead of medical care for their seriously ill newborn say they would do so again if a similar situation arose..."



This is terrible. How could anyone neglect there child in the hope that prayer could save them when it is a proven fact that the drugs would have almost certainly saved the child’s life.

They should (and likely will) take the couples other children away from them and I really hope they take any more away as soon as they are born. Dewayne and Maleta Schmidt are clearly IMO unfit parents.




posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Faith can be an unfortunately powerful influence in some people's lives. You hear stories about families who want to cure their child, but they won't allow a necessary blood transfusion. It's a very big dillemma.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
It is a sad and difficult situation. Parents decide their childs fate on many occasions, some for religion, some for how they were raised, and some for their own fears. There are still parents that feel strongly that immunizations are not good and refuse to obtain them for their child yet should that child obtain an illness and die, it would be tragic.

I wonder what would happend to parents that did not immunize their child and some old, rare illness was to surface and the child not only became ill, but spread the illness to other children. Perhaps there is a lesson in this new story for all sides.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Yes, this is such a difficult topic


On the one hand....

It seems deplorable that parents would put their child at risk in this way.

BUT...

On the other hand...

They obviously had complete faith that their method was better; and isn't that their right? Does the government actually have the right to supercede parental decisions of this nature?

If the situation had been reversed - ie, if the baby had received antibiotics against the will of the parents, but had died from an adverse reaction, or even simply because the drugs didn't work - would the parents have a right to sue the hospital in question?

There's no easy answer to this - it's just a tragedy all round. I really do feel for the parents though...they obviously didn't want their child to die.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
There's no easy answer to this - it's just a tragedy all round. I really do feel for the parents though...they obviously didn't want their child to die.


I don't see how this is a difficult topic. Their child needed urgent medical care in order to survive. The parents refused it, the child died as a result, so they are resposible for his death. They deserve to go to jail.

Plain and Simple. Oh and they have a word for people like that child's parents..... hmmm what's the word..... oh yeah... S.T.U.P.I.D.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ocelot

I don't see how this is a difficult topic. Their child needed urgent medical care in order to survive. The parents refused it, the child died as a result, so they are resposible for his death. They deserve to go to jail.


And that's easy for us to say, because we don't share the same religious beliefs as those parents.

If you have a genuine belief that your methods are better than those of someone else....what then are you to do?

(fwiw, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that they're responsible for the child's death - obviously, they are...and don't think for one second that I'm condoning the actions; I'm merely trying to see it from both sides)

Turn the tables for a sec (this is a conspiracy board, after all...).

For the sake of argument, say you have a child with leukaemia. You believe that more harm than good will be done by the standard treatment (chemo is toxic, after all); you'd much rather either use perhaps holistic healing methods, or find another option; you don't believe the government's version of cure rates, and genuinely believe that there's a better method. How would you feel if the government stepped in and decided that your child WILL get treatment, despite your wishes? What if the treatment directly results in the child's death? (not unheard of)

To use an actual case: You're pregnant. You've had your scans, and the scans show massive deformities, which are considered "incompatible with life". You'd rather not abort the fetus, but the state steps in and mandates it anyway, "for the sake of the child's potential quality of life". What if you want to enjoy that small life, if only for a very short period after the birth before it dies?

It's very easy to sit here and condemn the parents, because none of us have been through this situation; I'm just not sure how much government interference I want when it comes to healthcare decisions - it's a very slippery slope, and there's currently nothing in place to protect abuse of that authority.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
If you have a genuine belief that your methods are better than those of someone else....what then are you to do?


You call "praying" a method? Seriously dude. I they could still have the doctor's treat the child and they could have "prayed" all they want still. One thing is to try something else, but praying?

Anyways no use arguing over this. The courts will decide what to do with these parents.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I don't, no...but the parents did (let's face it, I'm usually the one defending the medical community, not villifying it
).

Personally - I do find their misguided actions more than a little whacked....but I have to see it from their point of view too, you know? It's the whole "I'm not sure I like the look of that thar slippery slope" part that is my main concern.

You're right though - the justice system will deal with 'em.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Freedom of Religion does not supercede "thou shalt not kill."

You're right, though, tinkleflower. You can't argue with faith, and when someone feels that praying is the best and only course of action, can you fault them, really, for feeling that anymore than any other religious belief? Well, yes (see above) but it is an interesting argument.




top topics



 
0

log in

join