smh.com.au
Church Group Guilty of Manslaughter in Death of Girl Denied Insulin
Fourteen members of a church group in Toowoomba, Australia, were found guilty of manslaughter for the death of eight-year-old Elizabeth Struhs, who died after they withheld her insulin for type-1 diabetes from January 3 to January 7, 2022, believing modern medicine was "witchcraft".
- What were the direct causes of Elizabeth Struhs' death, and what immediate consequences resulted from the actions of the defendants?
- Fourteen members of a church group were found guilty of manslaughter for the death of eight-year-old Elizabeth Struhs, who died after they withheld her insulin for type-1 diabetes. The parents, brother, and eleven others watched her die over six days, believing that modern medicine was "witchcraft". The judge will sentence them after February 24th.
- What are the potential long-term societal impacts of this case, and what measures could be implemented to prevent similar tragedies in the future?
- This case highlights the dangers of religious extremism and the potential consequences of rejecting modern medicine. The long sentencing process underscores the severity of the crime and the devastating impact on the victim's family. The judge's reserved decision suggests a careful consideration of the complex factors involved.
- How did the defendants' religious beliefs influence their actions, and what broader implications does this case have on the role of religious freedom in healthcare decisions?
- The defendants, who represented themselves, refused to plead and claimed their actions were based on religious beliefs. The victim's sister described the parents as having been "led off the righteous path" into extreme religious beliefs and that the group sought to control the family. The prosecution argued that the defendants' faith blinded them to Elizabeth's deteriorating condition and that they could have easily sought medical help.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately frame the defendants' actions as a deliberate choice to "play God", setting a negative and judgmental tone. The emphasis on the parents' and group's actions as willful neglect and the use of emotionally charged language like "slowly die" and "arrogantly and stubbornly" guides the reader towards a predetermined conclusion of guilt and moral culpability. The inclusion of the victim's sister's emotionally-charged statement further reinforces this framing. While the prosecutor's quotes are included, the lack of a counterpoint perspective from the defendants (who chose not to submit sentencing arguments) makes the framing appear even stronger.
Language Bias
The article utilizes strong, emotive language such as "play God", "slowly die", "arrogantly and stubbornly", and "wilfully blind." These words carry strong negative connotations and shape the reader's perception of the defendants' actions. More neutral alternatives could include "rejected", "withheld treatment", "believed", or "did not seek". The repetition of the phrase "slowly die" emphasizes the perceived cruelty of the defendants' actions, which may influence emotional responses over objective analysis.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the religious beliefs of the defendants and their actions, but it lacks details about the specific doctrines or practices of "the Saints" group that led to this tragic outcome. More information about the group's internal structure, decision-making processes, and the role of leadership in influencing the parents' choices would provide a more complete understanding. Additionally, while the victim's sister's statement is included, other perspectives from the wider community or medical professionals involved (if any) are missing. The article also omits details regarding any attempts to intervene or report the situation before Elizabeth's death, if such attempts were made.
False Dichotomy
The narrative presents a stark dichotomy between faith healing and modern medicine, framing the defendants' actions as a simple choice between these two options. This oversimplifies the complex interplay of religious belief, parental responsibility, and medical necessity. The article doesn't explore any nuances or alternative understandings within the defendants' beliefs, nor does it acknowledge the possibility that their actions stemmed from a combination of factors rather than a deliberate rejection of medical care.
Gender Bias
The article focuses primarily on the actions of the male defendants (Jason Struhs and Brendan Stevens), while the roles of the female defendants are less emphasized. Although Kerrie Struhs is mentioned as a key participant, a deeper analysis of gender dynamics within the group and whether gender played a role in the decision-making process is absent. This aspect could influence the reader's perception of the defendants' culpability.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article describes the tragic death of an eight-year-old girl due to the denial of her life-saving insulin treatment by her parents and members of a religious group. This directly contradicts SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. The case highlights failures in access to healthcare and the negative impact of harmful beliefs on health outcomes. The preventable death of a child due to religious beliefs represents a severe setback to achieving SDG 3 targets.