Child Unwell But Parents Did Not Seek Medical Attention

[Hulk]

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

Prosecutors said Tuesday that a decision on charges will be made after they get the results of an autopsy.

Catherine Schaible's attorney, Mythri Jayaraman, cautioned against a rush to judgment, and said the couple are good parents deeply distraught over the loss of another child.

"There are way more questions than answers at this point. We haven't seen the autopsy report. We don't know the cause of death of this child," Jayaraman told The Associated Press. "What we do know is Mr. and Mrs. Schaible are distraught, they are grieving, they are tremendously sad about the loss of their most recent baby."

A man who answered the phone at a listing for Herbert Schaible declined to comment and hung up.

A jury convicted the Schaibles of involuntary manslaughter in the January 2009 death of their 2-year-old son, Kent. The boy's symptoms had included coughing, congestion, crankiness and a loss of appetite. His parents said he was eating and drinking until the last day, and they had thought he was getting better.

The Schaibles were sentenced to 10 years' probation.

At a hearing Monday, a judge told the couple they had violated the terms of their probation, noting the Schaibles had told investigators that they prayed to God to make Brandon well instead of seeking medical attention.

"You did that once, and the consequences were tragic," Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner said, according to the Philadelphia Daily News.

Prosecutors on Monday sought to have the couple jailed, but Lerner permitted them to remain free because their seven other children had been placed in foster care.

"He feels they are a danger to their children — not to the community, but to their own children," Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore, who prosecuted the couple in 2010, said Tuesday.

Herbert Schaible, 44, and his 43-year-old wife grew up in the First Century Gospel Church in northeast Philadelphia and have served as teachers there. The church's website has a sermon titled "Healing — From God or Medicine?" that quotes Bible verses purportedly forbidding Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine.

"It is a definite sin to trust in medical help and pills; and it is real faith to trust on the Name of Jesus for healing," says the message, from last May.

A phone message left with the church on Tuesday was not immediately returned.

The church's pastor said in 2010 that the couple had never received medical care themselves beyond the help of a lay midwife who attends home births.

The Schaibles did take their children for medical checkups as required by their probation, according to Jayaraman, the defense attorney. Jayaraman said that Brandon was checked by a doctor when he was 10 days old, but she did not know whether the child had seen a doctor since.

"Nobody argues that these aren't very loving, nurturing parents," she said Tuesday. "Whether their religion had anything to do with the death of their baby, we don't know."
___


Source

[Pygoscelis]

This sort of thing happens far more often than it should, and it is very sad to see.

Too often the system will allow religion to either obstruct justice completely, or make the system more lenient than it would be if religion wasn't being pushed as an excuse.

[جوري]

Actually doctors have the right to treat minors against their parents' will in life or death situations ONLY.
As for religion doing this or religion doing that. I don't know many religions that allow prayer without the use of medicine for it is the tool given us by God to treat out earthly ills!

best,

[Naeema]

It's a fine balance in the US between permitting free exercise of religion, the rights of a parent, and the rights of a child. The older a child, the more they have the ability to consent or refuse consent, the worse the conflict can become. In Massachusetts, these cases pop up sometimes, possibly because we have a larger population of Christian Scientists. If my recollection is correct, the Massachusetts courts finally decided that refusing to treat a child did not automatically constitute neglect, but that the parents could be accused of manslaughter if the child dies.

This is also an issue for the mentally ill and prisoners. When do we intervene, such as forcing someone to take anti-psychotics, and when do we allow them to refuse?

[glo]

I agree with Skye's post.
Medicine, science and human knowledge are gifts given by God.

Not many people would deny an ill and suffering person the benefits of medical intervention. (Although I can think of certain exceptions, such as organ transplants or blood donations for Jehovah's Witnesses)

As I understand, here in the UK an adult who has mental capacity can refuse medical treatment for him/herself, but not on behalf of a child.

[Pygoscelis]

Parents do not own their children. They are care takers for their children, and what care taking becomes irrational to the point of endangering the child, the child should be removed from the household immediately. Refusing essential medical treatment form a child due to the PARENT'S religious beliefs is something I find beyond negligent. It is outright vile.

[جوري]

Parents do not own their children.

Actually in medical ethics at least the American ones they're until the child is 18. There have been a few cases of emancipation and indeed if the child isn't in a life and death situation a parent can deny treatment and there's nothing a physician can do about it provided the other loop of caregiver competence is also met. That's not to say I don't agree with this part of your sentence:

They are care takers for their children

That's in fact how it should be. Children are amanaat in Islam like everything else we're gifted with them and we will be asked on how we took care of that gift!
but before we all get our knickers in a knot it is silly to believe that any system medical or governmental cares more for the well-fare of a child .. rare, far and in between those who are altruistic most people don't give a fig... bottom line is a dollar and the practice of letting children just die goes back since the inception of history.. from my recent reading even the catholic church allowed it with children who were born with less than perfect health...
The notion of doing everything we can and well fare and this and that is a smoke screen of political correctness that only recently made it to the seen.

best,

[glo]

Parents do not own their children. They are care takers for their children, and what care taking becomes irrational to the point of endangering the child, the child should be removed from the household immediately. Refusing essential medical treatment form a child due to the PARENT'S religious beliefs is something I find beyond negligent. It is outright vile.

I agree.

But it's hard when you love your child and you believe with every fibre of your heart that what you are doing is right and the best thing for him/her ...
Not just an issue for religious parents, I am sure.

I know of a number of parents who hold onto bizarre pseudo-scientific 'medical beliefs' which affect decisions they make on behalf of their children. (Take the refusal to immunise children for example, without good medical reasons) These are not religious reasons, but people hold to these beliefs nonetheless.

[CosmicPathos]

What's news worthy in this?

If abortion is allowed, this should be okay too. Both parents should be released, as they only let disease take its natural course. They did not actively kill the patient.

[Karl]

Parents do not own their children. They are care takers for their children, and what care taking becomes irrational to the point of endangering the child, the child should be removed from the household immediately. Refusing essential medical treatment form a child due to the PARENT'S religious beliefs is something I find beyond negligent. It is outright vile.

Christians believe their children belong to them. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "their children". Who do they belong to? Who are you to interfere? Who died and made you God? Not everyone is an arrogant godless collectivist totalitarian. These Christians made the mistake of living in a Zionist secularist collectivist totalitarian country. A country that murders children and then persecutes religious people for raising their children their way.

[Pygoscelis]

Christians believe their children belong to them. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "their children". Who do they belong to?

They belong to themselves. We make decisions for them because they are too young to care for themselves. We do not own them. They are not our slaves. They are not our property to be used and abused however we want.

Who are you to interfere?

Somebody who cares about children, and other fellow human beings.

Who died and made you God? Not everyone is an arrogant godless collectivist totalitarian.

That is quite a word salad. I picture you frothing at the mouth as you type it.

[Pygoscelis]

What's news worthy in this?

If abortion is allowed, this should be okay too. Both parents should be released, as they only let disease take its natural course. They did not actively kill the patient.

Would you say the same if they starved the child to death? They would be letting nature take its course then too, keeping something the child needs away from the child so the child dies.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

We allow twenty thousand children to starve to death every single day in the third world, we only start shouting when a child starves in our rich countries. Another twenty children will have died in the short time it has taken me to write this reply.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[ardianto]

Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Greeting and peace be with you

The church's website has a sermon titled "Healing — From God or Medicine?" that quotes Bible verses purportedly forbidding Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine.

I've visited a Christian website and I read an answer from a Pastor that Bible does not forbid Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine, just forbid Christians from only visit doctors or taking medicine.

I understand what he meant because actually it's not different than concept of healing in Islam. As believers we must believe that God is the healer. So, we cannot just taking medicine but do not pray. However, it doesn't means we are not allowed to do attempt to heal the disease.

Frankly, when I read the quoted article part above, what in my mind was "if Bible realy forbid Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine, must be there's no Christian doctor or Christian hospital".

Maybe sister Glo and brother Eric H want to add something? or correcting me if I'm wrong?

[Pygoscelis]

We allow twenty thousand children to starve to death every single day in the third world, we only start shouting when a child starves in our rich countries. Another twenty children will have died in the short time it has taken me to write this reply.

Yes, and it is a travesty. We should bring more exposure to the starvation of people around the world (not just children in Africa or people in America), and we don't do nearly enough for them.

But that isn't the topic of this thread, and it isn't a very good analogy, nor an excuse for these abusive parents. We are not the parents of the starving African children. We did not bring them into the world. We are too apathetic towards them, but most of us are not actively and purposefully keeping food from them and intending them to starve, as these parents are actively and purposefully keeping medicine from the children and intending them to have none. We don't take pride in starving African children the way these parents take pride in denying their children medicine.

I would also point out that if the Catholic church encouraged rather than discouraged condom use and family planning in Africa, the situation there would not be as dire.

[Pygoscelis]

Frankly, when I read the quoted article part above, what in my mind was "if Bible realy forbid Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine, must be there's no Christian doctor or Christian hospital".

The vast majority of Christians support medical intervention. There is a minority who do not, and who seek to rely on "faith healing". These are often the same people who handle dangerous snakes just to show off their faith that God will protect them, some of who have died from bites. It is insane and dangerous thinking and children should not be subjected to it.

[Pygoscelis]

I know of a number of parents who hold onto bizarre pseudo-scientific 'medical beliefs' which affect decisions they make on behalf of their children. (Take the refusal to immunise children for example, without good medical reasons) These are not religious reasons, but people hold to these beliefs nonetheless.

Yes, I agree. It isn't always religion that causes this sort of thing. When parents refuse immunizations for their children, they not only put themsleves and their children at risk, but they put us all at risk if we fail to reach herd immunity threshhold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

We've seen a few illnesses we thought we'd stomped out come back due to bizare and dangerous religious and pseudo-scientific beliefs.

[ardianto]

The vast majority of Christians support medical intervention. There is a minority who do not, and who seek to rely on "faith healing".

Different than Christians, Muslims have "Thibbun Nabawi" (Prophetic Healing). But vast majority of Muslims do not reject modern medicine and accept only Thibbun Nabawi.

[Karl]

They belong to themselves. We make decisions for them because they are too young to care for themselves. We do not own them. They are not our slaves. They are not our property to be used and abused however we want.



Somebody who cares about children, and other fellow human beings.



That is quite a word salad. I picture you frothing at the mouth as you type it.

If they belong to themselves then why does the state lord over them? We? What is that? The Athiest Overlords of Righteousness? It sounds that you believe that the children and the parents are slaves of the state. Do you believe the state is sovereign? You are always talking in the we and our, I assume you are just a part of many, you have been assimilated and lost your individuality. Try and speak for yourself, but my offspring belong to me!

Just because you care that dosen't give you the right to interfere in other peoples business.

I was not frothing at the mouth but I WOULD be if you self righteous collectivists ever interfered in my domestic affairs.

[Futuwwa]

Not everyone is an arrogant godless collectivist totalitarian.

True dat. I'm an arrogant godly collectivist totalitarian