Baby with jaundice dies after parents refuse treatment, saying ‘God makes no mistakes’

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
10,418
7,053
136
from: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...s-refuse-treatment-jaundice-article-1.3528712



Joshua Barry Piland and Rachel Joy Piland are being charged in the death of their infant daughter after they refused to treat the baby for jaundice.
(LANSING POLICE DEPARTMENT)

A Michigan couple’s newborn daughter died after they ignored a midwife’s warning that the baby’s jaundice could lead to brain damage or death.

The mother refused treatment for her daughter, saying, “God...makes no mistakes,” a detective said, the Lansing State Journal reported.

Rachel Joy Piland, 30, and her husband, Joshua Barry Piland, 36, were both charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of their 3-day-old baby, born Feb. 6.

Rachel Piland’s brother notified authorities that a baby had died at the couple’s home, detective Peter Scaccia said in the hearing that led to the charges.

Scaccia described the circumstances of the infant’s birth and soon thereafter, her death.

The baby girl, named Abigail, appeared jaundiced the day after she was born, according to the midwife.

She advised Rachel Piland to take the child to the emergency room, warning that the baby could suffer brain damage or die if not properly taken care of, Scaccia said during the hearing, the Lansing State Journal reported.

“Rachel declined to seek any medical treatment for Abigail, stating God makes no mistakes,” Scaccia said. “She indicated to the midwife that the baby was fine.”

Rachel canceled subsequent appointments with the midwife.

On Feb. 8. Abigail wasn’t eating and coughed up blood, according to Scaccia.

Rachel allegedly put the two-day-old child “near a window wearing just a diaper utilizing a hair dryer to keep her warm,” Scaccia said.

Even Rachel’s mother, Rebecca Kerr, warned the Abigail’s skin was off-color.

“Rachel told Rebecca about (the midwife’s) concern,” the detective said. “And then Rachel went to listen to sermons.”

Kerr reportedly urged her daughter to seek help, but “Rachel would not allow her,” Scaccia said, the Lansing State Journal reported.

By the morning of Feb. 9, Kerr had noticed that Abigail wasn’t eating or breathing well, and that blood was coming out of her nose.

Around 11 a.m. Rachel found her daughter “lifeless and not breathing” in a bouncy seat, Scaccia said.

Kerr brought the baby to her father who tried unsuccessfully to revive her.

The pair then brought their child upstairs to “pray for her,” inviting friends to join them and pray for Abigail’s resurrection. They never called police, the detective said.

Police later arrived at the home and found people praying for the dead baby.

A medical examiner found that Abigail died from unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia and kernicterus, conditions related to jaundice.

The medical examiner said the baby would likely have lived if she’d been treated, Scaccia testified.

The girl’s parents were each charged with involuntary manslaughter and released on a $75,000 bond on Sept. 21. They face up to 15 years in prison if convicted.




Wow just wow. Are these the same kinda peeps that believe vaccinations and innoculations are evil?
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,613
3,459
136
If god was just he would've sent down a lightning bolt and fried those idiots for their stupidity. He's done it for less. Then maybe someone with a brain could've saved the baby.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
They are being punished for their strongly held religious beliefs.
And cleaning up the gene pool after themselves.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,812
49,499
136
As per the Hobby Lobby decision can anyone give me a good reason why requiring these parents to take their baby to a hospital doesn't violate their sincerely held religious beliefs? Shouldn't they be exempted? If you think they should be charged, can you explain why this is different?
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,634
8,778
146
As per the Hobby Lobby decision can anyone give me a good reason why requiring these parents to take their baby to a hospital doesn't violate their sincerely held religious beliefs? Shouldn't they be exempted? If you think they should be charged, can you explain why this is different?
The lack of ability of the underlying party to obtain the medical services needed via any other channel?
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,022
600
126
This is an old one, but very pertinent:

A very religious man was once caught in rising floodwaters. He climbed onto the roof of his house and trusted God to rescue him. A neighbour came by in a canoe and said, “The waters will soon be above your house. Hop in and we’ll paddle to safety.”

“No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”

A short time later the police came by in a boat. “The waters will soon be above your house. Hop in and we’ll take you to safety.”

“No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”

A little time later a rescue services helicopter hovered overhead, let down a rope ladder and said. “The waters will soon be above your house. Climb the ladder and we’ll fly you to safety.”

“No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”

All this time the floodwaters continued to rise, until soon they reached above the roof and the religious man drowned. When he arrived at heaven he demanded an audience with God. Ushered into God’s throne room he said, “Lord, why am I here in heaven? I prayed for you to save me, I trusted you to save me from that flood.”

“Yes you did my child” replied the Lord. “And I sent you a canoe, a boat and a helicopter. But you never got in.”
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,812
49,499
136
The lack of ability of the underlying party to obtain the medical services needed via any other channel?

Well the government could have come and taken their kid for treatment, things like that.

My point is really about the insanity of the Hobby Lobby decision in that religious (corporations in that example) are able to opt out of basically any law they want if they say it's due to a religious objection.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,289
28,144
136
I'm sure their lawyer will use the Hobby Lobby case as part of their defense.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,634
8,778
146
Well the government could have come and taken their kid for treatment, things like that.

My point is really about the insanity of the Hobby Lobby decision in that religious (corporations in that example) are able to opt out of basically any law they want if they say it's due to a religious objection.
Oh I know what your point was. I just think there's a clear distinction between providing coverage and denying access outright.

What's really fun is the people who will support this (which god I hope isn't many) will be the ones who most vehemently oppose Muslim communities using any form of Sharia law within their community.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,038
4,800
136
The parents failed to exercise due diligence on behalf of the newborn and should bear the full brunt of their actions. In Hosea 4:6 God states that people perish for lack of knowledge and here's a perfect example of it in action. These two get the Darwin award.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Jan 25, 2011
16,634
8,778
146
The parents failed to exercise due diligence on behalf of the newborn and should bear the full brunt of their actions. In Hosea 4:6 God states that people perish for lack of knowledge and here's a perfect example of it in action. These two get the Darwin award.
Never crosses their minds that maybe god put all of these medical options to his people to help provide for them does it?
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
At least Abigail won't grow up in an religious/abusive household. Weird how religious parents are prosecuted for physical violence, even negligently inflicted, yet it's perfectly ok to intentionally inflict one's child with a lifetime of emotional abuse and mental slavery.

With religion being encouraged/respected by society and government, they shouldn't be prosecuted unless it can be shown that religion wasn't the sine qua non. You reference a supernatural force on your money, elect religious people to office, teach your society to "respect" and "tolerate" religion, allow educators to insist that we're created and not evolved, in the face of all the evidence, and then you want to prosecute people for taking all of this seriously...

Should try have some compassion for the parents, themselves victims of previous abuse. They're surely suffering enough as is. God being infallible isn't exactly a novel idea. It's set in theological concrete. It's also totally the mainstream pov.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,624
12,757
146
At least Abigail won't grow up in an religious/abusive household. Weird how religious parents are prosecuted for physical violence, even negligently inflicted, yet it's perfectly ok to intentionally inflict one's child with a lifetime of emotional abuse and mental slavery.

With religion being encouraged/respected by society and government, they shouldn't be prosecuted unless it can be shown that religion wasn't the sine qua non. You reference a supernatural force on your money, elect religious people to office, teach your society to "respect" and "tolerate" religion, allow educators to insist that we're created and not evolved, in the face of all the evidence, and then you want to prosecute people for taking all of this seriously...

Should try have some compassion for the parents, themselves victims of previous abuse. They're surely suffering enough as is. God being infallible isn't exactly a novel idea. It's set in theological concrete. It's also totally the mainstream pov.
This brings up an interesting legal pretzel. If the religion can be proved to be the cause of the baby's death beyond a reasonable doubt, can the religion be prosecuted? I'd actually let the parents walk if I could see religious leaders in court over this.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,038
4,800
136
Never crosses their minds that maybe god put all of these medical options to his people to help provide for them does it?
They've probably been listening to some Moses wanna be snake handler. Any responsible parent would immediately take their sick child to a medical professional for care.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
As per the Hobby Lobby decision can anyone give me a good reason why requiring these parents to take their baby to a hospital doesn't violate their sincerely held religious beliefs? Shouldn't they be exempted? If you think they should be charged, can you explain why this is different?
Sure, I'll explain. The Hobby Lobby decision was was based on the RFRA which does not apply to state laws or Federal laws that Congress has exempted. They would likely be charged under state murder / manslaughter laws so the RFRA has no relevance to this situation.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,812
49,499
136

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,289
28,144
136
At least Abigail won't grow up in an religious/abusive household. Weird how religious parents are prosecuted for physical violence, even negligently inflicted, yet it's perfectly ok to intentionally inflict one's child with a lifetime of emotional abuse and mental slavery.

With religion being encouraged/respected by society and government, they shouldn't be prosecuted unless it can be shown that religion wasn't the sine qua non. You reference a supernatural force on your money, elect religious people to office, teach your society to "respect" and "tolerate" religion, allow educators to insist that we're created and not evolved, in the face of all the evidence, and then you want to prosecute people for taking all of this seriously...

Should try have some compassion for the parents, themselves victims of previous abuse. They're surely suffering enough as is. God being infallible isn't exactly a novel idea. It's set in theological concrete. It's also totally the mainstream pov.
I can't see this being difficult to prove. Midwife says "take your baby to hospital or it will die" Mom: "God doesn't make mistakes".

If the family were atheists, God wouldn't have factored in the decision and they would have gone to the hospital. If the mothers had said "I don't believe in modern medicine" that defense might have worked.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,038
4,800
136
Don't blame God in this not so dynamic duos blunder with their baby. The midwife delivered the facts up front and they chose to ignore the advice. This was bad decision making on their part and they should bear full responsibility for the outcome.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
Don't blame God in this not so dynamic duos blunder with their baby. The midwife delivered the facts up front and they chose to ignore the advice. This was bad decision making on their part and they should bear full responsibility for the outcome.

Because they honestly believed that God's will be done. If you truly believe that God is omnipotent then whatever happens is God's will and there is nothing you can do about it anyway.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,812
49,499
136
It would obviously depend on specifics of the law in Michigan. I think the RFRA laws are bad policy in general and hopefully Michigan's law doesn't permit parents to do what these people did.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I hope so too, these RFRA laws are a great example of unintended consequences.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,289
28,144
136
BTW - Let's see if they treat themselves like they treated their baby. If they are consistent they will not seek legal counsel.

Medical worries - no doctor
Legal worries - no lawyer
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |