Faith-Healing Parents Arrested for Death of Second Child

[Omeganian]

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychol ... 130424.htm

A religious couple already on probation for choosing prayer over medicine in the death of their toddler son may be facing similar charges in the death of their newest child.

According to an article on ABC News, “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.”

That boy, a two-year-old named Kent, died after the Schaibles refused to take him to the doctor when he became sick, relying instead on faith and prayer. The couple were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years on probation.

In the latest tragedy, they told police that they prayed for God to heal Brandon instead of taking him to a doctor when he fell ill. Officials said that an autopsy will be performed on the child, and depending on those results the parents may be charged with a crime.

The couple attend, and have taught at, Philadelphia’s First Century Gospel Church, which cites Biblical scripture favoring prayer and faith over modern medicine. Other religions, including Followers of Christ Church, Christian Scientists, and Scientology, have doctrines that prohibit or discourage modern medicine and therapeutic interventions.

This is not the first time that parents have gone on trial for child abuse or neglect for refusing their children medical attention. Though freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the practice of that religion does not give followers license to break the law — especially when the result is injury or death to a child.

If prayer and faith healing had a proven track record of success, it might be argued that they provide a legitimate, proven alternative to medical care. Many people may be surprised to find that intercessory prayer (petitioning a higher power to heal someone else) has been tested. Several studies have been done to see if people who are prayed for recover any faster, or are cured of disease at higher rates, than those who are not prayed for.

In one of the largest studies ever conducted, researchers at six major medical centers including Harvard and the Mayo Clinic looked at patient outcomes of prayer. The research, “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer ‘STEP’ in Cardiac Bypass Patients,” was published in the American Heart Journal and conducted over the course of a decade.

Nearly 2,000 cardiac surgery patients were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: one group was prayed for after being told they’d be prayed for; another group was prayed for after being told they may or may not be prayed for; and the third was not prayed for after being told the same thing. The results: the group that was prayed for did no better than the group that wasn’t prayed for. Intercessory prayer had no beneficial effect at all on recovery time, death rate, or other medical factors.

Dr. Steven Novella, a neurologist at Yale University and author of the Science-Based Medicine blog, told Discovery News “to the extent that faith healing and prayer have been studied, the evidence shows they do not work. This is not surprising, as they are little more than magic and wishful thinking. Forgoing proven medical care for serious treatable conditions is never a good idea, but it is criminal neglect when such decisions are made on behalf of defenseless children.”

I have no words.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Sickening.

[Flagg]

I'd like to know why the fuck they had custody of the second kid. And how they got probation for killing their first.

[Omeganian]

I'd like to know why the fuck they had custody of the second kid. And how they got probation for killing their first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_heal ... States_law

[Flagg]

That's obscene.

[The Xeelee]

It's people and laws like this that makes the US look bad.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

This was covered by an episode of Family Guy, I think the kid in question had leukaemia and the parents insisted that praying for the kid would make him better. Lois successfully argued that surely the work of doctors and cancer research must if nothing else, count as answered prayers.

In this case I find it outrageous enough that a child must pay the price for a couples blind faith, but two from the same family? That's a double Darwin Award if I've ever seen one...

[Omeganian]

This was covered by an episode of Family Guy, I think the kid in question had leukaemia and the parents insisted that praying for the kid would make him better. Lois successfully argued that surely the work of doctors and cancer research must if nothing else, count as answered prayers.

In this case I find it outrageous enough that a child must pay the price for a couples blind faith, but two from the same family? That's a double Darwin Award if I've ever seen one...

Doesn't count. They have seven other kids.

http://www.livescience.com/29022-faith- ... abuse.html

[Crossroads Inc.]

From what the story says, THIS TIME they are at least fancing jail time:

Because the couple "knowingly, intentionally, hypocritically and callously violated" the most critical term of the probation they received after the death of their son Kent, they now face up to 10 years in prison.

Their seven remaining children have been removed from their home by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'd like to know why the fuck they had custody of the second kid. And how they got probation for killing their first.

Because they hired some high priced bullshit peddlers for the trial, which convinced the court over all other medical testimony that the pneumonia that killed the kid was such a deadly strain he still most likely would have died within a few days even with hospital care.

This was covered by an episode of Family Guy, I think the kid in question had leukaemia and the parents insisted that praying for the kid would make him better.

Different case.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I'd like to know why the fuck they had custody of the second kid. And how they got probation for killing their first.

Because they hired some high priced bullshit peddlers for the trial, which convinced the court over all other medical testimony that the pneumonia that killed the kid was such a deadly strain he still most likely would have died within a few days even with hospital care.

This was covered by an episode of Family Guy, I think the kid in question had leukaemia and the parents insisted that praying for the kid would make him better.

Different case.

Either way though, it's at least negligent on their part. I should have specified, it was that issue that was explored by Family Guy, not the case

[Highlord Laan]

I'd like to know why the fuck they had custody of the second kid. And how they got probation for killing their first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_heal ... States_law

And people look at me strangely when I say that religions need to have a bootheel on the neck.

[Simon_Jester]

Have you ever been the recipient of a bootheel on the neck?

For that matter, have you ever been a participant in delivering one?

If not, then I think you aren't qualified to talk such bloodthirsty talk.

[Jub]

The longer that religion hangs on the longer that the laws and mindsets that allow these sorts of things to happen will stay around. It also means constantly defending science from the attacks of creationists and being passively bullied by Christians who think that it's okay to shove their religion at you. I don't see anything that religion does that can't be replaced by secular community centers and thus I see no reason why religion should be protected, encouraged, or defended.

[Broomstick]

Quite a few religious people also want this sort of bullshit to stop. Your religion should stop where it endangers others, including (perhaps especially) where it affects your children.

[Simon_Jester]

The longer that religion hangs on the longer that the laws and mindsets that allow these sorts of things to happen will stay around. It also means constantly defending science from the attacks of creationists and being passively bullied by Christians who think that it's okay to shove their religion at you. I don't see anything that religion does that can't be replaced by secular community centers and thus I see no reason why religion should be protected, encouraged, or defended.

I could ask you the same question: have you ever had the experience of a bootheel on the neck? If not, don't be so quick to fantasize about it happening to someone else.

Besides, what happens if you decide we don't need constitutional protections on religious beliefs, and your beliefs lose? Yes, the ones that say there shouldn't be any religious beliefs to begin with.

Would that somehow be better? Because it's a very plausible outcome.

[Jub]

The longer that religion hangs on the longer that the laws and mindsets that allow these sorts of things to happen will stay around. It also means constantly defending science from the attacks of creationists and being passively bullied by Christians who think that it's okay to shove their religion at you. I don't see anything that religion does that can't be replaced by secular community centers and thus I see no reason why religion should be protected, encouraged, or defended.

I could ask you the same question: have you ever had the experience of a bootheel on the neck? If not, don't be so quick to fantasize about it happening to someone else.

Besides, what happens if you decide we don't need constitutional protections on religious beliefs, and your beliefs lose? Yes, the ones that say there shouldn't be any religious beliefs to begin with.

Would that somehow be better? Because it's a very plausible outcome.

See freedom of religion already doesn't seem to cover freedom from religion. Example packages marked with atheist packing tape took longer to arrive or were lost in transit more often that packages with regular tape when being shipped to the US, yet nobody is stepping up to do anything about that. There's also the fact that it's entirely socially acceptable to hand out Christian fliers in a public place or to walk around and place them in letter boxes, try that with an alternative religion or fliers advertising a secular church replacement and see if it's seen as acceptable.

I say we even things out a bit by taxing churches and properly enforcing laws dealing with religion. Then maybe we can start removing the laws that allow BS like faith healing or parents not allowing kids to get blood transfusions.

The other question is what positive things do religions do that a secular based community minded lifestyle couldn't? If you can't think of anything, then the only parts of religion that are left are the actively harmful ones.

[Broomstick]

Part of the problem is that atheists in the US have not been effective in promoting secular replacements. Obviously, with the current societal bias saying "Atheist Food Bank" is probably a non-starter, but what have you, as an atheist, done to promote secular charities, secular community centers, and so forth? Because until the secular alternatives are actually viable they don't replace the church role in that sense.

Frankly, I don't see atheists suffering from belief bias any more than anyone else outside the Abrahamic religions. Too many US Christians seem to think the first amendment applies only to freedom to choose from the Christian buffet. That is not a flaw in the Bill of Rights, it's a flaw in human beings. Freedom of belief, including the freedom to be free of some beliefs, is still a worthy ideal even if the practice is flawed.

[Simon_Jester]

See freedom of religion already doesn't seem to cover freedom from religion.

So you answered my question with a talking point.

If you want to legislate freedom from religion, you've got your steps out of order. First you push to have laws changed to remove things like freedom-of-religion exemptions to laws requiring kids to get proper medical care. Or freedom-of-religion exemptions to rules about hiring discrimination, or about what an employer's health insurance can cover. Because that actually does grant freedom from religion. Or at least, freedom from the only kinds of religion that actually harm anyone who didn't volunteer for it.

Only then do you engage in policies that are designed purely to weaken "religion" in general. Because at that point you are no longer preserving "freedom from," and are simply abridging and attacking "freedom of."

I suspect your concept of "freedom" is actually a concept of "strength;" you want to remove the strength of one institution and transfer it to another. You believe that you are not free because you see 'your side' lacking the strength to do as it pleases, and you believe that to become free you must remove the other side's strength first (tax churches), and only then change the laws to get the outcome you desire.

That's not how freedom works.

[SystemError]

What I've come to understand, having observed the forum from afar for awhile, is that S_J's posting gimmick is to play Moderate Hero, but always in favor of the conservative position (I guess he thinks the forum needs to be artificially "balanced").

[Ziggy Stardust]

And people look at me strangely when I say that religions need to have a bootheel on the neck.

Take your Internet Tough-Guy act and shove it up your ass.

See freedom of religion already doesn't seem to cover freedom from religion. Example packages marked with atheist packing tape took longer to arrive or were lost in transit more often that packages with regular tape when being shipped to the US, yet nobody is stepping up to do anything about that.

Are you fucking stupid? I mean, really, are you that fucking stupid you think that link proves that there is a systematic oppression of atheist mail? Or are you just easily convinced by fancy looking pictures that don't even let you see the data in question? And, really, are you so stupid that a sentence like this doesn't raise red flags with you (from that retarded link you posted):

"But for packages to disappear completely, we see no likely explanation other than there existing an attitudinal bias and discriminatory motivation on the part of some people handling these packages. "

Yeah, packages being lost in the mail are a complete impossibility! The ONLY explanation is that the Christian illuminati has infiltrated the mail rooms to make absolutely sure that anything with "ATHEIST" scrawled on the side arrives slightly later than un-marked packages. MUAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA FUCK YOU ATHEISTS OUR DIABOLICAL PLAN IS UNSTOPPABLE!!! NOW HOW WILL YOU GET YOUR TOTE BAGS THAT SAY "I'M AN ATHEIST" IN GERMAN ON THEM???!!!!!

I mean ... really dude?

There's also the fact that it's entirely socially acceptable to hand out Christian fliers in a public place or to walk around and place them in letter boxes, try that with an alternative religion or fliers advertising a secular church replacement and see if it's seen as acceptable.

I have personally seen people handing out fliers for things that have nothing to do with Christianity. So ... again, you are just being a moron. I think it's hilarious that people like you on these forums rail and rail about how religion is evil and should be dispensed with, while absolutely refusing to provide any evidence, and generally acting exactly like fundamentalist morons do during a debate about evolution

The other question is what positive things do religions do that a secular based community minded lifestyle couldn't? If you can't think of anything, then the only parts of religion that are left are the actively harmful ones.

I agree that secular-based community centers can fill the same role as religions, socially. And I hope that places like that become popular. But the fact is the vast majority of religious people AREN'T the ones killing their children by refusing medical care or going on Crusades - and the vast majority of religious people disapprove of the actively harmful elements of religion. Discouraging fundamentalist is a worthy goal - but turning that into, "LOL the evil Christians are stupid and making our mail late" is just an incredibly idiotic response.

[CJvR]

Once might be stupidity, twice is insanity!

[Simon_Jester]

What I've come to understand, having observed the forum from afar for awhile, is that S_J's posting gimmick is to play Moderate Hero, but always in favor of the conservative position (I guess he thinks the forum needs to be artificially "balanced").

No, but I think dumb things are dumb. Bootheel-on-neck fetishes are dumb. And creepy. So I criticize them.

If disagreeing with people when they go rambling about bootheels on necks is a gimmick, then you may need to recalibrate your gimmick-detector.

[NoXion]

He said "religion" not "religious people", so I'm going with the interpretation that he means a strong secular state willing to flex its muscles against religious institutions, rather than persecution of believing individuals.

[Simon_Jester]

Given Jub's track record I honestly don't know, but you're probably right.