In a post last month (“One death too many”) I mentioned the death of 11 year old Kara Neumann, who died of a treatable form of diabetes because her parents decided to pray for her rather than seek out medical treatment. Her parents are being charged for murder and have set up the following website in their defense:

Help the Neumanns and Help Yourself
http://www.helptheneumanns.com/

There is a lot of text on the site but the first section is called “The Neumanns and the Law.” Let us see some of what they have to say in their defense?

On Sunday, March 23, 2008 the Neumann family lost their little girl, Kara. They had chosen prayer over medicine and God chose to take Kara home. There has been much debate over this issue and I would like to set the record straight from a legal prospective under both the Constitution and Wisconsin law.

God didn’t choose to take Kara home. She died because she wasn’t treated for her diabetes – as would happen to any person who is not treated for their diabetes. Don’t believe me? Well, I would love to see a single known case on record of a person surviving a similar case of diabetes solely from praying.

Before I give my case and point, let me say this:  If we are going to judge this family — which we really have no right to do — we need to understand completely what the Bible states about healing and prayer. In short, the Bible states that we should trust God for healing and use prayer to achieve that goal.

I beg your pardon. We have every right to judge a family that has directly caused the needless death of their children through gross negligence. Who cares what the Bible states about healing and prayer? It is all mere assertion, anyway. There is no more evidence that prayer can cause healing than there is for voodoo or wishing upon a star.

Also, equally as important, and which seemingly is being ignored is, what would Kara herself have done if she alone could choose? The answer can only be based on what Kara believed. Kara believed what the Bible teaches and had more faith than some of us reading this. From things I have personally read that Kara wrote, she would have chosen prayer over medical assistance because she loved and trusted God and His Word.

The mere fact that Kara shared the same dangerous, absurd, and unfounded beliefs as her parents (inevitably) does not mean anything. In what other context would we allow a young child to decide what, if any, medical treatment was best? In what other context than in the context of extreme religious belief would we even consider allowing a child to willingly forgo medical treatment and cause his or her own death? That’s just ridiculous.

Moving on, the author cites a number of court cases along with the 14 amendment to illustrate how parents have the right to raise and educate their children. Yes, but, where in the constitution or in any court precedent are parents given the right to endanger their children? Nowhere. What about the child’s right to life? Why does it seem that Christians are so concerned with the right to life of fetuses and zygotes but not the right to life of a fully grown child?

The D.A. has chosen to file a “Reckless Homicide” charge. Second-degree reckless homicide is the reckless causing of the death of another human being or unborn child. But it involves other acts that must be proven. In the criminal law, recklessness (sometimes also termed “willful blindness” which may have a different meaning in the United States) is one of the four possible classes of mental state constituting mens rea (the Latin for “guilty mind”). This would eliminate the Neumanns’ actions since there was no unlawful intent to cause harm or death to their child.

To commit an offense of ordinary as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both a mens rea and an actus reus, i.e., a person cannot be guilty for thoughts alone. Even if the Neumanns’ knowledge had been that the possibility of death could have occurred, having that thought alone is not sufficient under the law to charge anyone with reckless homicide. Which, by the way, was NOT the case.

Right, well, perhaps here it gets a little tricky. In my opinion, these parents were acting recklessly. But perhaps they really were just acting out of sheer ignorance or brainwashing. Again, however, I would submit that such an excuse probably would not fly in any other context. Why should religion be allowed to excuse these parents of their negligence?

Last quotation:

Because you or I may disagree with what we deem to be proper treatment of any illness, opinions or personal choice cannot nullify the law and/or the Constitution. Since this law protecting the right of prayer over conventional medicine does not conflict with, and in fact supports the constitutional position of parental rights, the law should remain intact and the charges against the Neumann family should be withdrawn.

There is nothing to disagree on. Experience, along with a number of studies, consistenly shows that prayer fares no better when it comes to healing to doing nothing at all. This is not a matter of personal opinion or choice. It is a matter of fact and evidence. Medical treatment works very well. In cases of diabetes, people can continue to live normal and healthy lives.

There is no excuse!