• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mother convicted in prayer-death trial

ADK_Forever

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,706
Reaction score
1,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Found guilty of reckless homicide for letting sick daughter die
(Updated 6:13 p.m. ET, Fri., May 22, 2009)

WAUSAU, Wis. - A mother accused of praying instead of seeking medical help for her dying 11-year-old daughter was found guilty Friday of second-degree reckless homicide.

A Marathon County jury deliberated for about four hours before convicting Leilani Neumann, 41, of rural Weston, of second-degree reckless homicide. The crime is punishable by up to 25 years in prison. No sentencing date was set and Neumann remained free on bond.

Her daughter, Madeline Neumann, died of untreated diabetes March 23, 2008, surrounded by people praying for her. When she suddenly stopped breathing, her parents' business and Bible study partners finally called 911.

Prosecutors said a reasonable parent would have known something was wrong with Madeline. They said her mother recklessly killed her by ignoring obvious symptoms, such as her inability to walk or talk.

During closing arguments, Falstad described Neumann as a religious zealot who let her daughter, called Kara by her parents, die as a test of faith.
"Basic medical care would have saved Kara's life — fluids and insulin," Falstad said. "There was plenty of time to save Kara's life."

Linehan said Neumann didn't realize her daughter was so ill and did all she could do to help, in line with the family's belief in faith-healing.
He said Neumann was a devout Christian who prays about everything and took good care of her four children.

Neumann's stepfather, Brian Gordon, said his stepdaughter did nothing wrong in trusting in God to heal her daughter.
"We should have that right in this country,"
he said.

See: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

So, all you people that think the decision to medically treat a child should lay in the power of the parents... was this mother right? Her decision to "pray her daughter back to health" killed her. Should someone have stepped in to force insulin into this little girl's veins... to save her life?
 
Found guilty of reckless homicide for letting sick daughter die
(Updated 6:13 p.m. ET, Fri., May 22, 2009)





See: Mother convicted in prayer-death trial - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

So, all you people that think the decision to medically treat a child should lay in the power of the parents... was this mother right? Her decision to "pray her daughter back to health" killed her. Should someone have stepped in to force insulin into this little girl's veins... to save her life?


I think people who ignore getting their children critical life saving medical(not quack medicane/alternative medicine care) should be arrested and charged with murder.

I believe in God,however God is not a vending machine and why on earth would God do something for you that you can do on your own,which in case of the story is call 911. Asking God to heal your child when there is a doctor you can take your child to is like asking God to give you a sandwich instead of going to your refrigerator to grab some bread, meat, cheese, peanutbutter, jelly and other things to make your sandwich.
 
Last edited:
This is what religion does to people. It makes them believe the unbelievable which gives them grounds to do and say the most ignorant things. ALL religious people suffer from this to one degree or another. This is just a moderately extreme example of such nuttery.
 
This is what religion does to people. It makes them believe the unbelievable which gives them grounds to do and say the most ignorant things. ALL religious people suffer from this to one degree or another. This is just a moderately extreme example of such nuttery.

Someone who believes in the man made global warming fairy tale has absolutely no room what so ever to mock or bash people just because they believe in a supreme being. Oh no the world is over heating we got to increase taxes, buy carbon credits, recycle and make kids watch Al Gore's film or else the polar ice caps will melt and the world will flood.
 
This is what religion does to people. It makes them believe the unbelievable which gives them grounds to do and say the most ignorant things. ALL religious people suffer from this to one degree or another. This is just a moderately extreme example of such nuttery.

Moderately extreme? Dude, if I ever doubted your sense of perspective before...
 
Someone who believes in the man made global warming fairy tale has absolutely no room what so ever to mock or bash people just because they believe in a supreme being. Oh no the world is over heating we got to increase taxes, buy carbon credits, recycle and make kids watch Al Gore's film or else the polar ice caps will melt and the world will flood.

A discussion of a mother's irresponsible actions causing the death of a child, and you decide that this is the place to grind a political axe on a completely different subject.

Completely lame...
 
I think people who ignore getting their children critical life saving medical(not quack medicane/alternative medicine care) should be arrested and charged with murder.

I disagree. This conviction will be overturned. It is unconstitutional. The first amendment prohibits any law interfering with the practice of one's religious beliefs.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I believe in God,however God is not a vending machine and why on earth would God do something for you that you can do on your own,which in case of the story is call 911. Asking God to heal your child when there is a doctor you can take your child to is like asking God to give you a sandwich instead of going to your refrigerator to grab some bread, meat, cheese, peanutbutter, jelly and other things to make your sandwich.

I find it interesting, and arrogant, that you believe that your personal beliefs are the only ones protected by the first amendment. You believe God isn't a vending machine, so therefore, any one who doesn't agree with you shouldn't have the right to believe the way they do. It's also interesting that you use the word "quack". This coming from someone who believes there is a giant, invisible, bearded man living in the sky.
 
You believe God isn't a vending machine, so therefore, any one who doesn't agree with you shouldn't have the right to believe the way they do.

You completely missed the point of the statement that "God isn't a vending machine". :doh
 
You completely missed the point of the statement that "God isn't a vending machine". :doh

Thanks, I believe I got the point. In fact I agree with him. However...Some people believe God is there to tend to their every need through prayer and divine intervention. They certainly have that right, even if I personally disagree.
 
Thanks, I believe I got the point. In fact I agree with him. However...Some people believe God is there to tend to their every need through prayer and divine intervention. They certainly have that right, even if I personally disagree.

Ok, I see now.

However, I think your rights end precisely where another person's rights begin. Meaning that this woman's rights to exercise her religion freely end where her child's right to live is put into danger.

I'm glad they convicted the moonbat. She should fry for what she did to her daughter along with everyone in the room encouraging it.
 
Ok, I see now.

However, I think your rights end precisely where another person's rights begin. Meaning that this woman's rights to exercise her religion freely end where her child's right to live is put into danger.

I'm glad they convicted the moonbat. She should fry for what she did to her daughter along with everyone in the room encouraging it.

That sounds about right. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit. They cannot, however, recklessly endanger their children by denying them life saving medical care. The reason doesn't matter.
 
Ok, I see now.

However, I think your rights end precisely where another person's rights begin. Meaning that this woman's rights to exercise her religion freely end where her child's right to live is put into danger.

I'm glad they convicted the moonbat. She should fry for what she did to her daughter along with everyone in the room encouraging it.

Personally I don't disagree with you. The first amendment is just far too important to have every judge interpreting what it means and to whom it applies. The child has a right to medical care. If the child is being denied medical care and want's medical care, then clearly the parents are liable. However, if the child's belief is in divine intervention, and faith healing (even if taught by the parent's) then it's out of the court's hands. The first amendment doesn't have an age clause in it. Therefore it applies to everyone, regardless of age. In fact I would argue if there is any ambiguity, it would favor the child's rights, as when the first amendment was written and ratified, children were considered to be adults at a much younger age.
 
Personally I don't disagree with you. The first amendment is just far too important to have every judge interpreting what it means and to whom it applies. The child has a right to medical care. If the child is being denied medical care and want's medical care, then clearly the parents are liable. However, if the child's belief is in divine intervention, and faith healing (even if taught by the parent's) then it's out of the court's hands. The first amendment doesn't have an age clause in it. Therefore it applies to everyone, regardless of age. In fact I would argue if there is any ambiguity, it would favor the child's rights, as when the first amendment was written and ratified, children were considered to be adults at a much younger age.

No, the first amendment doesn't have an age clause but, historically, the rights of minors have been restricted and protected by the state until the age of majority.
 
I think this is a very touchy issue, and though I feel that the woman should have taken her daughter to the doctor, I do not move so quick to call a person insane for their religious beliefs. We all have the right to believe or not believe and though I agree God is not a vending machine, people do take the notion of God is the provider of all good things to heart and live by it.

I am not of mind that the government has any place forcing things upon a free people, but we do need to protect children. Tough question for me. Freedom of religion and privacy vs protection of children. I should think the children should trump without it going overboard.
 
I am not of mind that the government has any place forcing things upon a free people, but we do need to protect children. Tough question for me. Freedom of religion and privacy vs protection of children. I should think the children should trump without it going overboard.

I think the children aspect is key here. If the mother, for example, had diabetes and elected prayer over medication, the government probably wouldn't have a right to act. Of course, her ensuing death would hurt the children emotionally, financially, etc.

But it would be her choice. And if a mature adult (adult being the key phrase here) makes that choice, they should have that right.
 
No, the first amendment doesn't have an age clause but, historically, the rights of minors have been restricted and protected by the state until the age of majority.

Which means that it is up to the parents. If the child had religious beliefs in divine intervention, then the courts hands are tied.
 
Which means that it is up to the parents. If the child had religious beliefs in divine intervention, then the courts hands are tied.

I am first inclined to agree with you, but the child's beliefs are dictated by the parents and not a concious, informed decision, therefor I feel the government must intervene.
 
I am first inclined to agree with you, but the child's beliefs are dictated by the parents and not a concious, informed decision, therefor I feel the government must intervene.

I say there can be no intervention on behalf of our Gov't. Except to assist in upholding the parent's beliefs. What happens when the roles are reversed? Say a child does not want medical treatment, the parent's want medical treatment for their child. A judge happens to practice in divine intervention as part of his/her religious beliefs, and rules in favor of the child.

People would be outraged.

I realize this example is an exaggeration. However where is the "new" line to be drawn? The parent's may have taught their beliefs to their child, and it's not my business, nor the Gov't, to tell them they're wrong.

Which I believe is why freedom of religious belief's is the first amendment, and even the first phrase, of our Constitution.
 
Faith healing over medicine is child abuse and criminally negligent. Just because your negligence was in accordance with your faith is no excuse.

I cannot kill a man and claim religious immunity because it was a part of my religion; Just as a man cannot claim first amendment rights for committing an act of terrorism.

To claim otherwise is to claim that laws do not apply so long as they contradict your beliefs.
 
Last edited:
I say there can be no intervention on behalf of our Gov't. Except to assist in upholding the parent's beliefs. What happens when the roles are reversed? Say a child does not want medical treatment, the parent's want medical treatment for their child. A judge happens to practice in divine intervention as part of his/her religious beliefs, and rules in favor of the child.

People would be outraged.

I realize this example is an exaggeration. However where is the "new" line to be drawn? The parent's may have taught their beliefs to their child, and it's not my business, nor the Gov't, to tell them they're wrong.

Which I believe is why freedom of religious belief's is the first amendment, and even the first phrase, of our Constitution.

The difference, as I see it, would be erring on the side of saving the child's life no matter the case. Yes, it would mean violating the child's personal religious beliefs.

But we don't trust a child enough to let them vote for their representatives - why trust them to make life and death decisions for themselves?
 
Faith healing over medicine is child abuse and criminally negligent. Just because your negligence was in accordance with your faith is no excuse.

I cannot kill a man and claim religious immunity because it was a part of my religion; Just as a man cannot claim first amendment rights for committing an act of terrorism.

To claim otherwise is to claim that laws do not apply so long as they contradict your beliefs.

Please cite what law is being violated by one refusing treatment. Please don't cite personal opinion, please cite the actual statute.

All of the examples you cited are in direct violation of law. Killing a man is murder. Whatever act of terrorism you mention must also be a law in order to prosecute. Act of terrorism a extremely vague, you need to be more specific.
 
The difference, as I see it, would be erring on the side of saving the child's life no matter the case.



The problem is highlighted in your post. The "as I see it" part opens the door for every judge to put his/her "as I see it" spin on every ruling.

Yes, it would mean violating the child's personal religious beliefs.

It would also mean violating her and her parents Constitutional rights. Are you prepared to live in a country where there is a precedent set for judges to violate the Constitution for their "as I see it" opinion?

What rights are you willing to give up based on a judges personal opinion?

But we don't trust a child enough to let them vote for their representatives - why trust them to make life and death decisions for themselves?

I'm glad you mentioned voting for representatives. You are right, we don't let a child vote for rep's. We vote for representatives to make the laws. We vote for the judges to enforce the laws. Why would you want judges that change the law as they personally see fit? Refusing treatment isn't against the law, nor should it be. Congress cannot change that law based on religious freedom.

The parents are making the decision with the child. The child isn't making the decision by themselves. It just seems that the majority of the people disagree with them, as do I. But they a right to believe God is capable of (or responsible for) whatever they choose to believe.

If they believe the Sta-Puff Marsh Mellow man is God, and finding him and taking a bite out of him will get them into heaven and heal their kid's, so be it.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad you mentioned voting for representatives. You are right, we don't let a child vote for rep's. We vote for representatives to make the laws. We vote for the judges to enforce the laws. Why would you want judges that change the law as they personally see fit? Refusing treatment isn't against the law, nor should it be. Congress cannot change that law based on religious freedom.

The parents are making the decision with the child. The child isn't making the decision by themselves. It just seems that the majority of the people disagree with them, as do I. But they a right to believe God is capable of (or responsible for) whatever they choose to believe.

The situation I was referencing in that post was a hypothetical one in which the child didn't want medical treatment, but the parents did. Just to clarify.

But to refer back to the original post (which I believe you're addressing), the parents would be making the decision for their child. And I'm saying that in this case, the government has the right to step in and provide life-saving medical care for the child. Just as a child can be removed from an abusive home, the government should have the ability to get the child the medical care it needs, regardless of the parents' religious views.

Does that address your point?
 
The situation I was referencing in that post was a hypothetical one in which the child didn't want medical treatment, but the parents did. Just to clarify.

Cool, I understand. But do you see the legal precedent this sets?

But to refer back to the original post (which I believe you're addressing), the parents would be making the decision for their child. And I'm saying that in this case, the government has the right to step in and provide life-saving medical care for the child.

Does that address your point?

I believe the Gov't only has a right to meet with the child, explain the medical situation. Explain the potential consequences to the child, and only then "if" the child changes their mind and decides they want medical care, step in to protect the child.

Just as a child can be removed from an abusive home, the government should have the ability to get the child the medical care it needs, regardless of the parents' religious views.

Child abuse is against the law. Refusing treatment isn't.
 
Child abuse is against the law. Refusing treatment isn't.

Refusing treatment is child neglect, which is against the law.

Children are not property, or pets. BTW, people have been jailed for abusing or neglecting animals, which includes pets and livestock....
 
Back
Top Bottom