Vegan Breastfeeder should be punished? (LIP)

cajungirl0717

https://thestir.cafemom.com/baby/118253/vegan_breastfeeder_should_be_punished

Problem: It wasn't the breastfeeding that caused the infant's death. So why promote the title in such a way?

 

Sorry if this has been posted already

yourfaceyourface

yes they should be punished but not for being vegan.

Brytany09

I did not like the way that article was written. The fact that the mother was vegan and breastfed had nothing to do with the baby dying. But they spent the first half of the article bashing the mom for those things.

That poor child, though. It's really sad that the baby had to suffer for that long.

greengirl0909

The title is TERRIBLE.  I agree that it seems the breastfeeding had nothing to do with the death and it's related to a lack of medical care.  It disgusts me that they would portray this issue this way.  Anti-breastfeeding folks will jump all over that!

Roxpup

I have mixed feelings on this.  Medical neglect is a huge accusation that my mind jumps to, but at the same time, they have the right to not use western medicines and treat their baby in a way they see fit.  This is the same as religions that refuse major medical intervention and allow their kids to die from an exploded appendix, for example.  Easily fixed but refused nonetheless.  If these parents are charged with neglect with death as a result, what happens to the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and then their kid gets severely sick and/or passes away by something that is preventable?  Should they be charged, too?

Cytina

Failing to seek appropriate medical care for a sick child is a punishable offense.  I know there are certain religions that reject traditional medicine, and although the article didn't indicate whether the parents' beliefs were religion-based, I don't agree with ANYONE who singularly pursues holistic methods to the detriment of a child's health.

Ivana_Stolichnaya

It's not a vegan or a breastfeeding issue, the parent's were neglectful and allowed their child to suffer.  If they cared at all they would have done anything to help her out but they stuck to their stubborn beliefs and turned their nose up towards help.  Bottom line...They should be held accountable for putting their child through months of pain and agony.

mm&m2010

Poorly written- the fact that she bf & was a vegan had nothing to do with why the baby passed away. What a sad situation...

ABColeslaw

I'm not sure.  It all depends on if their doctor was like "I'll admit her now, she hasn't gained enough weight and her bronicitis concerns me"  or if their doctor said "If she doesn't start to gain or get better we'll have to talk about hospitalization"  Because my doctors says vague things all the time, and after the fact he could say "Well I recommended that Holly do this food trial, and she didn't"  when in fact he probably would have said something like "I think its a good idea that we do a blank trial sooner rather than later so Asher could get these nutrients" 

Beyond that, they do have a right to use alternative methods to treat their child.  The line between how much they knew, what their intentions were, and what is black and white vs.  what becomes gray area....is very blurry.  Everyone is so eager to call people monsters when a child has passed away, but I'm sure those parents can't even look themselves in the mirror.  I'm sure they are grief stricken.  

Now if there is some way to prove that they intentionally sought out inaffective treatments knowing what it would do to their baby...go ahead throw them in jail.  

bakedlaurabean

Ivana.Stolichnaya:

It's not a vegan or a breastfeeding issue, the parent's were neglectful and allowed their child to suffer.  If they cared at all they would have done anything to help her out but they stuck to their stubborn beliefs and turned their nose up towards help.  Bottom line...They should be held accountable for putting their child through months of pain and agony.

Totally unrelated, but what a great pic of your DD! Love the color on her and the hat!

homebird

Roxpup:

I have mixed feelings on this.  Medical neglect is a huge accusation that my mind jumps to, but at the same time, they have the right to not use western medicines and treat their baby in a way they see fit.  This is the same as religions that refuse major medical intervention and allow their kids to die from an exploded appendix, for example.  Easily fixed but refused nonetheless.  If these parents are charged with neglect with death as a result, what happens to the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and then their kid gets severely sick and/or passes away by something that is preventable?  Should they be charged, too?

Good question. Ah, I sense a debate coming on.

Personally, I think it's irresponsible not to use medicine and medical interventions available to you when it comes to an illness or life-threatening situation. If you don't want to use cold medicine to help your cold, that's different, imo. 

I had my daughter vaccinated because I feel more comfortable doing that. It's not medically necessary to have a vaccine, although it is advised by most doctors and pediatricians. (I personally think it's stupid not to, but it's just an opinion) The child isn't necessarily going to die because they didn't get a vaccine. Are the parents taking a risk by leaving them unprotected? Definitely. Imo, if someone's child actually got the measles (or whatever) and their child was dying and they refused to help the child with the appropriate medical care ... yes, I think that's neglectful, irresponsible, and perhaps criminal.

numeria11

Roxpup:

I have mixed feelings on this.  Medical neglect is a huge accusation that my mind jumps to, but at the same time, they have the right to not use western medicines and treat their baby in a way they see fit.  This is the same as religions that refuse major medical intervention and allow their kids to die from an exploded appendix, for example.  Easily fixed but refused nonetheless.  If these parents are charged with neglect with death as a result, what happens to the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and then their kid gets severely sick and/or passes away by something that is preventable?  Should they be charged, too?

Unless someone has a religious reason for not treating their child's illness then yes they should be charged with neglect.  And to answer your question my feeling would be yes parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and then their child dies from a completely preventable disease/infects others in the population with a potentially deadly illness should be charged with neglect.  Yeah I know it's not a popular opinion but there are people out there who truly can't have vaccines (the immuno compromised or kids who don't have all their vaccines yet) and parents who don't vaccinate when the option is available to them are not only risking their kids life thru their decision but the lives of others as well.  So yeah in my mind that's neglect.

Dreamsicle23

Roxpup:

I have mixed feelings on this.  Medical neglect is a huge accusation that my mind jumps to, but at the same time, they have the right to not use western medicines and treat their baby in a way they see fit.  This is the same as religions that refuse major medical intervention and allow their kids to die from an exploded appendix, for example.  Easily fixed but refused nonetheless.  If these parents are charged with neglect with death as a result, what happens to the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and then their kid gets severely sick and/or passes away by something that is preventable?  Should they be charged, too?

I wish. 

abc123xyzandsoforth

numeria11:

Roxpup:

I have mixed feelings on this.  Medical neglect is a huge accusation that my mind jumps to, but at the same time, they have the right to not use western medicines and treat their baby in a way they see fit.  This is the same as religions that refuse major medical intervention and allow their kids to die from an exploded appendix, for example.  Easily fixed but refused nonetheless.  If these parents are charged with neglect with death as a result, what happens to the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and then their kid gets severely sick and/or passes away by something that is preventable?  Should they be charged, too?

Unless someone has a religious reason for not treating their child's illness then yes they should be charged with neglect.  And to answer your question my feeling would be yes parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and then their child dies from a completely preventable disease/infects others in the population with a potentially deadly illness should be charged with neglect.  Yeah I know it's not a popular opinion but there are people out there who truly can't have vaccines (the immuno compromised or kids who don't have all their vaccines yet) and parents who don't vaccinate when the option is available to them are not only risking their kids life thru their decision but the lives of others as well.  So yeah in my mind that's neglect.

Oh hell no, not even under the guise of religion should parents be able to neglect their child's illness and not treat it medically when the child's life is at risk and can be saved with medical intervention.  I don't care what the parents believe.

greengirl0909

numeria11:

Roxpup:

I have mixed feelings on this.  Medical neglect is a huge accusation that my mind jumps to, but at the same time, they have the right to not use western medicines and treat their baby in a way they see fit.  This is the same as religions that refuse major medical intervention and allow their kids to die from an exploded appendix, for example.  Easily fixed but refused nonetheless.  If these parents are charged with neglect with death as a result, what happens to the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and then their kid gets severely sick and/or passes away by something that is preventable?  Should they be charged, too?

Unless someone has a religious reason for not treating their child's illness then yes they should be charged with neglect.  And to answer your question my feeling would be yes parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and then their child dies from a completely preventable disease/infects others in the population with a potentially deadly illness should be charged with neglect.  Yeah I know it's not a popular opinion but there are people out there who truly can't have vaccines (the immuno compromised or kids who don't have all their vaccines yet) and parents who don't vaccinate when the option is available to them are not only risking their kids life thru their decision but the lives of others as well.  So yeah in my mind that's neglect.

So they say they did it for religious reasons, even if they didn't, I'm not sure that's solved anything, you know?

sherina825

I can really sympathize (sp?) with this family.  My baby was hospitalized due to my breastfeeding.  She wasn't nursing enough to get the nutrients that she needed.  I took her to the doctor due to her not gaining weight and the doctor told me to take her straight to the hospital, which we did.  The hospitalist there said that they were going to call CPS on us, even though we followed the doctor's orders.  The only reason that they didn't, is due to our daughter's peditrician who said that she doesn't believe that we were neglectful. 

I said all of that to say this:  The parents were neglegent, although I don't believe that they did it on purpose, therefore I don't see it as being neglectful.  Doesn't neglect imply some kind of conscious decision?  They believed that they were doing the best that they could for their child.  Just because the modern medicine is available, is there a law that says that they have to use it? 

Finally, the phrasing of the article title is disgusting.  One has nothing to do with the other, and it's misrepresentation for it to be represented as such.

sherina825

abc123xyzandsoforth:

numeria11:

Roxpup:

I have mixed feelings on this.  Medical neglect is a huge accusation that my mind jumps to, but at the same time, they have the right to not use western medicines and treat their baby in a way they see fit.  This is the same as religions that refuse major medical intervention and allow their kids to die from an exploded appendix, for example.  Easily fixed but refused nonetheless.  If these parents are charged with neglect with death as a result, what happens to the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and then their kid gets severely sick and/or passes away by something that is preventable?  Should they be charged, too?

Unless someone has a religious reason for not treating their child's illness then yes they should be charged with neglect.  And to answer your question my feeling would be yes parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and then their child dies from a completely preventable disease/infects others in the population with a potentially deadly illness should be charged with neglect.  Yeah I know it's not a popular opinion but there are people out there who truly can't have vaccines (the immuno compromised or kids who don't have all their vaccines yet) and parents who don't vaccinate when the option is available to them are not only risking their kids life thru their decision but the lives of others as well.  So yeah in my mind that's neglect.

Oh hell no, not even under the guise of religion should parents be able to neglect their child's illness and not treat it medically when the child's life is at risk and can be saved with medical intervention.  I don't care what the parents believe.

So if a child has sickle cell anemia and they are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse to give their child a blood transfusion they should go to jail?  The first amendment doesn't allow for that, not in America.  And I'm (although not positive) almost sure that they will say that they didn't provide the modern, scientific interventions for their child for "spiritual reasons".  Are those different than "religious reasons"? 

homebird

sherina825:

So if a child has sickle cell anemia and they are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse to give their child a blood transfusion they should go to jail?  The first amendment doesn't allow for that, not in America.  And I'm (although not positive) almost sure that they will say that they didn't provide the modern, scientific interventions for their child for "spiritual reasons".  Are those different than "religious reasons"? 

I sort of think they should. But you're right, the first amendment does not allow for that. And it would be dangerous territory if we started telling people what they HAVE to do with their bodies or their children's bodies. (ex - you have to get this vaccine or you have to take this medicine).

That doesn't make the behavior any less appalling to me.

PrimReaper

Brytany09:

I did not like the way that article was written. The fact that the mother was vegan and breastfed had nothing to do with the baby dying. But they spent the first half of the article bashing the mom for those things.

That poor child, though. It's really sad that the baby had to suffer for that long.

Completely agree.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

numeria11

sherina825:

abc123xyzandsoforth:

numeria11:

Roxpup:

I have mixed feelings on this.  Medical neglect is a huge accusation that my mind jumps to, but at the same time, they have the right to not use western medicines and treat their baby in a way they see fit.  This is the same as religions that refuse major medical intervention and allow their kids to die from an exploded appendix, for example.  Easily fixed but refused nonetheless.  If these parents are charged with neglect with death as a result, what happens to the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and then their kid gets severely sick and/or passes away by something that is preventable?  Should they be charged, too?

Unless someone has a religious reason for not treating their child's illness then yes they should be charged with neglect.  And to answer your question my feeling would be yes parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and then their child dies from a completely preventable disease/infects others in the population with a potentially deadly illness should be charged with neglect.  Yeah I know it's not a popular opinion but there are people out there who truly can't have vaccines (the immuno compromised or kids who don't have all their vaccines yet) and parents who don't vaccinate when the option is available to them are not only risking their kids life thru their decision but the lives of others as well.  So yeah in my mind that's neglect.

Oh hell no, not even under the guise of religion should parents be able to neglect their child's illness and not treat it medically when the child's life is at risk and can be saved with medical intervention.  I don't care what the parents believe.

So if a child has sickle cell anemia and they are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse to give their child a blood transfusion they should go to jail?  The first amendment doesn't allow for that, not in America.  And I'm (although not positive) almost sure that they will say that they didn't provide the modern, scientific interventions for their child for "spiritual reasons".  Are those different than "religious reasons"? 

 From my understanding yes "spiritual reasons" are different from "religious reasons" generally unless you can show that you are a member of a  religious sect that says specifically x y and z arent allowed under our religion, then it can be considered neglect by the courts.  Otherwise you can get people who were just too lazy or stupid to properly take care of their kids playing the religion card for why they didnt get them medical care.

 

abc123xyzandsoforth

sherina825:

abc123xyzandsoforth:

numeria11:

Roxpup:

I have mixed feelings on this.  Medical neglect is a huge accusation that my mind jumps to, but at the same time, they have the right to not use western medicines and treat their baby in a way they see fit.  This is the same as religions that refuse major medical intervention and allow their kids to die from an exploded appendix, for example.  Easily fixed but refused nonetheless.  If these parents are charged with neglect with death as a result, what happens to the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and then their kid gets severely sick and/or passes away by something that is preventable?  Should they be charged, too?

Unless someone has a religious reason for not treating their child's illness then yes they should be charged with neglect.  And to answer your question my feeling would be yes parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and then their child dies from a completely preventable disease/infects others in the population with a potentially deadly illness should be charged with neglect.  Yeah I know it's not a popular opinion but there are people out there who truly can't have vaccines (the immuno compromised or kids who don't have all their vaccines yet) and parents who don't vaccinate when the option is available to them are not only risking their kids life thru their decision but the lives of others as well.  So yeah in my mind that's neglect.

Oh hell no, not even under the guise of religion should parents be able to neglect their child's illness and not treat it medically when the child's life is at risk and can be saved with medical intervention.  I don't care what the parents believe.

So if a child has sickle cell anemia and they are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse to give their child a blood transfusion they should go to jail?  The first amendment doesn't allow for that, not in America.  And I'm (although not positive) almost sure that they will say that they didn't provide the modern, scientific interventions for their child for "spiritual reasons".  Are those different than "religious reasons"? 

https://www.med.unipi.it/patchir/bloodl/bmr/legal.htm
------Children are a different story. The U.S. Supreme Court in Prince v Commonwealth of Massachusetts (3)  has ruled that, "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children." The court determined that the right to practice  religion freely does not include liberty to expose  children to ill health or death.
Transfusions of minors against parental wishes were  tested in Jehovah 's Witnesses v Kings County (Harborview) (4).  This was a class action suit that sought to enjoin all physicians and hospitals in the state of Washington from  administering blood to plaintiffs in the future. Ten children were included in this suit. The court ruled that  Prince v Commonwealth of Massachussetts was pertinent
and upheld the state of Washington's child neglect regulations that allowed minors to be removed from their parent's care for necessary transfusions. The law is fairly clear; lifesaving transfusions can be given to minors against parental wishes!----

There's more info on that webpage and references included.

historychick79

My only thought is they do mention that the child was rather underweight, and this may have contributed to the baby's inability to recover from the illness, perpetuating the idea that the mother wasn't eating well enough to nourish the baby well enough (a stretch, I know). That said, I do think they use the vegan angle to stir the pot, when the more critical problem was the parents didn't seek basic medical care. How sad...

Summadaze

sherina825:

So if a child has sickle cell anemia and they are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse to give their child a blood transfusion they should go to jail?  The first amendment doesn't allow for that, not in America.  And I'm (although not positive) almost sure that they will say that they didn't provide the modern, scientific interventions for their child for "spiritual reasons".  Are those different than "religious reasons"? 

I'm sorry but I think that would be bull. My brother is Jehovah Witness and if he let one of my neices die before letting them get a blood transfusion I would personally KILL him. And I know the reasoning behind them not wanting to get blood from others which I also think is a crock. I do attend church and beleive in God, but I don't beleive we shouldn't use modern science to help with ailments and such. I'm sure they wouldn't be thrown in jail if they cited spiritual reasons, but they should. What about people who kill because "God told them to" or it's part of their 'religion' to sacrafice... I KNOW IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, but should they get away with citing spiritual reasons as well? Nope. If you choose to kill yourself by refusing blood fine, but if you know your child will for sure live with one and for sure die without one and you refuse to allow them to do it.. that's BS that you should get away with 'causing' the death of your child. Just like I think it's crap that a Jehovah Witness can sue for getting a blood transfusion.. UHM so sorry.. you were on your death bed and we didn't wait to see if you would wake up to ask you if we could save your life.. but that's a whole nother ballgame lol.