WTF??? Parents pray for baby, it dies, now in court

[kliljedahl]

GAWD & prayer really helped these idiots. Can you beleive this shit?

Jury Deliberating Baby Death Trial

(Johnson County) – A Johnson County jury is now deciding the fate of two parents charged in the death of their newborn baby girl.

The parents, Dewayne and Maleta Schmidt are accused of choosing God to heal their sick daughter, rather than a doctor. They are facing reckless homicide charges.

Baby Rhiana Rose died two days after being born breach at home. She died from sepsis, a blood infection that can be treated with antibiotics.

Attorneys gave closing arguments Tuesday morning. The defense calls this a case of religious freedom. The prosecution argues that the Schmidts broke the law.

Link: http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3330785&nav=0Ra6ZjUf


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. I think that this shoots...

any right-to-life argument they might have right in the ass.

That child would have lived with some simple care, properly administered.

[BamaLefty]

3. Exactly.

[FreedomAngel82]

39. How do they know

God didn't send them the medicine they had to buy? God does work in mysterious ways y'know. That's just plain fucked up. I could see my parents doing that with me (I had a hole in my heart). :crazy:

[kliljedahl]

48. See post from Dr_eldritch

[sickinohio]

2. Fricking murderers!!! That's what they are!!

If I believed in the death penalty, I'd say torture them to death!!

[likesmountains 52]

4. I am shocked that they delivered a breech baby at home...most doctors

won't even do that in a hospital anymore. I am surprised that a midwife would go for it...

[liberalnurse]

10. The article did not say a physician was there

for the delivery. Now if there was a medical attendee, then social services should of been notified for an intervention following the critical home birth....Police could of arrived immediately and intervened. This is an essential key to the scenario. Such information would be good to know as it would show the intent of the parents; blinded by faith but meant no harm or maybe neglect is of issue.

If they delivered with just the help of an untrained mid-wife.....like a church member them they are being true to their beliefs...well then....

[likesmountains 52]

12. that's my point...I believe that only an untrained person would attempt

to do this at home...We have lots of lay midwives around here and none of them would try it.

[LeftyMom]

36. Some midwives do, some don't

It's a matter of the state's legal climate, the midwife's insurance requirements, her personal comfort with delivering a breech birth vaginally, the child's presentation and a whole host of other issues. Most midwifery books discuss the pros and cons of home birth for breech babies and how to best deliver them vaginally.

It's also possible that they delivered unassisted. Some women who birth UC would stay home for a known breech, others would not. Some would try to turn the child, others would not. Almost all women who UC would transfer care and go to the hospital if they felt the situation was beyond thier control.

The trend toward abdominal birth or breech babies without trial of labor in the hospital setting isn't new, I was born that way. (Two weeks early, BTW, it seems odd not to wait until term or labor to see if a baby would turn. My sister was born *three* weeks early by planned caesarean, her doctors were so determined to avoid the dreaded VBAC.) For the most part it's defensive medicine, and not evidence based care. Some breech presentations can be delivered vaginally with good results, others don't make it through the pelvis and really have to be delivered abdominally if the baby can't be made to change position.

Edited in defense of the english language.

[sickinohio]

5. Gawd - this pisses me off!!

Sepsis??? That poor baby was probably suffering!!

[ima_sinnic]

6. it's called faith-based child abuse

. . . remember that POS who fed his baby only watermelon and lettuce because he (the baby) was "the son of god" or some such CRAP and had to stay "pure"? the poor baby was literally starving to death and the parents, rightfully, had the book thrown at them, as I remember. If these dumbass religionists insist on reproducing but can't take even basic care of their offspring, they should be sterilized.

[elehhhhna]

46. Faith based negligence & willful ignorance. O'course GW's base

don't b'leeeeeve in fancy book-lernd Docters and anti-by-otics.

[liberalnurse]

7. This is an excellent medical ehtics/legal

debate issue. I'm probably going to side with the parents on this. Now hold on, if they were totally convienced in that this was what was best for their baby, no intent to do harm but did it out of love.....then they are innocent.

[etherealtruth]

13. It's a horrible situation ...

...but I agree with you. Who decides what MEDICAL care a person will / will not receive? I most assuredly would choose this medical treatment for my children... but where do we draw the line? The third round of chemo?---It's a dramatic leap, but where would people be able to exercise choice.

People have a right to accept or refuse medical treatment; parents exercise that right for their children.

[wuushew]

16. Lets legalize infanticide as well </sarcasm>

if life/medical decisions are the sole authority of parents then there is no need for child welfare, protective services or a whole litany of non-libertarian community based programs.

Freedom to do dumb shit starts when a person is legally and mentally an adult not before. Failure to act as a rational guardian gives that authority to the state.

[etherealtruth]

29. my response was not agreeing with what the parents had decided...

I worked as a nurse (mostly Hospice, for over a decade prior to the birth of my children) ... the most frustrating issues I had to deal with were centered around the "rights" of charismatic Christians and a few extremely zealous Muslims ---- who refused most treatment and wanted to rely on prayer.

My question is: at what point is a person allowed to refuse treatment (for themselves or their children)? At what point can someone be forced to act against their spiritual/religious beliefs---especially when there is a history of compliance with those beliefs.

This is why there are medical ethicists.

A later post (#8) sums up my personal feelings, but even though this particular case is personally repugnant ... I would leave a situation like this to the ethicists.

(Actually the most frustrating issues in my area of nursing were associated with lack of health insurance or insufficient insurance)

edit: their/there

[noiretextatique]

41. i suppose the salient issue here is

do parent's have ownership rights or custodial rights over their children? if they own their kids, then they can make whatever decision they want. however, if they are custodians, then they should have acted in the child's best interest.

[ComerPerro]

And if we take that a step further

we find that abortion should be legal. Apparently its a child and a choice.

[noiretextatique]

44. absolutely nt

[etherealtruth]

45. Do parents have the right to advocate religious preferences...

for their children. I believe I am the custodian of my children. My spiritual/ religious beliefs pretty much mesh with most "American" values ... so as custodian (in my belief system) I would seek treatment for my children. I would strongly encourage (for lack of an other term) others to do the same.

In other belief systems my custodial responsibilities may be seen as choosing that which would bring my child closer to "God." To some spiritual health/ well being is more important than physical.

I think the situation is horrendous---I don't think it is clear cut.

[noiretextatique]

47. does the child have the right to be free from the parents' beliefs?

i would say: YES. especially considering the supposed "culture of life" that has magically permeated the american psyche of late :sarcasm:

[etherealtruth]

49. "does the child have the right to be free from the parents' beliefs?"

I won't even go near that ...

[liberalnurse]

18. This occurs today with the Jehovah Witness faith.

They refuse any blood products what so ever. A release of responsibility is obtained..of course....Many have died and deemed Gods will by their faith. There have been court battles between hospitals and Jehovah Witness parents regarding medical care of their children ......example would be leukemia children etc....

[kliljedahl]

26. Was "Wittiness" intentional?

I don't get it, if it was.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[liberalnurse]

No, I just got up and hit the DU Board.

I got called in to work a 12-hour night shift last night....Screws me up every time.

I believe the correction has been rendered.

[coffeenap]

31. Yep--my sister in law told me in all seriousness that she would let

her children die rather than allow them to have blood transfusions. Her children are 24 and 12. (The 24 year old now has her own child and has said the same thing.) My brother, however, would snatch them away and get them to the ER in no time. And, since the wife has to obey the husband....

[liberalnurse]

35. Well spoken....

We have to keep the spectrum open. These last five years have tainted liberal thinking ....we need to stay on task.

[Berserker]

24. What a crock of shit

How can anyone side with the parents on this when all they had to do was bring the baby to the doctor. They both should be put in prison and then they can prey there fucking way out. And I'm totally convinced they are out of there minds.

[liberalnurse]

32. The US Constitution opens up that door.....

Freedom of Religion. The shoe could very easily be placed on the other foot if we don't respect sincere freedom of religion. We all could be force to name our first born George if we don't protect ALL.

[Berserker]

38. The US Constitution

does not say you can go nuts with your beliefs and let your baby's die because thats your religion. Bullshit. Thats reading things into the Constitution that are not there and for good reason. There is not now or has ever been ANY excuse for treating a newborn baby this way. The parents need to be put in prison this is murder.

[liberalnurse]

43. It is obviously a litigation issue.

The debate can go forward in this fashion. Let the courts file a decision but ultimately, it won't be clear-cut and simple nor will it be resolved.

[etherealtruth]

42. From your "name" I'm going to assume...

that you are in fact a liberal nurse (that coupled with the 12 hour shift reference).

I think nurses MUST be able to accept other's right to beliefs that often contradict our personal belief systems. These situations are ALWAYS gut wrenching, but not easily decided.

Get some rest---I'm sure you deserve it.

[The Doctor.]

8. So one day...

a small town in the valley becomes flooded.

As the water rises, the townsfolk make their way to the hills to stay safe and dry.

But one man, the most faithful and pious man in the town, chooses to stay.
The waters have risen quickly, and in just a few hours are level with the rooftops of the small houses.
The faithful man stands on the roof of his house as the water rises to his knees.

Shortly, his neighbor comes by in a rowboat and offers to give him a lift to higher ground to wait out the flood.

"No, I will not go with you for I have faith that the Lord my God shall save me."

After trying to convince him for a few minutes, the neighbor rows off.

A little while later, the water at his chest, the faithful man is happened upon by a girl with a motorboat.

"Come on board!", she yells, "we're taking everyone to high land."

Again he says, "No, I will not go with you for I have faith that the Lord my God shall save me."

Eventually the boat leaves.

A little while later, the water has risen to his neck.
A helicopter has located him and lowers a rope ladder down to him.
The man on the helicoptor shouts down, "Grab hold of the ladder and we'll fly you to safety!"

But the faithful man says, "No, I will not go with you for I have faith that the Lord my God shall save me."

Unable to convince the faithful man, the helicopter leaves.

Shortly thereafter, the man drowns.

In Heaven, (he was a truly pious man after all), he confronts God.

"Lord! I was the most faithful to you, I upheld your word every day of my life, I believed in you! How could you let me die?"

And the Lord said;

"I sent you two boats and a helicopter."




*Now I realize that the plight of this family is very sad, but this joke is, in my opinion, an accurate commentary on the folly of the radical fundamentalists.

[kliljedahl]

11. Totally appropriate & right on

I've heard that several times & forgotten it. Thanks for the reminder.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[The Doctor.]

22. Perhaps it is best

that these people do not raise any children.

[harpo]

9. GOD wanted it to die...why else would it have happened?

[KamaAina]

14. Culture of life! Culture of life! Culture of life!

oh, wait, you expect us to actually mean something by that? Why do you hate America so much? :sarcasm:

[VOX]

27. Isn't this the bloody truth!!!!!

You nailed it, KamaAina. :thumbsup:

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Sue Jesus for Wrongful Death .... lets' see that one on M$M

These people .... that's all I can say .... these people.

This little gem from the news report:

The father says elders from the church were called five times during the two days to offer prayers and anoint the baby with olive oil.

They're all complicit in this. These elders ought to be charged as accessories.

[kliljedahl]

20. anoint the baby with olive oil

That line got to me, little did I know I was using a medical product to cook & put on my salad.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Tux]

17. Religious freedom case?

A baby could be alive from a few injections but the parents had to allow it to die over their beliefs. A human life ended over a book! They didn't care about the baby. If they cared, they would have gone to the hospital and take care of the baby. But no! Some book told them to have faith that a God, who really doesn't get involved anyways, will heal the baby and everything's kosher!

These nuts are in charge of our government and believe that God talks to God daily. And they wonder why we think they're nuts? They'll allow a baby, a BABY, to die over beliefs than admit that they might be wrong! Beliefs before life. Makes me :puke:

[dbonds]

19. Isn't this the proof of evolution?

[The Doctor.]

21. You mean the principle of

"Natural Selection" of course.

[dbonds]

23. Yes, hehe, that is what I was thinking.

[bluestateguy]

25. Pray all you want, but you never deny a child medical care

Unless you are an HMO, but that's neither here nor there.

Only an adult can make a decision for him or herself to refuse medical treatment. To do so to a child is just naked cruelty.

[yella_dawg]

28. Flamebait post

How can the state presume to judge the criminality of witholding medical care when the state does not insure the availability of medical care to all?

If the state does not insure medical care for it's citizens, it can hardly punish citizens for failing to seek medical care.

[wuushew]

30. Wouldn't sepsis qualify as a medical emergency?

if so the child would have recieved treatment

[noiretextatique]

40. yes...it was a medical emergency

and this is not a religious freedom case at all. this a case of depraved indifference. perhaps they can plead (religious) insanity.

[kenny blankenship]

33. They should sue God! After all they prayed in good faith

and all they got in return was this dead baby.

[hippiechick]

34. My boss is on that jury.

He's a .... mild conservative.

Stay tuned.

[liberalnurse]

37. Oh yes....keep us updated!

I really feel empathy for your boss. This could be a life changing experience.

[Lilith Velkor]

50. I think all religious nuts should refuse healthcare

Preferably after guzzling Drano.