The Dale Nuemann Case - Prayer over medicine?

N

NDS

NDS
Registered Senior Member
From what I saw on TV, Dale Nuemann, was extremely religious. His daughter had horrible diabetes and suffered horribly before dying because Nuemann believed God would save her and didn't treat her or take her to a doctor at all. Wow.

I believe he should be charged with reckless homicide.

Looks to me like another case of taking a belief too far. Wouldn't God, if he existed, want the daughter to be treated by a professional?

Here's a link to one article, but just search Dale Nuemann on Google and you'll find a lot of info.
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20090731/WDH0101/907310647&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
 
I think he & his wife have been convicted of negligent homicide. I do not think they have been sentenced.

I think the pastor or minister who encouraged their belief should have also been prosecuted on some charge like accessory before the fact or aiding & abetting.

I hope those parents get a maximum sentence as a message to others.
 
In australia there would be no question. Its neglect (and possably physical abuse) to withold medical treatment from a child and laws have been put in place to reflect this. For instance written into the consent act is a claws which says if treatment is nessary and the parents refuse treatment can still be provided if another doctor agrees. Futher more another act (and im not sure which but i think its the guardianship act) stipulates that parents cant refuse blood products for their child no matter what their religious belifes
 
I'm sure some would argue that their god did try to help by putting people on the course to become doctors, scientists etc that developed and administered the drugs so that others might live longer and have a better quality of life, and ignoring those is to ignore the god's efforts in trying to save them.

But it's all a matter of perspective, I guess.

Some would also possibly see such cases as worthy of a Darwin award, albeit not direct removal but removal of only 50%.
 
Last edited:
That reminds me of a joke:

There is a flood coming and the town is being evacuated to higher ground and a nabor askes a man if hes comming

He replies "no Jesus will save me"

The water reaches the first floor of his house and the SES (subsitute emergency service of choice) comes in by boat and asks him to evacuate

He responds "no Jesus will save me"

the water is now close to the second floor and the SES try again and tell him the flood will just keep rising and he needs to evacuate

He responds "No Jesus will save me"

The waters have reached his roof and he is sitting on the peak and its even to dangerious for the SES boats but a chopper comes and lowers and SES rescuer to him and he beggs him to come with him

The man pushes him away screaming "Jesus will save me"

The man drowns 30 min latter and goes up to Jesus in heaven and in a really angry voice askes "why didnt you save me?"

Jesus looks surprised and replies "I sent you to boats and a chopper, what more do you want?"
Moral, god helps those who help themselves
 
It's just a guess, but I daresay that half or more of the parents on Earth right now use the same or similar techniques of prayer, herbs, smoke and other such "medicines" passed down from generations. In a large part of Africa, such "medical" treatment is normal and widely used. And the patient either lives or dies.

When, in the course of human civilization, do we decide to intervene in the rights of the parents to raise their own children? Or does "civilizaion" actually mean that people have the right to force others to do and act and believe as they do?

Do I think this Neuman character did wrong? Yes. But is that only because I was raised in "civilization" and am now thoroughly brainwashed? How 'bout you? Were you equally well brainwashed into thinking that it was wrong? What would the natives in Africa think about it?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max: when there are conflicting rights, somebody other than those directly involved should attempt to make a decision.
When, in the course of human civilization, do we decide to intervene in the rights of the parents to raise their own children? Or does "civilizaion" actually mean that people have the right to force others to do and act and believe as they do? Do I think this Neuman character did wrong? Yes. But is that only because I was raised in "civilization" and am now thoroughly brainwashed? How 'bout you? Were you equally well brainwashed into thinking that it was wrong? What would the natives in Africa think about it?
Click to expand...
What about the right of a child to survive? I think it trumps the parents right to practice their religious beliefs.

I am against murder & bank robbery & quite willing to have society impose my beliefs on serial killers & bank robbers.

As for what some primitive society believes, consider the following.
  • If a billion people believe a foolish idea, it is still a foolish idea.
Various cultures (Example: the Aztecs) sacrificed the best & the brightest young people to their gods. I do not care if 100% of the people in that society (including the victims) believed in human sacrifice, it is evil, irrational (insane ?), & contrary to the best interests of the society. It would be better for the culture if they sacrificed the weak & the stupid, but such are not worthy enough to be acceptable to the gods.
 
There might be some adults who died because they prayed rather than seeking medical help for acute diabetes.

In my life, I have read about at least two children who died of acute asthma attacks due to the religious beliefs of parents. I doubt if any adults suffered asthma attacks & prayed rather than seeking medical help.

When a person almost suffocates due to asthma attacks, I am certain that they seek medical help after surviving one or two attacks. Yet parents have allowed children to die of very painful suffocation. Asthma suffocation is far worse that being smothered by a killer with a pillow or a plastic bag over the head, although any form of suffocation invokes basic survial instincts and is a horrible way to die.
 
umm i doubt i would say that, nither death is very plessant but its sad when the treatments are so easy to obtain (any ambulance carries salbutamol and O2 as well as adrenilin if the atack gets to surver for salbutamol and any hospital carries these plus the corticosteroids nessary for long term survival)
 
Court should order the child be removed to a foster home.

I'd maintain that freedom of religion is not protection in such cases, as religious beliefs are not hereditary.
 
Court should order the child be removed to a foster home.

I'd maintain that freedom of religion is not protection in such cases, as religious beliefs are not hereditary.
 
once again, the childs DEAD. There is no child to remove, the debate is wether the parents should be charged with her murder
 
Dinosaur said:
Baron Max: ...when there are conflicting rights, somebody other than those directly involved should attempt to make a decision.
Click to expand...

First, how does anyone even find out about the conflicting rights? And second, if it's in a private home, are you suggesting that these "somebody's" inspect each and every home in the nation? And do it regularly?

Dinosaur said:
What about the right of a child to survive? I think it trumps the parents right to practice their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

But how do you know anything about it ...until the kid is dead or harmed? Kids' "rights" are usurped all the freakin' time in normal homes, even with good parents.

Dinosaur said:
I am against murder & bank robbery & quite willing to have society impose my beliefs on serial killers & bank robbers.
Click to expand...

Fine, fine! Now go out and find those bank robbers and murderers BEFORE they commit the crimes. See? Your idealism just smashed up against reality ....and lost!!

And if you could, if there was a way of checking the genetic material of people, and you could find what which person "might" become a murderer or a bank robber, .....what would you do with that person? Remember, ...he "might" become a criminal, he has the genetic disposition. But it's no guarantee that he'll actually do it.

I don't know ....I'm actually thinkiing that, in all of this, it's just simply that some kids must die. I see no way around it ...without every citizen submittiing to cameras and/or audio and/or constant, surprise inspections, etc. How can you prevent something like this?

Baron Max
 
NDS said:
From what I saw on TV, Dale Nuemann, was extremely religious. His daughter had horrible diabetes and suffered horribly before dying because Nuemann believed God would save her and didn't treat her or take her to a doctor at all. Wow.

I believe he should be charged with reckless homicide.
Click to expand...

Yyyyyep. Madness. And the cult that got him believing this crap should be investigated and dispersed.
 
Asguard said:
..., the debate is wether the parents should be charged with her murder
Click to expand...

I don't know what the law is in Aussieland, but in the USA, murder is a willful, premeditated crime. In the USA, he can't possibly be charged with murder. After that, there are lots of different things he could be charged with, but it wouldn't be murder.

Baron Max
 
GeoffP said:
Yyyyyep. Madness. And the cult that got him believing this crap should be investigated and dispersed.
Click to expand...

Has everyone in the cult killed their own children? Or is it just Neuman?

If a Catholic kills someone, should we investigate and dispersed the Catholics of the world?

Baron Max
 
I dunno. Has the Catholic dioces approved it? Is it coda? Is it general belief? Is it acted on, or merely grumbled about? There are tests, you know.
 
Baron Max: You seem to be a troller.
When, in the course of human civilization, do we decide to intervene in the rights of the parents to raise their own children? Or does "civilizaion" actually mean that people have the right to force others to do and act and believe as they do?

Do I think this Neuman character did wrong? Yes. But is that only because I was raised in "civilization" and am now thoroughly brainwashed? How 'bout you? Were you equally well brainwashed into thinking that it was wrong? What would the natives in Africa think about it?
Click to expand...
The above indicates that you believe that parents should be allowed to do almost anything they think is correct in raising their children.

The above also suggests that cultural norms should be accepted almost without question. I suppose you would deny a right to genocide, but not much else.

When an objection to your view is posted, you then pounce with talk about trying to predict behavior & punish potential intent and/or talk about installing some type of intrusive surveillance on all citizens. These are obvious Strawman arguments.

Your remarks on brainwashing indicate that you believe that the Neumans did nothing fundamentally unethical or punishable by society.

Your remarks suggest that until parental behavior results in death, society should make no attempt to intervene.

If I some how became aware of a neighbor or relative abusing a child or withholding medical care, I would consider it my duty to make some attempt to intervene. In a civilized society, this would best be done by reporting to the criminal justice system. In a more primitive culture, I might try some other action: Intervene directly on my own or try to enlist the help of others.

Note the bolded phrase: I might, not I would. I am not Don Quixote
 
They are idiots, but they shouldn't be charged with "neglect"; they didn't neglect anything. They sincerely thought they were doing something that would help, and they did it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top