jean-claude responding not Ingrid


>> You present an interesting hypothesis; let's work with it.
> Assume the death is not due to malnutrition but some other factor.
> Then, given that the child is sick, we note that a rational parent
> would get medical care for the child.

Do you know if that baby showed signs of sickness before they called 911 ?

 In contrast, a parent poisoned
> by the irrational anti-MD rhetoric of natural hygiene, would avoid such
> medical care. In that way the raw/NH ideology is a causal factor in the
> child's death, if it causes the parent to not get proper care for
> the child.

that is a big jump , to assume that medical care is proper care . In many
many cases there is demontration that it  is not necessarelly so , sometimes
( to say the least )  even agravating the conditions .
I have been myself "saved" from deaths by medical interventions 5 times ( i
have addison disease and in time of crisis i can die from dehydratation by
sodium wasting.
But i am far to consider medical intervention as allways sound , more harm
than good are done in the hurry to stop symptoms .
Also being alive is dangerous ,we can die anytime . seeing death as a
failure is arrogant . Nobody is in charge when it is time to give away the
gift .
As a baby if my circonstances didn't allow me to live long ,i will prefer to
die in  my parents 's arm than hooked up to a machine so i can keep
breathing .

we could all benefit from openess either as a natural hygiene believer or
medical paragdime believer .
I think those two seemingly antagonist approachs have a common ground :
concern for well being of fellow humans and....possibly righteous closed
attitude .
jean-claude