Quinadal, according to the article they aren't demanding any special diet; they are simply bartering with the other prisoners for salads and vegetables trading their meat for more of what they want to eat. I can't imagine that's going to work out well for them long term since they're not getting the essential amino acids that their bodies require (I don't believe they serve tofu in jail), but it's their choice.




Duparc, granted we don't have a complete list of what the infant was being fed but what we do have indicates that the child was not getting adequate nutrition that they could digest and utilize and the results were that the child literally starved to death even though she was being fed regularly. A sad case of "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink!"
One of the questions that also needs to be addressed is this: Would a reasonable parent, noticing that their infant was losing weight despite being fed regularly, to the point that the infant is at or below their birth weight several months after birth, NOT seek some sort of outside evaulation in the form of a doctor, nurse-midwife, certified nurse practitioner or other medical professional and instead attempt home remedies? And, when those home remedies were proving ineffective, continue to shun medical evaluation at the expense of their child's health and wellbeing? If the answer to that question is no, then doing otherwise indicates willful neglect.
Surely even the most uneducated of parents must recognize that an infant losing weight indicates that something is seriously amiss.
One definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results.

re - tofu and special diets in prisons ... AFAIK, prisoners are allowed the right to religious freedom, which includes specific dietary restrictions/requirements of their faith .. eg, kosher, halal .. and vegan. The Andressons are Black Hebrew Israelites, which requires strict veganism from its followers. However ... raw foodism is NOT required, it's a personal choice that the Andressohn's made for themselves. So in that regard, they would probably be served vegan foods which have been processed/cooked, such as bread, pasta, beans and tofu. It then becomes their choice to eat it or not .. or barter with fellow inmates. The Andressohn's were in jail for 3 months in 2003, but have since been in their own home, under "house arrest" .. Presumably they have been able to choose their own diet since then.


Doreen

Vegetarian food in prison can be quite bizarre:

Malvo Says Loaf Makes Him Sick

Posted: 3:36 p.m. EST December 18, 2002

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/archiv...p/t-258605.html

FAIRFAX, Va. -- Sniper suspect and vegetarian John Lee Malvo says he's getting sick from eating prison food.

He says he's suffering from digestive disorders from a Virginia jail's meatless loaf, which he said is served to some inmates for disciplinary reasons.

For the past two weeks, the Fairfax County jail has been serving the 17-year-old Malvo something called "the loaf" -- a hodgepodge of flour, raisins, carrots, potatoes and other ingredients baked into brown cakes.

His court-appointed guardian said the teen has health problems as a result. He's asking the sheriff to give Malvo regular vegetarian meals in accordance with his Muslim beliefs.

Malvo started getting the loaf after complaining that that prison meat wasn't prepared the proper Muslim way.

Police have linked Malvo and John Allen Muhammad to 19 shootings -- including 13 deaths -- in the Washington, D.C., area and in several other states. Both are charged with capital murder.

A sheriff's spokesman denied that the loaf is considered a punishment. He said, "It's not that bad. It's actually palatable."

Hmmm... interesting that he's so concerned about meeting strict religious dietary rules when he was so unconcerned about... murder!

Maybe work on the murdering thing before you worry about religious dietary rules, ya think?

We could continue this debate ad nauseam. It certainly does raise a lot of feeling.

My approach to the situation, as will be evident, is the rights and liberty of the individual and not the culpability of the parents and what I witness here is the abuse of those human rights.

There is no statute to my knowledge which stipulates that parents are obligated to seek advice when their child is ill, but, there is legislation describing how accused persons will be treated which is conveniently being ignored in this case. That is why those parents need the support of others. It has to be in the wider interests of others to ensure that those accused are treated appropriately.

Prisons, normally, are obliged to provide for the needs of those with special diets. One wonders then why those parents require to barter with others for their food. This could so easily be a myth that is propagating and designed to feed the prejudice of those who want to slay the couple. The prison culture is notorious at seeking scapegoats and cruxifying them. Comment like this needs to be treated with considerable caution.

I doubt if enemas would be regarded as abuse or sexual abuse irrespective of the age of the child! Surely it proves the opposite? If this was seen as abuse then the medical profession would have a lot to account for.

That's interesting 'Doreen T' I had not seen comment saying that the parents were under house-arrest but does this make a ''wrong' right? There is still the question of adequate access to their children which appears to be limited.

I can't speak to the UK, Duparc, but in the US there are such statutes:
http://www.vcu.edu/vissta/training/...s/topic1_2.html
http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_7.html
http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_6.html

And, in many states, 'religious conviction' is not sufficient to confer immunity from prosecution to parents who fail to seek reasonable medical care for a seriously ill child and it results in the injury or death of the child. Many parents have been convicted of neglect or negligent homicide because of this.

If one of several children dies due to neglect, it would seem prudent to remove the other children from the custody of those in charge when the death occurred until it can be sufficiently shown that there is and will be no danger to the remaining children. The welfare of the remaining children takes precedence over parental custody rights in such cases.
Of course those accused in our legal system are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't preclude reasonable precautions until guilt or innocence can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, an infant is dead and all indicators are that the death could have been prevented had proper medical care been sought by the parents.

I can see your point. I'm a nurse, and certainly aware of many cases where therapeutic enemas and similar rectal/colonic instillations are appropriate.. including for an infant.

In this particular case, I do wonder about the reasons why it was believed the infant needed to have regular wheatgrass enemas. According to testimony from the older children and from friends and neighbours, the mother believed the baby was toxic, and needed to have those toxins washed out of her body. Yet, our friend "rawfasting" tells us the baby was healthy and thriving. So I'm confused. The child must have been showing signs of illness or unwellness for her mother to think she was toxic and needed to have the toxins flushed out. Surely, if the baby was in glowing good health, there would be nothing to suggest toxins??


Doreen

While child welfare is not my field, I do work in Social Services and as far as I'm aware wilful neglect resulting in injury is a criminal offense. Parents are routinely denied access to their children for actions less damaging than these.

As to the enemas, there is a huge difference between a qualified medical practioner diagnosing a need for, and then administering, an enema to a child of that age and some crackpot religious nutjob forcing conctions in a helpless baby.

An enema on a five month old baby is potentially extremely damaging and is a hazardous procedure.

Sorry, but parents have limited rights over how they treat their children. Their 'rights as an individual' don't extend to be allowed to neglect or cause their kids harm - the kid's rights prevail.

According to testimony from the other children, the 4 and 6 year old siblings assisted with administration of enemas to the baby.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...925#post2957925


Doreen

I find the support sites for these morons deeply depressing. I'm reminded of a play I saw years ago. As the quack doctor in it said: "If I told them molten lead was good for them they'd be pouring it down their throats. There are people who will believe anything"

The thing that stopped me in my tracks here is when "rawfasting" reminded me how the press distorts everything. We here know this all too well, having been the target of it repeatedly. So let's remember that not only do we not have all the facts, we have the ones that were cherry picked by the press.

So we can discuss this till we are blue in the face, but it's all speculations. We do not know for certain what weight the baby was when they brought her in. (Didn't they say that Dr. Atkins was overweight when he died?) We do not know that she was healthy/unhealthy; we do not know the actual diet that was fed the child. We cannot trust that any of the info we have is correct. So we can discuss a hypothetical situation where a mother would feed wheatgrass juice to her baby watching her slowly starve to death, as long as we remember that might be as accurate and close to reality as a Harlequin romance.

The judge and jury will presumably get the facts. We get the tabloids. So we are really not in a position usurp their place.

Lisa N, if you read what is said in the 'educational' document that you brought to attention, and which is an 'interpretation' of the law as is understood by the author of the document that
those parents could not be accused of neglect from the information so far divulged.

The document, while it is comprehensive, it also possesses ambiguity which can be too readily misinterpreted. My guess is, that due to those features, Massachusetts repealed its child protection Act in 1986. The State also further modified its remaining Acts to allow religious or spiritual healing, which does not apply to this case. The State, in its wisdom, felt that a return to common-law was appropriate, and common-law is fairly universal.

As far as it can be determined from what has been said on this thread, the parents in the case provided adequate food, clothing, shelter, and supervision, and the autopsy found a medical congenital condition which may have determined the child's demise irrespective of whatever treatment might have been rendered. Dealing with those parents in the manner that has been described is akin to taking a 'sledge-hammer to crack a nut'. It seems unnecessary.

Neglect has yet to be substantiated. At this stage there exists only a prima facie case.

What I read in the 'educational' article was the assumption of illegal power that no one has so far contested. To apply such power is akin to wiping out alternative cultures, or can't this be seen.

Posted on Thu, Feb. 17, 2005

Lamoy and Joseph Andressohn sit in Miami-Dade Juvenile Court in this May 2003 photo. TIM CHAPMAN/HERALD FILE

Medical tests rule out genetic disorder in starving death of child

BY SCOTT HIAASEN

shiaasen~herald.com

A medical test requested by Miami-Dade prosecutors rules out a genetic disorder as the cause of death of 5-month-old Woyah Andressohn, whose parents are charged with starving the girl with an unconventional diet of raw foods.

Last month, a lawyer for the parents said he would prove that the child died from a medical condition called DiGeorge syndrome -- not malnourishment, as prosecutors have alleged. The parents, Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn of Homestead, are facing charges of aggravated manslaughter and child neglect.

However, tests performed by a University of Miami pathologist found antibodies in the child's spleen that would not be present in a child with DiGeorge, according to a report released Thursday by the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office.

''Baby Woyah did not die of DiGeorge disease, but rather of severe malnutrition as a result of the vegan diet imposed on her by her parents,'' said Assistant State Attorney Herbert E. Walker III.

Thanks for the update 'Gotbeer'. I am left wondering why there exists this contradiction in the medical diagnoses that required a legal adjudicator?

Homestead, where this couple resides, if I recall correctly was wiped-out by hurricane Andrew a few years ago and was totally devastated. There was a sign which I saw on passing through it saying that looters will be shot on sight. I wonder if this couple suffered from the ravages of this disaster?.

Meantime, I'm off to watch a relaxing programme on television.

I'd say "dead" counts as unhealthy, wouldn't you Angeline?