Adventist Mother Arrested for Her Baby’s Diet
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, November 17, 2014
A 24-year-old Adventist woman was arrested in a suburb of Orlando, Florida, because she insisted she wanted to raise her baby on a vegan diet, according to both the local ABC television affiliate and Tech Times. Sara Markham was processed by the Casselberry Police Department but has been subsequently released and regained custody of her baby son, Caleb.
A pediatrician that Markham took the baby to became concerned because of weight loss. The doctor directed Markham to take the baby to the hospital immediately and begin the use of animal-based infant formula. The young mother purchased vegan baby formula instead and took her baby home.
Child protective services personnel were informed that the baby had not been taken to the hospital and as a result Markham was arrested and charged with child neglect. Markham follows a vegan diet and wants to raise her son on a vegan diet. She was attempting to breast feed the baby and finding it difficult to do so.
The child had lost more weight than was acceptable in the view of the physician and was considered in a condition of "failure to thrive." It is unclear to what extent the vegan baby formula was part of the problem.
Mark O'Mara, the attorney for Markham, told the ABC television affiliate that the doctor told the mother to take her son to the hospital after she told him she was opposed to using an animal-based infant formula to supplement breast feeding. There is no information on the extent of the baby's condition because both the doctor and child protective workers have refused to discuss the case with journalists.
Despite the fact that Markham has regained custody of the baby, she still faces charges in court. "There's no case," Bo Markham, the baby's grandfather, told Tech Times. "There's no abuse. There's no neglect. There is simply a doctor who has been challenged by a mother and he didn't like it."
Let's suppose that the mom is guilty as hell (which I seriously doubt). Will all those parents with overweight (or underweight), unhealthy, or sick children, that are on diets that are deemed unhealthy or unsuitable, or those perhaps in passive smoking environments, going to be targeted by pedantic doctors on witch hunts, who pull rank in order to manipulate gullible courts – just because they can? Is this not perhaps a case of 'abuse of process' where the courts made the wrong decision based on the manipulation of the system by the biased doctor who falsely accused the mother of gross child neglect by using exaggeration and misinformation. One can also asked: "Were the courts in this case biased?" The doctor clearly has no regard or respect for the mother's decision to raise her child a vegan. Many doctors will play god when it suites them and hide under the 'I'm not god' banner' when things go wrong. (Disclaimer: this is not an attack on doctors per se. My younger brother, like many others, is an outstanding example of a dedicated medical practitioner who works somewhere in North America.)
The fact that the mother was trying to breast feed her baby but was having problems doing so, which is not an unusual occurrence, shows her good intention and her reasonable approach in making the right decision to introduce a formula as a feed, and by choice, opted to go vegan. The doctor wanted to force his non-vegan views on the distraught mom who came to him for help – and what does he do? Get's her arrested because she didn't abide by his 'orders.' When there were some concerns about allergies when my son was little, he was put on a soya milk formula (by the doctor's advice) for the first five years of his life and we had no problems. In fact we later found out he was not allergic to dairy products but he didn't mind the soya milk. He thoroughly enjoyed it: poor kid. Hey, but kids don't come with a user's manual and all – and the first kid is always the first that we parents get to practice on. Come to think of it: doctors also 'practice' – on their patients.
One thing that's strikingly odd to me at least,(unless it is a norm in some Adventist circles), is that though the mom is reportedly a Seventh-day Adventist, I saw a picture in an article where the woman carrying the baby wore earrings, which Adventists don't wear. Perhaps I am wrong about what I saw, or perhaps Adventism has certainly changed in some quarters.
Then there is the question of abortion. The courts grant a woman the right to kill her unborn; yet deny a woman the right to choose infant formula. And doctors do the killing. This is called progress.
I'm with the mom on this one.
(Sunday laws will be a cakewalk).
Are you kidding??? "Adventists don't wear earrings." What Adventist closet do you live in?
There is not enough information here for us to have informed opinions. How old was the baby? What kind of weight loss are we talking about? What, if any, other medical conditions were going on?
Most states have child abuse reporting laws that require pediatricians to report mere suspicion of child endangerment. Refusal to follow physician recommendations regarding nutritional needs and evaluation of infants who are losing weight can be life threatening. It could subject the physician to criminal prosecution if he/she suspected the mother of neglect and didn't report it. Whether law enforcement has sufficient evidence to arrest and prosecute is a different matter. Obviously, child protective services felt that the mother, whatever her motivations, had endangered the child by trying to take a potentially serious medical issue into her own hands.
In the criminal guilt determination process, we frequently hear the maxim that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted. Because of the attention focused on protection of children, child abuse/endangerment reporting laws seem predicated on a belief that it is better for ten innocent people to be investigated based on suspicion of endangerment/abuse than for one guilty person, who is merely suspected of child endangerment, to slip through the cracks.
The pediatrician needs an update in neonatal and infant nutrition, there is a plenty of options to supplement breastfeeding.The pediatrician needs an update in neonatal and infant nutrition, there is a plenty of options to supplement breastfeeding.
A blatant supposition with no evidence. If not a pediatrician, who? When an infant fails to thrive it is an emergency as if deprived of proper nourishment malnutrition can soon be fatal. It also can cause irreparable damage to the mental capacity of the brain for life. Proper authorities must place the infant's health first.
Elaine say “A blatant supposition with no evidence. If not a pediatrician, who?”
Maybe a sensitive well informed pediatrician. I’m a practicing board certified pediatrician/neonatologist who deals every day with these topics
The article says that the doctor wanted to "begin the use of animal-based infant formula" which was against the mother's wishes, as she wanted to go vegan. The doctor should have respected her wishes I would say. Dr neo's expert advice confirms that alternatives could have been administered. Non-animal based infant formulas have been around for a while. This is clearly an act of bullying and a miscarriage of justice.
Neo and Trevor –
You are missing the point. Parents do not have an absolute right to dictate regarding child health care issues. The issue here was not whether there was a viable vegan alternative. The doctor told the mother that she should take her child to the hospital immediately. She ignored the advice. That refusal raised a suspicion on the part of the doctor that she was endangering her child's health. So he made a report to CPS. HE HAD A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO REPORT BASED ON HIS SUBJECTIVE STATE OF MIND, WHETHER OR NOT HIS SUSPICIONS WERE CORRECT.
It is reasonable to suspect, given the fact that the baby has since been returned to the mother, that in fact the initial suspicions were allayed. That's the way the system works. You may not like it. You may want to make this an issue over whether the state has a right to dictate that parents feed their children a non-vegan diet. But as I read this report, from the perspective of a former prosecutor, this does not appear to be the case. I am sure that authorities were probably satisfied, once they looked into the matter, that a non-dairy based formula was available to provide adequate nutrition. And hopefully the mother has learned that the state has some legitimate interests in assuring the welfare of children. I hope she will, in the future work within the health care system to reach solutions that both vindicate her beliefs and protect her children's health rather than choosing to thumb her nose at medical recommendations.
Dear Mr Schilt
Perhaps you have missed the point I am making. The doctor wanted to put the child on an animal-based formula when there are vegan alternatives which the mother would have been happy to comply with. He insisted in having his way over hers, which I find rather offensive, objectional and insensitive. Is this the way women are treated in the so-called progressive society of the West? He treated the young mother as a common criminal, belittling her, without considering the difficult time she was going through in adjusting to motherhood and the traumatic experience of having difficulty breastfeeding. He insensitively disregarded her request and forced his way on her. That I think was wrong on his part. His charges misrepresented the position of the mother and were therefore misleading and dishonest. That is why I suspect his actions were that of a textbook office bully. He preyed on the mom by using his position of legal power against a defenseless voiceless and desperate mother caught in the middle of caring for her child the best way she can and wanting to start off using a vegan diet when breastfeeding became difficult. The doctor used the situation to his advantage by creating a sensationalist scenario that labeled the mom guilty, before being proven innocent, by his devious accusation of gross child neglect. It is the doctor in my opinion who was neglectful and careless, and out of line in this case.
I have a strong feeling that the doctor did not in any of his statements to the authorities, when making these charges, mention that the mom had requested and was willing to agree to a vegan solution as opposed to what he wanted to impose. If this was hidden from the court officials then the doctor in queston was rather dodgy and acted on subjective impulsive behaviour rather than in a professional, supportive, respectful and reasonable manner. In other words I think he lied to make his case stick and the courts were gullible enough to buy it.
I surprises me how rigid and fundamentalist many people are when in comes to the legalism of civil society with all its flaws and unjust laws they insist on obedience to the letter of the law. But when it comes to obedience to God's law and counsel, and his messages through his prophets, they are taken lightly, trifled with and trampled upon, even to the extent of openly disregarding his precepts and his counsel.
Nathan,
"Failure to thrive" is a diagnosis with a whole lot of elastic in it. For more than two decades my wife and I were among those who were legally required to report the suspicion of abuse or neglect. I don't know what the law is in Florida, but here in Alabama "failure to thrive" is not included in the list of causes triggering reasonable suspicion of abuse unless it is severe and accompanied by other points of evidence indicating parental neglect or abuse.
I agree with you that the return of the child to the mother's custody seems to indicate the situation is not as severe as the doctor's action may have made it appear.
In our family we had a recent experience with these very issues.
We have had two premature grand-children. Their immediate family have a history of lactose intolerance. In the most recent instance last summer a resident pediatrician orded the NICU to feed the baby a formula containing dairy products. The baby was constantly spitting-up his food. Eventually the parents convinced the chief pediatrician to override the orders of the resident and order a non-dairy formula. The baby's retention of food improved dramatically.
Good doctors listen as well as giving ordeers.
Please do not interpret the foregoing to be a blanket criticism of the medical profession. Without their proficiency and dedication we would probably now have two healthy grand-children rather than five.
Excellent points, Jim. I have seen tragic results of families being dragged through the court system by overzealous prosecutors working with overzealous forensic pediatricians. The system can most certainly produce unjust results and lead to unjust prosecutions. We just have to be careful about jumping to conclusions without having all the facts or understanding the law.
Come on, Jim, you know there are a lot of opinionated, even incompetent physicians out there. Anyone who has dealt with an undiagnosed chronic illness in the family and gone from one to another can vouch for that.
Doctors are people, too. (Two of my brothers are physicians.) To some, "MD" after their name stands for "minor diety" while for others it is a reminder that they have learned much, but still have much to learn.
My eldest brother (now retired) tells the story from his Intern year when he and other doctors couldn't figure-out what was making a certain patient ill. Then one evening an older doctor walked onto the unit to see another patient, took a sniff of the air and asked, "Who here has dyptheria?" It was their patient and the older doctor diagnosed his illness without ever seeing him! My brother said that was a very humbling experience for the several young doctors involved.
Nathan
Missing the point? Maybe… but not missing the ball, the globe, etc.
I hope the pediatrician learned a bigger lesson; he needs to update his knowledge in neonatal nutrition and when to call the authorities. Actually I work in Florida, sadly there is allot of unnecessary calls to DSF. At the end the authorities did the right think and probably have some giggles about the call.
thing
Really a tough thing for this young mother to buck the instructions of this doctor, and now we, with years of life experience, second guess her. She did what she thought was the right thing to do in a tough situation. She probably was unaware of other ways of handling this and did her best.
On the other hand this was NOT the first infant brought to the MD. His view that his way was the only way rather than explore options with this determined to do the right thing as she saw it mother he just pulled rank. Knowing how the system worked and knowing she didn't he let her have it.
Might he have checked out alternatives to his animal based solution and phoned her and asked her to go to the hospital with new orders?
In my opinion the one in the position of knowledge and strength bears the burden in this case, not the new mother.