(no subject)

[theweaselking]

7-year-old-girl dies of AIDS-related pneumonia, because her HIV-positive mother refused to treat her for HIV or have her tested for AIDS, because "HIV doesn't cause AIDS"

She didn't vaccinate either child, believing the shots did more harm than good. She rejected AZT and other anti-AIDS medications as toxic. "I see no evidence that compels me that I should have exposed a developing fetus to drugs that would harm them," she said.

Maggiore hired a midwife and gave birth to her children at home; Charlie was born in an inflatable pool on her living room floor. She wanted to avoid being tested for HIV or pressured to use AZT in a hospital, although technically neither is required by California law.

She breast-fed both children, although research indicates that it increases the risk of transmission by up to 15%.

======================================================

So, this woman did everything in her power to cause her children to get HIV, then refused to treat them for it, refused to go to doctors who would treat them for it, and didn't tell the doctors that the child with the infection was HIV-positive.

Why is this not an open and shut "criminal negligence causing death" case? And why are they even considering allowing this woman to keep and continue to not treat her 3-year-old son?

Comments

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Only one explanation is possible: they're idiots.

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

Wow. The level of denial there is just staggering.

(I will comment that the birthing method she used is fairly commonplace and works just fine if the birth is complication-free. A friend of mine was going to use the same method but wound up having to go to the hospital. That this woman apparently did it so she could avoid HIV testing on her kid, though, boggles the mind.)

I wonder if Maggiore is aware of South African President Thabo Mbeki, who likewise denies the connection between HIV and AIDS. It's been reported that in the year 2000, 40% of deaths in South Africa of people ages 15-49 were AIDS-related.

That quote from Maggiore that closes the article is disgusting.

good point...

[jadedeath.livejournal.com]

it's kinda like those religious nuts that refuse to have their children operated on when said operation could save their lives...

sometimes protecting your child is more important than your own personal beliefs...

{and hey... wandered over from dolston's LJ... cuz it's late and I'm bored...

Logan

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

The problem is that there are so many parents out there who choose to neglect their children because of their beliefs. At what point does a government have the right to step into such a personal matter as the treatment (or lack thereof) of a child's illness when the parents choose a course of action that could very well lead to the child's death? It's a sad question I wish we didn't even have to ask.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

When the parents choose a course of action that is to the detriment of the child based on the parents' subjective beliefs, of course.

Child abuse in the name of religion is exactly the same as child abuse in the name of the voices in your head. As soon as your religion intereferes with your child's health or development, your religion is wrong, and either it goes or you and it go. Period.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

While I agree with you, it's a difficult area for me because as soon as the American government has a right to step in on citizens' religions to protect their children, I can see how (at least, under this corrupt administration) it could quickly turn into the government vs. the rights of Non-Christian parents. After all, it wouldn't be difficult to claim, in this "Christian Nation," that the child of two pagan parents is being psychologically damaged by her parents dancing skyclad at the annual Bacchanal. That sounds ridiculous, of course, but lately so much of what the American government (and the governments in other countries, as well) has done has been ridiculous that I can really see it happening.

I wish I were Canadian, so I wouldn't have to worry so much about this stuff. :(

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It's already happened.

During a divorce proceeding, the judge ordered that neither of the (pagan) parents should be allowed to expose their child to their religion, or "any non-standard religion" to avoid damaging his upbringing.

Note that *both* parents were the same flavour of fluffy-bunny woo-woo pagan, and neither of them brought up religion during the custody battle.

The judge defended this on the grounds that this wasn't a violation of the Establishment clause, since there were *many flavours* of Christianity to choose from, and so he wasn't legislating One True State Religion.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

Exactly.