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

245

Posts

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    As somebody who is religious, I find it reprehensible (and not just on a religious level) that their dumb, non-Biblical theology supersedes the entire rest of the Bible. You know, the part that says to treat others as you would like to be treated.

    Well, I would like to not die and I'm sure the child felt the same way.

    While I can understand the underlying point behind this, I'm fairly sure the parents involved also would have preferred their child not die. That they chose a non-medical way to address this doesn't indicate they had no concern for the welfare of their child.

    The death count for children of the people who think this way is rising. The evidence is there that God is not intervening for these people and it was ignored. I'm sure their preference was that their child live, but obviously their nonsense beliefs superseded the life of their child and that's just ridiculous.

    Stupidity should not be a valid defense.

    I was commenting more on the implication (through your use of a biblical tenet and the appeal to the child's wish to live) that parents in these situations don't care for the welfare of their child, as opposed to any legal defense.

    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.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Kistra wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm not sure if I'm prepared to lay out an opinion on this because it seems really tricky to me. I mean, common sense, no shit you go to a hospital and get official medical care. On the other they have the right to refuse it and practice their religion. But on the other hand should they force that on their kid.

    It's too complicated for me to handle. I know they did wrong, but what kind of punishment they (the parents) receive is just too much.

    The law is pretty clear that it is illegal to force religious medical views on children.

    Can you pull up that information, like source citing? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong when it comes to written law (which is what we are in America really; a nation of written law rather than the intent of law - but that's another thread).

    You must be new to oregon if you don't remember the faith healer apocalypse of 1999, when the house passed bill 2494 which made amendments specifically targeting faith healers and removing their protections after a medical examiner alleged that they killed 25 children over 10 years and the Oregonian alleged that 21 out of the 78 children buried in their cemetery died of preventable causes.

    Since you asked for a source: http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2400.dir/hb2494.en.html

    edit: they do have protection federally and in many other states

    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:
    Bill 2494 wrote:
    163.555. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal nonsupport
    if, being the parent, lawful guardian or other person lawfully
    charged with the support of a child under 18 years of age, born
    in or out of wedlock, the person refuses or neglects without
    lawful excuse to provide support for such child.
    { - (b) In a prosecution for failing to provide necessary and
    proper medical attention, it is a defense that the medical
    attention was provided by treatment by prayer through spiritual
    means alone by adherents of a bona fide religious denomination
    that relies exclusively on this form of treatment in lieu of
    medical attention.
    Nothing in this subsection shall affect the
    jurisdiction of the juvenile court in proceedings instituted
    under ORS chapter 419B or 419C. - }

    ...

    (F) Negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child, including
    but not limited to the failure to provide adequate food,
    clothing, shelter or medical care { + that is likely to endanger
    the health or welfare of the child + }. { - However, any child
    who is under care or treatment solely by spiritual means pursuant
    to the religious beliefs or practices of the child or the child's
    parent or guardian shall not, for this reason alone, be
    considered a neglected or maltreated child under this
    section. - }

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    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).

  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Kistra wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm not sure if I'm prepared to lay out an opinion on this because it seems really tricky to me. I mean, common sense, no shit you go to a hospital and get official medical care. On the other they have the right to refuse it and practice their religion. But on the other hand should they force that on their kid.

    It's too complicated for me to handle. I know they did wrong, but what kind of punishment they (the parents) receive is just too much.

    The law is pretty clear that it is illegal to force religious medical views on children.

    Can you pull up that information, like source citing? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong when it comes to written law (which is what we are in America really; a nation of written law rather than the intent of law - but that's another thread).

    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.

    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Ho hum. Expecting a faith healer to work is Tempting God, and therefore blasphemy. :whistle:

    steam_sig.png
  • PracticalProblemSolverPracticalProblemSolver Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    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:
    Bill 2494 wrote:
    163.555. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal nonsupport
    if, being the parent, lawful guardian or other person lawfully
    charged with the support of a child under 18 years of age, born
    in or out of wedlock, the person refuses or neglects without
    lawful excuse to provide support for such child.
    { - (b) In a prosecution for failing to provide necessary and
    proper medical attention, it is a defense that the medical
    attention was provided by treatment by prayer through spiritual
    means alone by adherents of a bona fide religious denomination
    that relies exclusively on this form of treatment in lieu of
    medical attention.
    Nothing in this subsection shall affect the
    jurisdiction of the juvenile court in proceedings instituted
    under ORS chapter 419B or 419C. - }
    [/B]

    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
    (1) A person commits the crime of criminal nonsupport if, being the parent, lawful guardian or other person lawfully charged with the support of a child under 18 years of age, born in or out of wedlock, the person knowingly fails to provide support for such child.

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Oh so that's what the { } were for. Boourns.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I'm of the opinion that no matter the result, if the jury actively states they decided based on something not in the law, it should be a mistrial and redone.

    Namely because you don't get to write law from the jury bench.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    kildy wrote: »
    I'm of the opinion that no matter the result, if the jury actively states they decided based on something not in the law, it should be a mistrial and redone.

    Namely because you don't get to write law from the jury bench.
    This isn't how it works.

    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.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • xa52xa52 Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    While I don't think the parents were acting in good faith in this case (what with the belief against medicine as a whole, as opposed to a specific medical treatment as per Jehovah's Witnesses that also provide for alternative medical solutions), I don't envy the job of the jury in having to rule on a rather complicated case compounded by, what seems to be, either insufficiently clear or too complicated legislation. Specifically:
    Judge Steven Maurer had instructed the jury the standard for deciding whether the Worthingtons met their duty to protect their daughter was whether a "reasonable person" would have asked for medical help.

    Santos said that was a tough question for the jury, because everybody has a "different definition of a reasonable person."

    I think the jury had a point here in that how should the court go about defining reasonable.

    This is how law is handled, though. Particularly in civil cases, but also in criminal cases... "how would a reasonable person handle X situation" is generally the benchmark.

    Yes I know, I'm just wondering whether the courts should be elaborating a bit more on what they're expecting in terms of 'reasonable' given the ambiguity present in using the term. Are they wanting the jury to be including location-cultural contexts in determing what would be reasonable when such things are applicable to the case in question? If so, should they explicitly outline such or should it be the responsibility of the prosecutor to show it has no bearing?

    A "reasonable person" takes their sick baby to the doctor.

    Fuck, that was hard. I need a nap!

    camo_sig2.png
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    xa52 wrote: »

    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.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Preacher wrote: »
    xa52 wrote: »

    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.

    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.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    zeeny wrote: »

    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.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    zeeny wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    xa52 wrote: »

    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.

    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.

    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.

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    zeeny wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    xa52 wrote: »

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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).

  • AsiinaAsiina Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    zeeny wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    xa52 wrote: »

    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.

    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.

    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.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited July 2009

    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.

    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.

  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Wouldn't it be involuntary manslaughter? It could be argued the child didn't die due to the parents willfully neglecting its health because they believed their method would work, or if it didn't it was God's will. That just makes them idiots, not murderers.

    The way I see it, one less batshit crazy religious fundamentalist.

  • AsiinaAsiina Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    The way I see it, one less batshit crazy religious fundamentalist.

    Yes, we sure are lucky this baby DIED.

    Are you fucking serious?

  • takyristakyris Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I practice reiki, which is either a form of faith healing or analogous to faith healing, depending on who you ask.

    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.

    Dox the PI wrote:
    takyris, Greek God of blowing shit up.
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Asiina wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    The way I see it, one less batshit crazy religious fundamentalist.

    Yes, we sure are lucky this baby DIED.

    Are you fucking serious?

    No, not really being serious.

    However, if it had been a 60-year-old batshit crazy religious fundamentalist, would you be so incensed?

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Asiina wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    The way I see it, one less batshit crazy religious fundamentalist.

    Yes, we sure are lucky this baby DIED.

    Are you fucking serious?

    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.

  • xa52xa52 Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Asiina wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    xa52 wrote: »

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    camo_sig2.png
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanks for the linkage guys. And yeah I am new to Oregon. :P

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    takyris wrote: »
    I practice reiki, which is either a form of faith healing or analogous to faith healing, depending on who you ask.

    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.

    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.

    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.

    Height: 5' 11" Weight: 225 Goal: 200
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be involuntary manslaughter? It could be argued the child didn't die due to the parents willfully neglecting its health because they believed their method would work, or if it didn't it was God's will. That just makes them idiots, not murderers.

    The way I see it, one less batshit crazy religious fundamentalist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence?

  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be involuntary manslaughter? It could be argued the child didn't die due to the parents willfully neglecting its health because they believed their method would work, or if it didn't it was God's will. That just makes them idiots, not murderers.

    The way I see it, one less batshit crazy religious fundamentalist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence?

    Ah, okay... so it's different with kids rather than adults, I guess?

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Well negligence in common law usually holds a person to the standard of what a "reasonable" person would do.

    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.

  • ThawmusThawmus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    takyris wrote: »
    I practice reiki, which is either a form of faith healing or analogous to faith healing, depending on who you ask.

    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.

    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.

    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?

  • takyristakyris Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Without a big quote, the only thing I'd add to that is that you could so very easily get the kid the medicine and then pray for him or her anyway.

    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.

    Dox the PI wrote:
    takyris, Greek God of blowing shit up.
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    at least they were consistent

    *shrugs*

    i guess god wanted their baby to die by their logic. oh well

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    "In explaining their mixed verdict, the presiding juror emphasized that the Worthingtons did not intentionally cause Ava's death, even though intent was not a requirement for a guilty verdict on either charge."

    juries are routinely stupid

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2009
    also how the fuck do you convict dad and not mom of mistreatment

    oh I forgot because moms are loving and nurturing and would never hurt their children, right!

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    that jury was fucking retarded

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Have there been rulings in the past on to what extent freedom of religion extends (ie animal sacrifices, smoking pot, and other gray area illegal things)? At what point does the child's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness get protected by the state above the parents wishes?

    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.

  • AegeriAegeri Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    God these people are terrible and they should do time in jail, regardless if it is for mansalughter or murder.

  • local flavor policelocal flavor police Registered User
    edited July 2009
    ive read about a man who started a religion in which marijuana was essentially sacriment. (high times of course) guess what... said man was arrested and charged. granted we as american citizens are "guaranteed" freedom of religion. but if someones religious views indirectly result in the death of their child (and they can get away with it) as opposed to the smoking of a reletively benign substance... (didnt get away with it) all of this due to the letter of the law and how it is interpreted, somthing is utterly fucking wrong here. when the LAW grants exemptions from allowing your child to die due to religious views, whats next? no... dont even tell me.

    Steam: LocalFlavorPolice
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    that jury was fucking retarded

    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.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Beaverton, ORRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    that jury was fucking retarded

    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.

    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.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be involuntary manslaughter? It could be argued the child didn't die due to the parents willfully neglecting its health because they believed their method would work, or if it didn't it was God's will. That just makes them idiots, not murderers.

    The way I see it, one less batshit crazy religious fundamentalist.

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.