Opinion
Religion unleashed on courts
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Sean Kittridge:
- Sanford and the art of lazy lying (June 26, 2009)
- Wisconsin budget follies induce flailing, head-shaking (June 18, 2009)
- Wiscard good for UW's funds, bad for students' (June 13, 2009)
- Scared straight: Use fear to force police into enforcement equality (June 5, 2009)
- Selig sets horrific example for undergraduates (May 5, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
When Dionne Warwick sang “I Say a Little Prayer,” she did so as a recording artist, not a doctor. For two parents in
Madeline Neumann was 11 years old when she died. Like most young deaths, hers was unexpected. But unlike a freak accident or a painful battle with a terminal illness, Madeline’s death could have been prevented. Instead, Madeline died of diabetes, left undiagnosed not because she didn’t show signs of failure, but because her parents failed to take medical action.
Anyone who’s watched daytime TV knows what diabetes is. Although you may pronounce it dia-beetus thanks to Wilford Brimley, it’s not a mysterious illness like ALS or those feverless flus that always caught you during middle school test days. Living with diabetes, as commercial spots explained to me, involves careful monitoring of blood sugar, insulin and serious determination. Rosaries are optional. But Dale and Leilani Neumann, Madeline’s parents, must not catch much Court TV or Maury, because when their daughter starting falling ill, they didn’t call a pediatrician; they called on the Lord. Unfortunately, he doesn’t fill prescriptions.
This week, a judge is set to rule whether Dale and Leilani should face second-degree reckless homicide charges for letting their daughter go weeks without proper medical attention. On the surface, it seems like a no-brainer. Their child is dead, and they did nothing to stop it. Or did they? Prayer may not be the most common treatment for serious illness, but Jesus cured a bunch of lepers, and I’ve seen dozens of arthritic healings live on the 700 Club. The metronomic nature of court-faith interactions makes this case difficult not only from a legal perspective, but from an ethical one as well.
Believe it or not, this is not the first time the courts have dealt with this type of story. But in the four previous similar cases, two went to trial and two were dismissed. Therefore, there’s no strong legal precedent to fall back on when deciding whether to continue the legal process. Without legal history backing the charges, this almost becomes a judgment call, questioning whether the Neumanns’ actions were not only irresponsible, but also criminal.
Distrust of modern medicine is not that uncommon a religious belief. Some Christian Scientists believe in avoiding drugs and surgery, and Tom Cruise doesn’t accept depression medication as an acceptable way to cope after watching “Vanilla Sky.” To suggest prayer is an inferior means of treatment could, in the eyes of some, undermine religion, and the
Obviously, the Neumanns didn’t intend to let their daughter die, but intent is only one part of the equation. Involuntary murder is still murder, and while drunkenly driving a truck into a station wagon is quite different than praying for divine intervention, they both achieved, in this instance, the same result. The court system, like any other government entity, is free from religious influence and should look at this case like it would any other: A girl is dead, and someone should be held accountable.
The government’s stance on religion is difficult to pin down. Is
Faith is, in itself, a trial. Martyrdom only kicks in once you’ve died for your beliefs. If the Neumanns truly believed in their actions, they should embrace the opportunity to defend themselves. Besides, you’d be amazed how far a little faith will go. I wouldn’t bank on Lazarus, but this should be interesting.
Sean Kittridge (kittridge@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in journalism.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
You pepper in too much whimsy for this serious subject.
This is ridiculous.
In no way can you prove they did anything to help their daughter - ‘prayer’ is essentially just their wishful thinking to their imaginary friend, and doesn’t even have any mental effects on the body - and it is entirely clear that their neglect killed their daughter. Nor should someone’s religious beliefs be given a free pass; I don’t care whether people believe in Allah or Krishna or some other figment of their imagination, but their rights stop where they hit someone else’s nose.
Religion should have about as much precedence in a courtroom as magic tricks. Though Jesus was no Houdini.
Save me Jebus.
So if a Scientologist’s child died because their parents didn’t believe in accepting certain medication, should they also be held liable?
Or look at it this way, if the prevailing medical practice was witchcraft or voodoo (not downing these religions in this case, just providing an example I believe a majority of Americans could relate to) and the child died because the parents didn’t want to submit their child to that treatment because they were of a different religion, or atheist, should they be held liable as well?
I’m not saying that what they did (or didn’t do) was right, but hopefully you can see why this would be a sensitive subject for a judge.
Do you have the lab reports proving that Jesus cured those lepers?
Yes, they should be charged. I realize this is a sensitive subject, but I have a real problem with children not being given treatment that has been proven to work because of their parents religion.
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are the same thing, you are free to pick whatever religion you like for yourself or none at all in this country, theoretically. And if your religion tells you to pray to the lord to save your daughter good for you, but you have to deal with the consequences when you daughter inevitable dies from a preventable disease.
Thank you for your article “Religion unleashed on Courts” about the Neumann case in Wausau. As a Christian Scientist, I would like to address the statement that Christian Scientists “distrust modern medicine.” Christian Scientists are not anti-medical. In fact, Christian Scientists are not prohibited from going to doctors.
However, I choose Christian Science treatment because I have had numerous personal experiences when something has been healed by relying solely on prayer in the case of depression, a bike accident, financial loss, and many more instances. It’s also important to note that Christian Science is a different domination from Scientology, of which Tom Cruise is a member.
I understand your concern for young children, especially in this case, but it is helpful to know that Christian Scientists love their children and prayer is not inactive or negligent.