Mother to face criminal charges in son's strep death

On the morning of March 2, emergency crews were called to a 17th Avenue S.W. basement suite where a young boy was having a seizure. He was taken to hospital where he was pronounced dead.

An autopsy found the cause of death was a strep infection, which would have been treatable with penicillin.
Police allege the mother did not take the boy for treatment, giving him holistic remedies instead.
"The treatment rendered at home was homeopathic in nature. This would include herbal remedies. The mother refused to take the child to a medical professional. No excuse given — just her belief system," said Staff Sgt. Mike Cavilla.

The boy was bedridden for 10 days prior to his death, police allege.
Charges are pending against his 44-year-old mother.
Those charges include criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessaries of life.

CBS

Did her child have religious freedom to choose death over a simple penicillin shot? This is insane that she let her child suffer while experimenting on holistic medicine. I would have never thought strep could be deadly I guess because growing up I came down with it several times and aside from the horrible coughing it wasn’t a big deal. Though am sure there will be some who think there is some government agenda (big pharma) or something of the sort in curing these things. In some states that woman would be protected see related link well I hope they make an example out of her.

Related thread

Related article

reply to post by Grimpachi


Nothing in the article said ANYTHING about religion!

Just the mothers beliefs........

Kind of a stretch bring religion into the mothers decision, don't you think?

So you are saying we do not have the right to try to help our own kids? My daughter brought her son to the doctor two times for the same thing a week apart, it was the same illness, the doctor did not test the boy initially and did nothing after the boy had been sick for a week. The second time it showed strep and they hit it with antibiotics which did not work. The next trip to the doctor got another antibiotic that worked.

I do not agree that medical doctors are the only one that can cure a cold or a virus. Do you work in the medical field, is this what steers your perception.

In this case, the mother did call when the child got bad.

reply to post by rickymouse


Things like this steer my perception.

An Indiana case

One of the first non-Christian-Science-related deaths Rita discovered was in Indiana. As Stauth tells the story,


4-year-old Natali Joy Mudd was found dead by detectives in her own home, with a tumor in her eye that was almost as big as the rest of her head. At the horrific scene, a police sergeant found horizontal trails of blood along the walls of the house. The trails matched the height of the girl’s head. Natali had apparently been leaning against the wall as she dragged herself from room to room, blinded, trying to find a way to freedom, before the tumor killed her.

Natali’s parents belonged to the Faith Assembly Church, a Pentecostal offshoot. They didn’t believe in medical care, and they were not prosecuted because Indiana had strict religious shield laws. Two years later, Natali’s five-year-old sister died from an untreated tumor in her stomach the size of a basketball.

The Faith Assembly Church was responsible for as many as 100 childhood deaths and for a maternal childbirth mortality rate that was 870 times the usual rate. The most common cause of death was infant mortality in home births; something that is now rare in Christian Science because it now supports prenatal care and hospital births attended by doctors.

Not holistic mumbo jumbo.

reply to post by seeker1963


Religion is a belief system. Are you saying religion isn't a belief system?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Sad that the boy died, but it ought to be said tens of thousands of boys and girls, men and women DIE whilst in the care of professional medicine every year...in fact, approximately 3 million people around the world DIE every single year from adverse affects of good old FDA approved pharmacuiticals.

She did what she judged to be the correct course of action for her child, based on her opinions and experiences.

I think it's clear she wasn't negligent or neglectful...misguided possibly, but not neglectful.

She treated him, unsuccessfully as it turned out...if she had left him alone to die, using the 'power of prayer' and nothing else...that would have been neglect. She didn't do that as i understand the situation.

Poor kid..poor woman. I doub't there's much the police or system can do to her that would be any worse than her child dying.

Give the woman a break.

We are going to see the same happen here with all this nonsense involving vaccinations for children. Conspiracies, monsters and aliens are fun until a child suffers because someone sincerely believes that the government is putting nano bots in their child's medicine.

It says "her belief system"...

I guess first one that pop is religion.. there is also the anti-doctor/Anti-Vaccine/Anti-Science groups as well.

reply to post by damwel


It's not about fantasy adulterants, or nano anything mate...it's about reality.

That reality being, vaccinations are a dangerous, insideous and damaging money spinner for pharma and Co.

People die from infections of course...but people also die, sometimes within minutes of a vaccine being squirted into them, sometimes a long while after.

So it's a calculated risk. Like allowing your kid to ride a skateboard is a calculated risk (30 - 40 kids die a year in the USA skateboarding).

There are data that show, completely unambiguously the levels of infection of common childhood diseases and viral infections were dropping sharply and very much in decline UNTIL the world embarked on it's global vaccination programmes...then the decline curiously levels off...make of that what you will, but i know exactly what it means to me.

The information is available from the CDC, British Medical Journal, The Lancet and other prestigious publications...Oh, and on here too (somewhere, good luck searching).

Yes, there are diseases and infections that can only be helped by vaccination or innoculation, polio is one, smallpox is another..and there are more of course.

But, again it a matter of choice.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Those kinds of incidents require doctors. When a person needs a surgeon they need a surgeon. When a person can't kick a virus or infection they need a doctor.

I will go to the doctor if I can't kick a bug or if something I have no knowledge of occurs. I will go to see a surgeon if I need to. The chance of getting a super bug in the doctors office or at the hospital is higher than it is at home.

I wouldn't belong to any religion that said I couldn't go to a doctor.

Sorry to say this, but, she is using the excuse of "holistic approach" in order to cover the real reason for her son's death, murder.

And that is my opinion.

reply to post by rickymouse


This is from the related article in the OP and it reflects my thoughts to a T.

The medical ethics principle of autonomy justifies letting competent adults reject lifesaving medical care for themselves because of their religious beliefs, but it does not extend to rejecting medical care for children. Society has a duty to over-ride parents’ wishes when necessary to protect children from harm. It is not uncommon for the courts to order life-saving blood transfusions for the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, or cancer treatment against parents’ wishes. But 30 states still have religious shield laws, and every state but Mississippi and West Virginia allows religious and/or philosophical exemptions for school vaccination requirements. Those laws should be repealed. The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) requires insurance companies to cover “nonmedical” health care such as prayers by Christian Science practitioners. That provision should be removed.

Note: It has been argued that most of the increase in human lifespan was due to advances in hygiene rather than to advances in medicine. The estimates of a 26-fold increase in infant mortality and a 900-fold increase in maternal mortality among the untreated Followers of Christ demonstrate just how valuable modern medical care really is.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I know I can kick a whole lot of bugs with what I know without Pharmacuticals. I study the basis of the drugs they make and compare that knowledge to the chemistry of natural medicines and dietary changes can cure or treat the problems. I am using a scientific approach. I always knew that most medicines were created using plants and chemistry found in nature, so I figured I would research this.

We have inalienable rights to reject vaccines in this world. To force a vaccination that could have side effects that could kill someones child is in violation of these rights.

reply to post by Grimpachi


So let me ask......

According to you, those whom have a faith and are religious are bad? (your anti religious posts kinda prove it) What about those whom look to the government as being their religion???

We all have our own beliefs. Period!

The fact that a child died is definitely a sad thing for sure. But what is more disheartening to me, is that as your seem to "religiously" put your trust in the government to make your decisions for you, why is it that you are against those whom would rather put their faith and trust in a deity that gives them the same kind of faith as the government gives you?

Do you know the meaning of freedom? I am all for a bad parent going to prison for not taking care of their child. But what about a child whom dies due to being given a "bad drug" from a pharmaceutical company?? Are you going to deny that this ever happens? Yet our government has given pharmaceutical companies a get out of jail free card for putting bad drugs on the market! Whom is MORE guilty? A parent whom is cautious or a government whom flat out gives immunity to a corporation whom produces a dangerous product?

Yet, you expect your faith in the government and corporations is more righteous than those whom have faith in a deity?

Seriously, I think you have a lot to bring to the table, but bashing someone's faith when backing a faith of your own based upon the rule of man, which is based on control and greed is just as ridiculous to me as those whom believe in a God they have never seen.......

I mean, come on dude/gal, you have posted three OP's in the last 3 hours and every one of them have an anti religious tone????? I can understand if you have had some bad experiences with a church or religion, because I most definitely have had some myself and no longer believe in God as Christianity preaches it. But I sure as hell DO NOT trust the STATE to dictate laws based upon them selling out to the military/industrial complex either!

Freedom means allowing other people to be free, just as much as you want other people to allow you to be free as well....

reply to post by seeker1963


Lets address your post piece by piece.

First.

But what is more disheartening to me, is that as your seem to "religiously" put your trust in the government to make your decisions for you, why is it that you are against those whom would rather put their faith and trust in a deity that gives them the same kind of faith as the government gives you?

So please explain where or how you came to the conclusion that I believe that about the government? I am not sure how you assume so much so let’s start there.

reply to post by Grimpachi

So please explain where or how you came to the conclusion that I believe that about the government? I am not sure how you assume so much so let’s start there.

Fair enough.....

As I already pointed out, you have already created 3 threads today that attack those whom have "religious" beliefs. Right? You may disagree with my choice of the word "attack" but you have done this right?

Now as for you believing in the government (or not) I did make that assumption and I am willing to stick with it until you can prove me wrong.

As I have already said, I am all for a parent being arrested for neglect of the well being of their child!

Can we agree on that?

So, with that being said, let me ask you this question, "If you do not support the right of a parent to decide on what is best for their child (be they are right or wrong), who do you put your faith in to correct that problem?? The government??? I mean seriously? Are you going to deny that when a parent is responsible for their childs death due to religious beliefs that it WILL NOT be the government whom puts them in prison?

You can say you don't have faith in anything as far as I am concerned, but realistically, people have faith in something...and if you are putting your faith in the government to arrest those whom express their freedoms differently than you do, then YES you have faith in the government...

As I have already stated, the government has already granted the power to the pharmaceutical corporations and has given them immunity against criminal prosecution!

So are we not kind of at a stand still on a parent knowing what is best versus the government?? Religion is not the answer to a health problem IMO, but I still respect those whom believe differently than I do!

This just seems to me a story of a idiotic parent not a religious debate.

My mom was extremely religious but she also had the common sense that if our fevers went past a certain point or didn't go away in a realistic time period she'd take us to the hospital.

I went once my whole childhood.

Also keep in mind that children, unlike adults can actually withstand fevers of up to 106 degrees.

Again though, it should be common sense that if the fever doesn't break or if the child can barely move that some common sense needs to be used.

I remember the one time they took me to hospital we lived way out the country so there were no really close hospitals...I had a high fever that caused me to start hallucinating and so they put me into the bath and put some ice cubes. Fever went down enough and they took me to town.

To me this just seems like a bad mom with no common sense.

reply to post by seeker1963

Now as for you believing in the government (or not) I did make that assumption and I am willing to stick with it until you can prove me wrong.

As I have already said, I am all for a parent being arrested for neglect of the well being of their child!

Can we agree on that

No we cannot you made the claim it is on you to provide the evidence. Good luck with proving a negative.

My stance on religion is well known but that has nothing to do with nutjobs letting their children die from curable illnesses. You claim freedom do you know what it is. Where is the children’s freedom? Do you think parents have a right withhold lifesaving medical treatment from children?

The mother is either a complete moron or guilty of gross negligence. Strep should never be taken lightly.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


Exactly my point, she may have wanted the child to die, reasons? could be many, but we don't have enough to make a judgment.

I am very much into homeopathy, I treat myself and loves ones first naturally, but I have the common sense that if not improve is achieve within a reasonable amount of time, then a visit to a doctor or convenient care is schedule.

Is simple as that.