Ind. Couple Who Rejected Child's Medical Care Faces $172,000 Bill

[NNN0LHI]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBAADRYDCE.html

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - A couple convicted of reckless homicide in their newborn daughter's death must pay the hospital bill for another daughter who was kept in intensive care for 75 days despite their religious objections, an appeals court ruled.

Dewayne and Maleta Schmidt now face a nearly $172,000 medical bill for 5-year-old Makalynn, along with a work-release sentence following their convictions in the 2003 death of their other daughter, Rhianna. snip

A three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled last week that the Schmidts' religious objections to medical treatment did not negate their parental duty to pay for their child's health care.

"Parents, while free to make martyrs of themselves, are not free under identical circumstances to make martyrs of their children," Judge Margret G. Robb wrote. snip

The deputies called for an ambulance for Maleta Schmidt, who was then seven months pregnant, even though her husband refused consent and told them he had no health insurance and would not pay for any medical services. Hospital doctors ordered an emergency Caesarean section despite the couple's objections.

[msanthrope]

1. Good for the Judge. These assholes have the opportunity

to practice birth control if they don't want to incur the costs of childbirth.

Their newborn died of an infection that could have been easily treated. I can't imagine the suffering of that poor baby.

[Erika]

2. The far right zealouts feel empowered by Bush

If you don't wish to be responsible for a child, planned parenthood provides free birth control.

[pop goes the weasel]

3. this is not black and white

Jeesh, the hospital performed a c-section on her at 7 months pregnant without consent. Probably, had the woman lived through the distress, the pregnancy would have resulted in a stillbirth (also known as an abortion). Instead, she was forced to give birth and is now being forced to pay for the medical costs of a child she apparently did not want. Don't get me wrong--I think this couple is nuttier than a pecan orchard. Still, I don't think pregnancy over-rides a woman's authority over her own body.

[melnjones]

4. very good points...

Thanks for sharing them. What a scary precedent that could set!

[Mairead]

5. Good call.

I don't like the sound of this at all. Yes, these people are not in good shape mentally, but this sounds abusive on the part of the state.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Ignorance has its PRICE

[Mairead]

8. But the judiciary should not be making the problem worse.

[LisaL]

9. Yep. I am amazed that they let this couple to keep their other

kids, considering one child died because of them. Now apparently their other child would have died too, if it was up to the couple who didn't want to treat the child.
Why exactly are they allowed to raise the other two?

[LisaL]

7. From the article, it's unclear whether the woman's life was in

danger. Since she was in distress, it's very possible the Drs. were trying to save her life. Also, if she didn't want the children, as you claim, WTF did she get pregnant, and numerous times at that?

[Erika]

10. Many meth addicts

get pregnant time after time. They are too out of it to take birth control. It has zero to do with them wanting kids.

[Benhurst]

11. While the couple seems crazy as hell, in no other country than

BushAmerica would parents be left in debt for the medical treatment of a child -- or an adult, for that matter.

How many people out -- even those insured -- have hesistated getting care at an emergency room over a weekend for an illness, knowing they will have to pay an extra $500 or so for "emergency" care above what would be owed for a visit to a doctor's office during the week?

The couple is crazy; but so are the citizens of BushAmerica for allowing such a corrupt situation in their health "care" system.

[meganmonkey]

12. Yep - I agree with you completely

Especially since they were forced to accept the medical care.

I am in NO WAY defending these parents, but to require them to pay medical bills for a procedure they didn't want will set a TERRIBLE precedent.

And if this country were as civilized as we like to think, we would have universal health coverage and the payment wouldn't be a legal battle - the issue of neglect would be.

:(