Living And Dying Off A Prayer, Part I

By now, most, if not all, of you should have heard of the tragic case of Madeline Kara Neumann. She was the 11 year old girl that was allowed to die from untreated diabetes. There is currently a number of viewpoints being put out there, regarding whether or not the parents should be charged.

The problem comes up with the current State Laws. When I worked in foster care, the rules was plainly laid out in Wisconsin State Statute 48.13 (10):

Whose parent, guardian or legal custodian neglects, refuses or is unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to seriously endanger the physical health of the child.

The following causes also cover times when there is reasonable cause to believe that such neglect could occur, and if the parent, guardian or legal custodian fails to get psychiatric and/or alcohol and drug rehab for the child.

However, in the years since I've worked in that field, a new law has been added. This law allows parents to eschew common sense and medical practice and to allow prayer to be the only option. This would be fine for a consenting adult. It is an entirely other matter when it involves a dependent, like a child. This is not acting in the best interest of the child, which is the sole basis for Chapter 48.

People are all over the map with this one.

3rd way, over at folkbum's, comes down that the parents should be charged, and shows us how scary people can get with their beliefs.

Tim Schilke, writing at GMToday, goes along with charging the parents for neglect. He also explores how this relates to recent cases of child abuse stemming from religious beliefs.

Owen Robinson contradicts himself by saying that the parents should be charged, but then defends the law that would prevent them from being charged.

Our own PaddyMac waffles on the whole thing, then tries to distract us by saying, "Yeah, but, what about those unmarried people?". He fails to recognize how his own argument is weakened by the fact that Madeline's parents were married. (For the record, Paddy is correct that there is a higher correlation between unmarried parents and child abuse. However, being unmarried cannot be used as an exemption to the law, as he advocates regarding prayer.)

Matt Jividen, writing for the Daily Cardinal, brings in other thorny issues, related to the matter, but says it very well with this:

This prayer stipulation is a sticking point for many in the religious right, but I don’t understand how that jives with some of the religious right’s other stated platforms. In many cases, these are the same groups sparing no expense in their fight to protect the rights of an undeveloped bunch of cells in a woman’s womb, but will do nothing to protect that child from immense physical pain associated with untreated terminal illness once the fetus is born.

Pro-life and quality of life, apparently, are two separate issues. In many cases, these same groups will attempt to block the removal of a feeding tube from a terminally ill brain-dead woman, but will simultaneously stand behind legislation which blocks the medical treatment of otherwise healthy children doomed by nothing more than being born to parents holding fundamentalist beliefs?

This is indeed a complex and delicate issue but one that demands action. First of all, we need to amend the law in a manner which typifies prayer-only therapy in children with serious medical problems as a matter of criminal neglect. Simultaneously, we must be careful not to undermine the rights of the vast majority of parents who are choosing what’s best for their own children. The decision to deny a child medical attention for religious reasons should be handled just as child abuse is in this country, and though that may be a dangerous door to open, I think it’s necessary. A nanny state? I don’t know, but at the very least we should start protecting the rights of the powerless who are suffering needlessly by no choice of their own. On the other hand, what consenting adults choose to do to or for themselves is a whole different matter.

As I personally see it, having worked in the system for a number of years, I agree whole-heartedly that the parents should be charged. I also strongly support that this law needs to repealed. But in all likelihood, the parents will have any criminal charges dropped, as long as they agree to a CHIPS (CHildren In need of Protection and Services) Order. If they would be charged, expect this to go all the way to the now activist-judge filled State Supreme Court.

A 3rd Way To Have A Real Debate

Whallah! was originally created to provide a voice to those of us that disagreed with Jessica McBride's hate-filled (and usually ridiculous) rants. But Whallah's founder, Template, found it necessary at times to go beyond McBride and confront something totally ridiculous.

Even though Whallah! has evolved to cover the local right wing squawk brigade, sometimes, we find ourselves needing to go beyond that parameter to address a wrong that may otherwise be ignored and uncorrected.

I happened to notice such an incident. There is a conservative blog that is completely inappropriately named--Real Debate Wisconsin. This title would imply that, like with Whallah!, all comments are welcome to discuss matters. Unfortunately, that is simply not true. If anything, this site has eerie similarities to the right wing squawk brigade's sites.

The administrator of this blog is a fellow named Fred Dooley. I have had chance to encounter Mr. Dooley here and there in the blogosphere. When Mr. Dooley goes visiting other sites, he can often become quite rude, calling people names, insulting the writer, the other commenters, and the host of the blog. Whallah! had recently cited an example in which he and McBride share such an exchange. This is not an uncommon occurrence. I have even had him personally challenge me to a fight.

But in Mr. Dooley's world, what is good for him, is not allowed to others. Unless he agrees with them, of course. Just last October, there was some kerfuffle created when Mr. Dooley banned a commenter from his site. This commenters sin, that required to his excommunication? Simply this comment:

I think the reason you can’t find a genuine liberal to contribute here is that we’re all collectively horrified by this blog. It’s glib, cheap, unfair, hateful and intellectually dishonest. To be a liberal writer here would mean either playing by the same low rules, or else end up playing Colmes to your Hannity - a weak, ineffectual sidekick to a loud smirking bully. No thanks. This, I believe, is why we refuse. It’s certainly why I did.

There were some comments about this at other places, such as Pundit Nation. And to be fair, here is Mr. Dooley's post on the matter.

Another example of Mr. Dooley's work is here. It is special to note his demand for respectful comments with one of his own to guide us:

I'll give him the jerkface of the day award.

There he's won another.

Fred Homepage 12.28.07 - 4:51 pm

Why am I bringing this all up? Well, there has been a commenter named 3rd way who has been traveling the blogosphere, commenting on all sorts of posts. 3rd way has gone as far as confronting Charlie and McIlheran, so you know that he (based on some comments, I am only presuming 3rd way is male) is an upright sort of person. His comments have been coherent, intelligent, and thoughtful.

Unfortunately, 3rd way fell into Mr. Dooley's trap. He would comment often and vigorously fight and debate for his position in any given comment thread. 3rd way's reward for all this work was only to be ignored and/or ridiculed. Just by reading his comments, one could see that 3rd way was becoming increasingly frustrated with Mr. Dooley and the other commenters.

Today that frustration got the better of 3rd way, and he left this comment (Yes, Mr. Dooley, I was able to catch it):

Whatever Fred. I will take that as a no I don't support debate in my little echo chamber.

Enjoy your "real debate" you old fat bald dolt.

3rd way 01.11.08 - 3:12 pm

The result of this small loss of temper was this:

3rd way has been banned.

When asked about the banning, Mr. Dooley responded:

Scott, 3rd way left a very insulting post which I had to delet(sic) that went far beyond the realm of anything allowed here. It was insulting derogatory and beyond rude.

3rd way earned and deserved the ban.

I did not feel like leaving the insulting post there for everyone else to see.

Fred Homepage 01.11.08 - 3:33 pm

As you can see, when compared to Mr. Dooley's behaviors, 3rd way's comment was rather mild, and at most might have earned a warning. But, then again, Mr. Dooley is a master at the art of selective outrage. He has deleted many the comment from various liberals, including mine. Mr. Dooley, even though he calls his site Real Debate, he doesn't have even one liberal blogger on his blogroll. There is nothing related to reality or debating on this site.

As a note to 3rd way, I would like to say that I find your commentary intelligent and thought-provoking, and you are always welcome to Whallah! or at folkbum's where I also do some posting.

Furthermore, if you are interested, 3rd way, email me at Whallah@gmail.com and I would be glad to offer you an invite to contribute to Whallah! While I'm at it, the invite stands for John Foust as well.

And to Mr. Dooley, all I can say is that if you are upset by me calling you out on your hypocrisy, well, too bad for you. I'm over it.

ADDENDUM: As I was strolling through the cheddarsphere this fine day, what do I spy, but good old 3rd way. Apparently, Jay beat me to the pass and has signed on 3rd way to his site. It's all good. Here is a link to his first post.