Mother faces prison for faith healing death

Jury gives mother prison time in death

A Tulsa County jury imposed a 2½-year prison sentence Friday night after convicting a woman of second-degree manslaughter in the diabetes-related death of her ailing son, whose treatment she believed relied upon spiritual means.

Prosecutors alleged that Susan Grady acted with “culpable negligence” toward 9-year-old Aaron Grady between June 2 and June 5, 2009, by not seeking medical treatment for him.

Aaron died June 5, 2009, at his family’s Broken Arrow apartment from complications of diabetes mellitus.

In relying on prayer to heal her son, Grady, a member of the Church of the Firstborn, told police in 2009, “I didn’t want to be weak in my faith and disappoint God.”

Nigh has maintained that Grady’s conduct was not unreasonable, based upon the teachings of her church.


Tip: Blue_wode on Twitter

Would we allow a pass to a parent who sacrificed their child for their religion? No. Then, what’s the difference here? Because, that is what she did. Her actions WERE certainly unreasonable.

  4 comments for “Mother faces prison for faith healing death

  1. LREKing
    May 31, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    Prison time serves no purpose. Unless the woman is insane, she will likely feel terrible for the rest of her life.

    What she SHOULD be made to do is go public and discuss her act with others facing similar decisions.

    When it comes to preserving faith over reason, the human mind is infinitely plastic, but it might do some good and save a life.

  2. Bob Jase
    May 31, 2012 at 1:15 PM

    IMO the whole congregation and its minister/priest/shaman should have been tried as co-conspirators in this case. Without their support & encouragement this would not have happened.

  3. Keenblade
    June 5, 2012 at 7:16 PM

    2 and a half years for killing your child!!! Wow, and people wonder why the crime rate goes up. Let the punishment fit the crime.

  4. Michel Godfroid
    June 6, 2012 at 2:09 PM

    No, of course a prison sentence is no answer to this crime.
    It will not help the perpetrator, and for the victim all help is too late.
    Why does religion (and I mean all religions) get preferred treatment in the declaration of human rights? Because we don’t know? I agree we don’t know, but I’m certain that any world or local religion does not represent any truth. I’d rather agree that there is ‘something’ if I don’t know.
    If we don’t know we should be very wary of accepting anything, especially as it goes against our personal feelings of morality and ethics. And I do not mean a majority vote here. In Islamic countries, where Sharia is applied, there are sentences which defy our understanding of justice and justness.
    I personally do believe that all religion is load of baloney, but I cannot prove my point. (Arguments for this would take us too far from the topic).
    Still, there is the problem of the child born to the mother who is (depending on viewpoint) very faithful or completely bonkers.
    Have we not a duty to protect this child, at least until it reaches the age of reason, and can choose to adhere to any fairy tale it wishes? Is it the child’s fault? Certainly not.
    What can be done about this state of affairs? Can we do something to minimise the risk of someone being born in a high-risk environment? Is liberty of opinion and religion a universal right?
    Just rantings, but welcome to debate…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *