Comments:Parents prosecuted after homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death

Fascism
Fascism, plain and simple. The day when I can't raise my children to have the same values I have is the day that Lincoln, Churchill, and Santorum hide their faces in shame at what has been wrought despite their best efforts. "A boot, crushing a face, for eternity" indeed. 206.74.5.136 05:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you deny your children proper medical care, your children won't live to have values... --Killing Vector (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, "Lincoln, Churchill, and Santorum"? One of these things does not belong, one of these things just isn't the same... --Killing Vector (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * lulz. Mike Halterman (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hell does using a quack form of medicine have to do with 'values'.? --Brian McNeil / talk 06:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Way to misuse a quote from 1984. Also you do not have the right to deny your children medical care. --218.215.95.81 09:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Children have a right to live. You have a responsibility to look after your children as they can't look after themselves, while you can bring them up to believe whatever you want, you cannot neglect their safety like this!--77.99.143.87 09:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This could start an ugly smackdown and is forcing me to reconsider whether parents should have full authority in their children's upbringing. If cases like this (and the octomom publicity stunt) happen more often, I cannot deny further legislative oversight on the matter. (and people will start crying about their loss of liberties, because of a few REALLY stupid and self-centered parents.) Kushal one (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

on Fascism
Yes, those fascist parents should hide their faces in shame for crushing this innocent Human's right to a happy life with their eternal boot of selfish navel gazing 'values'. Unfortunately too often have I had encounters with people of these attitudes - they are beyond reason - a walking example of why there should be some kind of system of qualification for breeding!

As for homeopathy itself, I recently had a discussion that illustrates the mental gymnastics these people perform in their heads: after a long and painful series of arguments about the absurdity of the whole concept and the nature of reality itself - I finally suggested that perhaps the proponent of homeopathy should at least be careful since advising someone is also taking responsibility for their health, their life! Since this did not compute in itself, I further illustrated my point by providing an example: what if one day you meet your friend who complains of flu and headache and a stiff neck, and you offer them some combination of homeopathic remedies, aural field-therapy and a relaxing incense bath. After the treatment they go home and turn up dead next morning with a post-mortem of acute meningitis. How would you feel than? The person responded by saying that of course she would be careful and not give such advice if she suspected something serious. Wow! so homeopathy doesn't work on something 'serious' than? And how can she tell, she has no medical training - she's basically just peddling various dilutions of water and alcohol according to mostly inconsistent and arbitrary set of rules - of which there in no statistical evidence they have any validity to reality. Yet, it has never occurred to her that she might actually be endangering someone's life with that nonsense.

People, when you even talk about 'alternative medicines' with someone, beware! You are taking their life into your hands. I don't go advising people on how to parboil a Gyromitra because I read some fashionable new-age books about it and took a course at the spirit festival. I take my responsibility of other peoples lives seriously and so should you. There maybe many valid critiques of the so-called conventional medicine, but that does not make righteous navel gazing a solution to all our problems - you still need to deal with the reality - and you still need to bear the responsibility for the consequences of your actions! Sincerely --Ransu (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that this author is opinionated.


 * Wow! Show me a person who cannot or does not want to express an opinion and stand by it and provide rational reasoning to back it up - and I will show you a person who uses words like 'opinionated' (what does that even mean!?) and does not dare to sign his comments! This is 'a comments' section for a news section of wikipedia - not a scientific journal - you're supposed express opinions here! Don't you have 'opions' on matters? I mean, I would understand if you dont have opinions on the curvature of compressor wings inside turbine engines - if you had, one would assume you to have some expertise on that field. However we are talking about real everyday life here - of which every person here has experience of - getting sick - going to the doctor - dealing with it. And a tragic death like this - with these circumstances - what kind of human are you if you can't or won't express an opinion, a reaction to that, but go on to scorn others who do?


 * But I think you do have an opinion on the matter - an opinion that you are afraid to voice - since that would expose it to scrutany, doubt - and you would have to rationlize it - and worst of all, perhaps compromise on it, change it - opinions like that aren't opinions - they are beliefs - dogmas - like those of the parents whose dogma led to the tragic death of an innocent child. That's why I don't hold on to my opinions, nor do I respect others opinions - I challenge them, everyone should - in a world where you cannot express and challenge an opinons - thats fascism! --Ransu (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

bad precedent
In my opinion, not charging the parents based on "cultural differences" would set up a very bad precedent. — Kushal one (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel so sorry for the parents who are grieving the loss of their child! What those parents must be going through and for the media to pick apart their belief is uncalled for. As much as we want to believe conventional medicine is the only medicine out there it is NOT! There are alternatives and considering the father is schooled in Homeopathy (which has been known to be safe and effective) then I see no reason for the media to jump all over this form of medicine and call it a "placebo effect". Do the research, throughout the years Homeopathy has been more effective then conventional medicine let's start with the the pandemic of influenza of 1912. The stats are there. The fact remains that the child was sick and given the conventional or alternative medicine the outcome would probably be the same. Are we a society that accuse alternative medicines because it didn't work??? Do we write article like this every time conventional medicine doesn't work?? We don't, because there would not be enough space to write about all the tragedies that occur from conventional medicine. Doctors "screw" up constantly and 10% of it is documented in the media. Alternatives don't work and it is 90% documented. Interesting!! This was a tragedy that occured and I am positive the parents will be questioning everything they did...Do we need the public and the media to help them? I think they are in their own world of pain and don't need any more help...


 * Are you unable to even read the text of the article? It's right there in plain words: "Gloria temporarily improved during the rare times they used conventional treatments, but they soon dropped them in favour of homeopathy, and she got worse again".

Of course, the fact that homeopathy is bollocks is a well-established fact, too. No scientific study so far, by health authority in any country, had found any observable effect from its use. This is the matter of life for everyone except for some deluded new-ageists and the like hanging around their own. 207.216.69.186 (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, there are 'altervatives' to every subject under the sun - bungee jumping without a rope for example - so that isn't an argument in itself. We have a responsibility towards ourselves and our fellow men to follow some sort of common criteria on what is reasonable, safe, effective - and what is just quackery. See the article on homeopathy on the subject.


 * If you want to argue about the placebo effect or the influenza pandemic of 1912, why don't you present your evidence and statistics you refer to for the rest of us also? Making claim on evidence you withold is called lying.


 * Now the line about 'doctors screw up all the time' and 'conventional medicine does not work' is a very typical line given by proponents of homeopathy. Apart from the fact that those arguments in no way validate homeopathy's effectiveness (just like they don't validate standing on your head or jumping up and down as cures to cancer), they are actually false also. Conventional medicine has an excellent track record, with decades of statistics on the exact effectiveness on large varying populations and environmental conditions. Biology, chemistry and physics are the most successful systems of thought people have ever made. They are internally consistant, predictive and verifyable. This means you can trust them, make predictions based on them, and verify that they work afterwards.


 * Homeopathy, like most so-called alternative treatments are none of these. They are vague, internally inconsistent, and therefore wildly non-predictive. Because the reasoning behind the system is absurd, based on mumbojumbo verifying is very difficult. However what we can measure is the actual end effect. All studies (see homeopathy) using the double blind test to see if homepathy has any health effect against placebo have shown no statistically significat effect on the health of the patient.


 * The placebo effect has very strong effects, both cognitive and actual physical effects. It has been shown that a placebo does have 'the power of suggestion' ie. there are some psyco-somatic mechanisms that have also physical effects. Happy people (who think they have been given the cure) recover better than a control group. This effect explains (according to occams razor) all the statistical effects seen in the double blind studies of all the alternative medicines which are considered as quakery.


 * Human psychology further confuses people who get involved with alternative medicine. They are initially seeking some hope, possibly for their ailment, and end up finding positive reassurance anywhere for it (humans are basically hopeful creatures, easily duped). Any 'failures' in conventional medicine are taken as proof of the failure of the whole of conventional medicine - and reversely, proof of how all the alternatives 'must' be better (anything must be better than a failed system). Any apparent, anecdotal, romoured cases which tend to support the case of the alternative medicine, are taken onboard uncriticially, without scrutany and doubt, and rightously declared as the proof that the system works. Similar to a gambler who believes he has 'found a system' that works even if you show him that it is mathematically impossible.


 * So the signs of a homeopathy or any other alternative medicine proponent are: 1. they accept all positive evidence uncritically and ignore contrary evidence. 2. they refuse or ignore discussion about details of studies and methods of how effectiveness of medicine is determined 3. they make claims about the failure of conventional medicine based on individual cases, while ignoring the overall health effect for the whole population, or analyse why these failures occured (malpractice because of an accident, incompetent, greed or a doctors missprint aren't proofs of the failure of conventional medicine but are very likely statistically to occur within a large number of cases - the 99.5% of cases where there has been none of these are ignored and not mentioned.


 * Also, if you make serious claims like that, you should at least sign your comments. --Ransu (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words
"a form of alternative medicine widely regarded as quackery" From Wiki widely regarded as garbage 98.208.24.188 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)--

Seems heavy handed and biased against homeopathy; detours from the content of this story with it's criticism.


 * Nice demonstration of the concept of weasel words. Homeopathy has been demonstrated to be 'widely held as quackery' (see reference in article on homeopathy), whereas your characterisation of wikipedia as 'garbage' is a claim you provide very little evidence - perhaps its because someone's little dogma has been hurt by this incident. People who defend homeopathy have blood on their hands!


 * As for 'biased against homeopathy' - more like reality is biased against your beliefs - gravity is biased against object with a mass around earth - perhaps we should censor the law of gravity too? --Ransu (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. Voice of All (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording has been unweaseled since 98.208.24.188's comment. However, the proper attribution has made it no less damning. Homeopathy remains a dangerous pseudoscience. --SVTCobra 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well to bad.
"Speaking in the parents' defense, Tom Molomby, SC, said that, as the parents came from India, where homeopathy is in common use, they should be declared not guilty due to cultural differences." When you're child life is threaten and what you are doing is not working its time to listen too the doctors.--KDP3 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a very convenient thing, that cultural difference. "Your Honor, I've murdered my wife because we have cultural differences, see, and we have this thing called 'honor killing', so I thought it's okay". "Your Honor, I've cut my daughter clitoris off, because that's what we always do in Africa - it's, like, cultural". 207.216.69.186 (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Negative stigma
Let us not forget that homeopathy was not the killer here. Stubborn, illogical parents were. I wish the whole story was told, like what treatments were available through conventional medicine, or what treatments they tried on the baby. I'm not trying to justify the parents. Anyone who doesn't go through every possible means of healing their child is not mentally fit to raise it. I am only pointing out that this article speaks in a slanderous tone in regards to homeopathy, when really, this is an extreme case. Not all homeopaths are lunatic quacks.
 * 'not all homeopaths are lunatic quacks'? Well, the entire thing is voodoo-magic with zero scientific evidence; a so-called treatment that has failed in every double-blind scientific attempt to verify efficacy. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this apathy due to female child? I think the couple should be charged with female infanticide and punished accordingly.Rajiva Ranjan (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Rajiva Ranjan
 * Infanticide should not involve sex discrimination in the eyes of the law. Whether or not this is a case of infanticide may be open to question, but I'm sure most people think the result of their action - or inaction - is in some way criminal. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking in the parents' defense, Tom Molomby, SC, said that, as the parents came from India, where homeopathy is in common use, they should be declared not guilty due to cultural differences.

What a load of rubbish, when you are a citizen of a country you live by that country's laws and as such you will be held accountable for your actions.Skaiidawg -86.96.228.84 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

no evidence
Saying there is "no evidence" is actually a falsehood. Saying that no conventional medical journal has ever published peer-reviewed evidence that it is of benefit may be true.

There have been many people who have reported much benefit from it - as well as likely many more people who have reported no effect. It could be a placebo, but it seems the writer of this article wasn't neutral.

(Note that I have no association with homeopathy and would be reluctant to use it myself) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.149.22 (talk • contribs)
 * Source to back up these claims? Cirt (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikinews does not deal in 'truth'/'falsehood' or other certainties. It relies to what is the notably (common) verifiable scientifically established view on the matter. In the case of homeopathy it is justified to use the phrase 'no evidence' because there is no notable scientific evidence on the matter. Please see article on homeopathy.


 * Now you imply many hidden/weasel concepts here: 'conventional medical journal' means that you believe there are notable 'unconventional medical journals' we should refer to? If you want to argue for and establish such notability, you are free to do so at the article discussion on homeopathy. Wikinews is not a forum for that. The 'many people'-argument is a non-valid argument in the Wikipedia world (as is in most scientific arguments, except perhaps in fields where it is relevant, such as sociology and psychology). What 'many people' think or experience isn't a basis for fact or truth. Many reports of an effect maybe a notably phenomenon, but that phenomenon isn’t evidence of anything except maybe the existence of the phenomenon, such as placebo effect (which, in the absence of any other evidence, by the principle of Occam’s razor, is the most likely the cause of the phenomenon).


 * I'm not sure if this is the right forum to teach the basics of thinking and dealing with reality - but you see, humans go though life giving undue weight on 'evidence' based on hearsay and anecdotes because that is the what most of the information we receive in our daily social exchanges is. And we make a calculation of likelihood to decide to trust it because the risks associated aren't overwhelming. Its a very practical, pragmatic way, because otherwise you would be constantly paralysed by uncertainties and analysis and wouldn't get anything done.


 * However when we have to make decisions which have overwhelming risks like giving someone the correct (most likely beneficial) medical treatment, we no longer cannot deal in intuitive analysis - we have to have some external verification for it. That is what the system of science is. Its a system to try to catch the cognitive and human fallacies we knowingly or unknowingly allow to influence our decisions. And sometimes it goes against our observations and experiences - and then you have to ask yourself: do you trust yourself, or do you trust this system. And that is the key to all the alternative / pseudo-sciences: people who are too proud or selfish, to consider their own fallacies - ironic yes since hippies are often accused of 'navel gazing', whereas that is exactly what they should be doing - evaluating and observing if they are subject to cognitive fallacies - and devising a way external to their own mind to try to verify it.


 * Its called critical thinking, being able to for example play the devils advocate etc. People who have strong beliefs on a subject are often incapable to exercise these - whereas an honest person (to themselves) would subject their own cognition to scrutiny. My observation is that people who are proponents of homeopathy have extreme difficulties with self-consciousness and -trust (again very ironic for hippies), where as people who regularly deal with the scientific method are very at ease and peace with themselves since they regularly challenge their own minds to a duel with the reality around them - and allow reality to win - every time! Does this make any sense to you? Sincerely --Ransu (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

screw the fact the parents are from INDIA
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT THEY HAD THE CREAMS NEEDED TO HELP HEAL THE CHILD! SHE DIED B/C THE PARENTS WERE NOT DOING THEIR JOB!!!! I HOPE THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY..STUPIDITY IS NOT AN EXCUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This opinion section....
Is awesome! They should add an opinion page to Wikipedia articles so we can all tear chunks out of each other in arguments over there too.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.235.151 (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Claims not supported by evidence/sources
Adam Cuerden wrote, "She died from infection caused by severe eczema", but this claim is not supported by any of the cited sources. "the baby spent all her energy battling the infections caused by the constant breaking of the skin, leading to severe malnutrition and, eventually, her death" <-- What evidence supports this claim? It seems more likely that she had a genetic defect that caused a nutritional defect and then a nutrient deficiency caused the skin problems and infections. "homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death" <-- this claim is not supported by any of the cited sources. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

it is sad to know the death of  gloria. I wondr why she did not respond to treatment. I have treated many cases of eczema with the following medicines.By the grace of God it has never failed. Streptococcinum 1m only two dozes with 10 days interval at night. From next morning of firstdoze start administering calc.sul. 6x two to four tabs every two hours from morning till evening daily. The eczema will vanish. Abdul Basit                                                                                             FB Homoeo Clinic                                                                                              fbhomoeo@hotmail.com

death of glona
I HVE SEEN CSES WHERE EXCEMA WAS TREATED BY MODERN MEDICINES. LOCAL APPLICATIONS WILL KEEP THE SKIN FAIR BUT THE POOISON  GOES INSIDE TO AFFECT THE VITAL ORGANS SUCH AS BRAIN  AND LUNGS ALSO NERVOUS SYSTEMS....I SAW A PPROFESSER  WITH EXCEMA SUPPRESSED  BY MODERN TREATMENT WHO FELT UNESY FOR A LNG TIME..WHEN HOEO MEDICINES GIVEN  AGAIN  ECZEMA STRTED WEEPIN BUT THE DISCOMFORT DISAPPEARED...SINCE THE SKIN WAS SHABBY HE AGAIN APPLIED  OINTMENTS..THE SKIN WAS FAIR BUT HE SWOONED WHILE ENTRING A BUS IN A BAZAAR LEADING TO STROKE ENROUTE TO DEATH........SUPPRESSION OF EXZEMA  WILL CAUSE ASSTHMA,  WHICH IS COMMON......SUGGEST THE ALLOPATHIC MEDICINES CAN BE GIVEN INSIDE IN ECZEMA CSEE AVOIDING LOCAL APPLICATIONS AT LEAST.....DR.SUNGMESWARAN BH2106.TNHC. MADRAS''

LIES, DISTORTIONS and MISINFORMATION
WHOA!!! Up until today, I thought Wikipedia an excellent resource. However, after reading the entries on Homoeopathy and Samuel Hahnemann, and this article ("Parents prosecuted after homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death"), I have completely reversed my opinion.

Obviously, the parents grossly failed in their duties of care to their child, but why ever did Wikipedia & Wikinews allow themselves to be hijacked, sullied and besmirched by such a blatant piece of anti-Homeopathy PROPAGANDA!!!? An "encyclopedia" that presents things in such a biased way is not an encyclopedia at all, merely a large propaganda repository.

What a GROSSLY BIASED collection of lies, distortion and misinformation!

Even the title shows the bias. Of course "... homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death" is a GROSS LIE, unless you can prove that if the Homeopathic Treatment was not given, the baby would have lived. And I'm willing to bet, she would still have died of the same neglect. Therefore, it was NOT the Homeopathic treatment that lead to the death, but the LACK of effective care and treatment.

Examples: "with ritualised shaking between each step". Ritualised huh? Not just ordinary shaking? What disgraceful crap! You might as well say that the machines that stamp out BIG PHARMA's little poison pills are engaged in an equally "ritualised stamping." But NO, that would be fair to both sides of this war.

"...homeopathy ... that has been described as pseudoscience." Why didn't it just say "a highly disputed and controversial form of alternative medicine"? Ditto to "quackery." Let me describe the pharmaceutical industry as an advanced and sophisticated extortion racket, just to be fair!

SHAME ON YOU, WIKIPEDIA & WIKINEWS!!!

The real truth is that BIG PHARMA is actually feeling very threatened by the on-going success and popularity of Homeopathy, and now resorts to underhand tactics like this. If Homeopathy didn't work at all, it would not be threatened. People would soon learn for themselves that it doesn't work, but in fact, often enough, it not only works, but it FAR outperforms expensive and toxic pharmaceuticals.

Why don't you just DELETE THE NASTY LITTLE "STORY"?

Homeopathy is not negligence
I have followed this story closely ever since it made the news. This child did not die from Homeopathy, she died from gross negligence. The same could be said of parents who travel without their child being in a car seat. The world can't condemn the car seat manufacturer for the parents bad choices when an accident occurs. Should they be prosecuted? That's a different question all together. The line between a parents rights and the well being of a child is at times blurry.

Rik--99.94.138.66 (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Breaks my heart!"
Breaks my heart! &mdash;166.250.45.169 (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "I have been a follower of this..."
I have been a follower of this case and the article here is anything but complete and reliable. &mdash;203.38.6.83 (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

homeopathy scientific medicine
homeopathy very good medicine for small boils when no pus belladonna30 cure in 3day