Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Faith healers acquitted of manslaughter in the death of their two year old
Posts
Right, and I was pointing out that even though they cared for the child, they cared for their insane non-Biblical doctrine more (even more than the Biblical tenet I brought up), or else they would have done the proper thing and hospitalized the tot.
While the source doesn't mention 'forcing religious medical views' on children at all, it does go and note that it is considered a defense against charges of neglect (for the parents, it would seem to me by your description that the bill may be targetted far more to faith-healer practioners as opposed to the parents that use them) to rely on non-medical, spiritual treatment:
I'm not following your reasoning here. They were caring for their child as best they could under the umbrella of the social structure they were raised/lived in (their religion). In their context it wouldn't have been 'proper' to seek medical attention since that it wasn't what they believed. That their particular denomination is rather daft doesn't speak to the validity of what they themselves believed and thought was right. It wasn't a zero-sum "which should take precedence, my beliefs or my child's life" choice they were making: they were operating as best they believed they could to ensure the health of their child within the confines of their overall belief system.
I'm not convinced you can separate the ethical/moral action (taking the child to the hospital or not) from the social structure that underpins their ethical/moral decisions in terms of viewing things from their perspective (as opposed to observers deciding the ethical/moral action).
It isn't primary source, but this is the most succint I can find:
http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/ - click on policy and laws
38 states exempt parents from criminal charges based on faith healing deaths. However, that is changing, Wisconsin is currently considering eliminating the exemption and Oregon already did.
Federal law allows the courts to order treatment in life-threatening cases against parental wishes (remember the 13 year old with lymphoma?) That is what I was referring to.
I think it is kind of weird that the law allows other people to treat kids against parental wishes to save their lives but doesn't punish the parents if nobody sees the kid in time to demand treatment.
The bill is like a patch file, those are the sections that were removed. Notice the { - text - } syntax. Here is the current text: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.555.html
Namely because you don't get to write law from the jury bench.
Dismissal of charges from the jury is a longheld refuge for "justified" crimes. It don't usually get used to set precedent, but the possibility of it happening is implicit in the "trial by peers" system.
Conviction outside of legal structure is the other side of that. They could appeal and try to get it overturned, though.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
A "reasonable person" takes their sick baby to the doctor.
Fuck, that was hard. I need a nap!
Except in America we have no universal healthcare provisions, so sometimes a reasonable person avoids the doctor not out of fear for their child but out of inability to pay bills.
Not saying what these people did was right, just laws like this scare me when we are legally mandating something all the while not providing the service at a reasonable cost ceiling. I'd pay anything to keep my child alive, but I could see people who already are barely making it by running into issues.
I agree with your sentiment and it's certainly easy to neglect your own health for financial reasons, but I have a hard time calling somebody that doesn't get their kid to the doctor because of bills reasonable. Especially when the kid dies.
Well in the case of religious reasons its bullshit. But I could see a poor family just hoping little johnnys issues aren't serious and they avoid the doctor. Not saying its right, but it does happen. All the more reason we need to fix healthcare in America, people are dying because they can't get prevenative care.
I thought there was free or subsidized healthcare for kids provided their parents were below a certain income level. Bush vetoed its renewal one year because it was going to change to include more kids, and then ended up signing a different version.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
That's a state by state thing. And my experiences in Washington were that even if you should qualify it involves endless, frustrating bureaucracy and months of effort to get it.
Also the whole "pre existing condition" bullshit that insurance companies pull mean that if you go to the doctor when not insured you can completely screw yourself over. If you think you might be getting insurance "pretty soon" you are way better off not going to the doctor even for potentially serious issues. Because if you do now it’s on record and your new insurance probably won’t pay for it for a year or more (or will just turn you down for coverage).
Except they say that they only thought it was a cold. Sure it's good to say "pneumonia is very recognizable" but if you obviously have little experience with medical professionals and/or medical advice, maybe it's not so obvious.
If you were really poor would you take your kid into a doctor you knew you couldn't afford because they had a cold? I imagine a lot of people wouldn't.
There might be, but people have Pride (I know its horrible to admit) and sometimes don't take hand outs, or you don't exactly qualify because you make enough to get by at your current level but excess bills could do you in.
But this is off topic probably better for the healthcare thread, religion should never prevent you from doing the best for your kid.
The way I see it, one less batshit crazy religious fundamentalist.
Yes, we sure are lucky this baby DIED.
Are you fucking serious?
THE FIRST FUCKING THING THEY SAY in the first class is, "It's not a substitute for medical care. Going to a doctor won't make it work any less. Use reiki in addition to, not instead of, medical treatment for problems."
It sounds like people are already hashing out the legal side of things. I just find it incredibly sad that people practice a form of belief that requires them to hold their own health, or that of their children, hostage to their god's goodwill. Hell, as I recall, there's a bit in the gospel about Jesus rebuking Satan with something along the lines of, "Faith doesn't mean you test God," during the Satan Tests Jesus scene.
No, not really being serious.
However, if it had been a 60-year-old batshit crazy religious fundamentalist, would you be so incensed?
Yes, if he'd given his children the right to make medical decisions on his behalf (perhaps he's somehow incapicated) and they reject life-saving treatment in favor of leaving things to God, then this would be ever bit as offensive.
If a 60 year old made the decision for himself or gave his children or other relatives the right to make medical decisions for him knowing what sort of decisions they'd make, however, then it'd be completely different from what we're seeing here.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
They anointed the baby with olive oil while a large group of people prayed for healing.
Now I'm not familiar with their doctrine, but I would assume that this is not something you do every time your baby gets the sniffles.
Regarding the availability of health care side of things, (and I don't want to get into it too much because as it was said that belongs in another thread) I will say that if you have the means to get medical care for your sick baby--and nearly everybody in this country does, whether it's with their own insurance/money, or from the state, the free clinic, or the town doctor that will see you in exchange for a pie--and you deny your baby that medical care for selfish reasons, whether pride, or religion, or anything, then you are a horrible fucking person and have no business raising a child. Let's be clear- these people weren't even trying to get a doctor to see their child, and the defenses offered in this vein are irrelevant. They weren't wading through bureaucracy, or taking a church collection. They were breaking out the cooking oil and praying to jeebus.
Exactly. I'm a Christian myself and I find this story to be beyond retarted. Any religious group that keeps people from going to the doctor for any reason have lost their minds.
Having faith is great. But we are still just humans and our bodies sometimes decide to break down. Sometimes we can get sick and we can die from it. Go to the doctor.
Into MMA, pro wrestling, fitness, health, drinking coffee and reading.
Height: 5' 11" Weight: 217 Goal: 200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence?
Ah, okay... so it's different with kids rather than adults, I guess?
course it sounds like Oregon is just fine with making an exception to that rule in the case of religion.
so basically they're saying its perfectly ok to be dangerously negligent to the well-being of others if your religion says so.
While I certainly don't want this to devolve into "Who's right?", I have to agree. There's far too many places in both the OT and the NT that specifically say, "Don't put God to the test."
There's also the old Ben Franklin addage: "God helps those who help themselves." Some will point out to you that it's mentioned several times in the Bible that "God helps the helpless." But, I feel there's a distinction between helplessness, and being willfully negligent of your own available devices. Some people don't make that distinction.
Here's my thing: Babies die. People die. And usually they die of things that we can't outright cure. You have to just hope that their immune system kicks into gear, and that their tissues heal fast enough to keep them alive. And, as a Christian, I believe that God is the only one who currently has a hand in that. Sure, I also believe He has a hand in all sorts of other things in the world. But when it comes to the point where the doctor has to play "Wait and see", God's the only one working on the problem anymore. And prayer certainly does not hurt.
But...and I cannot possibly be kind about this....these fucktards actually have themselves so indoctrinated against medical science, that they believe that God is the only hand in everything. Which is so absolutely contrary to everything Christianity teaches us....Free Will, original sin, coming to the Lord for forgiveness, using Jesus as a model to live up to, all of this requires personal thought, action, and cognizance. God doesn't do it for you. He may help you, but He certainly doesn't do it for you.
My hope, in the end, is that this trial being publicized in this way, educates others. And maybe even converts a few people away from that faith. Because that just might save some lives. And I truly pray that those parents can learn from this. Because no matter how I or anyone else here feels about them, they will have another child on their hands. And that child will likely get sick like this as well. There's heredity and environment, right there waiting for them. And they'll be faced with a challenge. Do they accept the truth in front of them, or do they blindly fly against it, thinking that God is testing their faith? I really hope that this has been a sobering enough experience that they do the former, and not the latter.
And I feel very sorry for those that were involved with the prayer group. I do not like faith healing for so many reasons, and one of the biggest reasons is how utterly devastating it can be toward your faith. If you were a part of that prayer group, and believed that you would heal that baby, and it died, I cannot IMAGINE the weight on your heart. That would, quite effectively, kill the faith of anyone involved. And it's just not necessary for good people, with the best of intentions, to fall into that hole. You believe that God will save him? Great. But don't put your faith to the test. Don't put God to the test. Get the baby to a doctor, and let them both work it out together. After all, isn't that the way we're meant to do things?
Having a kid be sick with something serious is fucking terrifying. After you've done everything medical that you can do, you've got them the antibiotics and are treating them however the doctor has asked, you sit there and watch your kid hurt, and it's the most enraging frustration you can imagine. That is the time to pray, to do reiki, to lay on hands, whatever, if that's something you believe in and take comfort from.
Even if scientists conclusively prove that none of that does anything at all even a little (and that's another thread, because I've seen studies that look conclusive on both sides), doing that will have given the parents' minds something to focus on, maybe even with a group of friends and family members who believe the same. It's a combination of meditation and community, two things that can be good and helpful in stressful times like that. Even if no healing happened, maybe sitting there praying leaves the parents a bit calmer so that when the kid goes into the fever sweats at three in the morning, the parents keep a cool head instead of freaking out. And at three in the morning when the fever sweats hit, not freaking out can be worth a lot.
*shrugs*
i guess god wanted their baby to die by their logic. oh well
juries are routinely stupid
oh I forgot because moms are loving and nurturing and would never hurt their children, right!
I'm too lazy to look up the details right now, but I'm pretty sure that an American Indian tribe was granted the use of a hallucinogen (I want to say peyote) for use in religious ceremonies. There was a case being brought against a religious group in Los Angeles about 20 years ago that practiced animal sacrifices of goats, but I don't remember how that turned out.
The way the law should work is that people have the right do stupid religious stuff as long as it only affects themselves. If they don't want to seek medical treatment for their own ailment and pray instead, fine. When the decision is being forced on someone else, especially a child, then their rights stop. Unfortunately, not only freedom of religion deemed as an absolute by many sectors of the country, but children are generally considered property of the parents by the law and the parents can do whatever they want, with a few exceptions. This is one of those areas that should be among those exceptions, but then you have people who suddenly feel this is trampling on freedom of religion and are afraid to touch it.
Yet another example of how pseudoscience kills. Not really pseudoscience, but close enough to be added to the list.
This is the part that frustrated me the most about this case. But having been on a jury fairly recently... ugh. Makes me wish prosecutors could appeal an acquittal, almost.
My father's take on this was to wonder whether the parents would've had any chance at all if their religion was anything but Christianity.
uuughhhh.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
No way in HELL. If the parents were a Muslim family there would've been national cries to have them executed, since Oregon is apparently too liberal to execute anyone these days.
To also be fair, if this occurred in a majority Muslim nation, well, The Christian family would've been slain on sight. No questions asked.
And yes, the jury was beyond gotdamned retarded.
I think the issue is less what we do to these people to punish them, and more what we do to these people to make it clear to other parents who might potentially do similar things, that it is *NOT* okay, and that they will be held legally responsible for the death of their child regardless of what their reasoning for not seeking care was.