yayyyyyy God

[SaggyBalls]

mmm meat.

Those Catholics eat *nun* on Fridays.

[Kanada Kev]

[SaggyBalls]

It's gonne be awesome to see how the patriotic atheists make themselves known and bring the pot-stirring religious fanatics to light and have them tried for treason...

...as they're tearing america apart by making issues with positions that people are pressured to be in.

is that a real sign?

[SaggyBalls]

I also think it's so funny how people get so out of shape about silly shit like this.

When do y'all think we're going to be bigger than this?

In our lifetimes?

[Kanada Kev]

I dunno, but dammit you're going to HELL if you DANCE!!

[Thorgnor]

Where's the pink font?

[Kanada Kev]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6436872

Faith Healing Parents Assert Religious Rights

They Want Charges Dropped in Faith Healing Death of Their Toddler Daughter

By DEAN SCHABNER

Dec. 10, 2008

A Clackamas County, Ore., couple accused of letting their infant daughter die by relying on prayer, rather than medicine, today asked that the charges be dropped, arguing that they infringe on their freedom of religion and their right to raise their children in their own way.

faith healing

Carl Worthington, left, and Raylene Worthington of Clackamas County, Ore., were charged with second degree manslaughter and criminal mistreatment charges March 28, 2008, after their 15-month-old daughter died from what the state medical examiner said were easily cured illnesses.

Carl Worthington, 28, and his wife, Raylene, 25, belong to a church that believes in faith healing, and police said that, instead of going to a doctor when their 15-month-old daughter Ava got sick, they turned to prayer.

The infant girl died March 2 from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and an infection, both of which could have been cured with common antibiotics, the medical examiner said.

The Worthingtons face charges of second degree manslaughter and criminal mistreatment charges. They surrendered to police in March, but were subsequently released after each posted $25,000 bail.

The motion filed in Clackamas County Circuit Court by the Worthingtons' lawyer today claims that their prosecution is a violation of the rights guaranteed them under both the state and federal constitutions.

"Mr. and Mrs. Worthington maintain that their prosecution contravenes their right 'to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' as guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Oregon and the Constitution of the United States," the motion said. "Further, Mr. and Mrs. Worthington urge that this prosecution contravenes their fundamental right to raise their children without interference by the State." A hearing on the motion is scheduled for Jan. 7, 2009.

The Worthingtons are members of the Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City, that has a history of shunning medical care in favor of faith healing.

Another Oregon City couple who belong to the same church face similar charges, after their son -- who was Ava Worthington's uncle -- died in June.

Jeffrey Dean Beagley, 50, and Marci Rae Beagley, 46, pleaded not guilty Oct. 3 to criminally negligent homicide charges in the death of their son, 16-year-old Neil Jeffrey Beagley.

Neil died June 17 from complications of a urinary tract blockage, according to medical examiners. The condition, which doctors say is easily treatable, caused kidney and heart failure.

A decade ago, the church received national attention after ABC News affiliate KATU-TV in Portland, Ore., reported that the state medical examiner believed approximately 20 children, whose parents belonged to the church, had died from untreated illnesses that were curable.

After that story broke, the Oregon state legislature changed the law to bar defendants, in most cases, from claiming their religious beliefs prevented them from seeking medical help.

According to the Worthingtons' motion filed today, their case is the first application of that revised statute.

Though the revised law removed the so-called "spiritual healing defense," there is still a provision that allows judges to give parents a lighter sentence, based on their beliefs.

[Birdy]

[SaggyBalls]

It's unfortunate how entirely closed-minded it is to not be on the side of Faith-Healing based beliefs...

...I know I wouldn't let m kid die of pneumonia if I had one, but to be fair, it's not really anyones' place to INTERFERE...even though there's a whole slew of laws and social ethics adopted by a vast majority of the populace.

Can't say I agree with their lack of action, but I can say it's not my place to assert how much more right I am than them...All I can do is assert that I recognize how one can be far more right than anyone especially myself.

Although Oregon's really pretty, That kid's in a far better place.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Guest

[Kanada Kev]

It's unfortunate how entirely closed-minded it is to not be on the side of Faith-Healing based beliefs...

...I know I wouldn't let m kid die of pneumonia if I had one, but to be fair, it's not really anyones' place to intervene...even though there's a whole slew of laws and social ethics adopted by a vast majority of the populace.

Really? So when a CHILD is in danger medically, or from physical abuse, or from malnutrition, etc. just because their parent/guardian has a certain set of religious beliefs, there should be NO intervention?? I don't get it. I guess we stand back and let "God's will" take over?

[Birdy]

Kev, what do you think about Do Not Resuscitate orders?

[SaggyBalls]

intervene was the wrong word, because I was talking about after the fact.

intervening before it's too late - do what you can.

But to be ultimitely fair - ultimitely - Those beliefs aren't ultimitely oppressive and fail to specifically CAUSE harm.

Though i don't agree with them I do realize that meddling in others' beliefs where no specific harm is done is shallow in at least one respect.

Now, some may see 'harm' in this as an inaction and a failure to save - but that's not harm - it's not using medical practices to prevent harm.

And though 'irrational' in the eyes of society and non faith-based thought patterns, all I can do is assert my perspective. I see this as sad and unfortunate.

But if my parents were the type to let me die of pneumonia when I had it I'd want a new set.

Definitely in a better place now IMO.

Thanks, KK, for making me realize my pispoor verbiage.

[SaggyBalls]

Intervention and interfering are different.

There's no way bringing this discussion up is aiding any sort of intervention.

BUT maybe there's a way for everyone to understand the various perspectives so that we won't be inclined to interfere with peoples' beliefs systems.

Was it ethically wrong for that couple to not intervene on God's will or was it Morally wrong?

[Kanada Kev]

Kev, what do you think about Do Not Resuscitate orders?

No problem, if it was written/signed/approved/etc by the person in question when they were of sound mind. Those are only in situations where a person is terminally ill.

[Kanada Kev]

BUT maybe there's a way for everyone to understand the various perspectives so that we won't be inclined to interfere with peoples' beliefs systems.

Agreed. However, when it gets to the point where those beliefs are placing an innocent child's life at risk, we as a society must be there to protect that child.

Was it ethically wrong for that couple to not intervene on God's will or was it Morally wrong?

If people who believe that a "god" has a will to control one's health, then they should NEVER be making use of hospitals or synthetic drugs, or surgeons. They all impede with the "natural" course our bodies take and therefore are antigodswill

I don't know how you make it legal, but maybe there should be an "age of consent" for these sorts of things, as there is for other things. Do you make it 16, 18, 21? But in the story posted here the child was 15 MONTHS old. How could they make that decision for themselves?

[SaggyBalls]

How can society make that choice for them?

That would essentially interfere with the rights of parents and the family unit and could easily be the beginning of the disollution of the concept of family and an autonomous family unit.

I see that you have good in mind, but there's a huge potential for much greater harm than the few deaths and malade doing nothing has brought.

to effectively and correctly address this problem will be much heavier than an age of consent, as that too would bleed into every facet of religion in a child's life.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion...both important, but can't be addressed in the same way, as a freedom from religion requires reason which a 15 month old infant is entirely unaware.

"If people who believe that a "god" has a will to control one's health, then they should NEVER be making use of hospitals or synthetic drugs, or surgeons."

Well that's one way to look at it...but maybe they were 'more-mennonite-than-amish' if we can adopt that sort of scale.

for someone to fully understand the situation, one must also understand the perspective, rather than just the topic, of faith based healing.

I can't say that I do, nor could I believe that many people do around here.

cause it's 'I can't believe someone could do that' or 'how could they just let that happen'

rather than

'those parents must be going through a lot right now'

every single time.

[hamilton]

That would essentially interfere with the rights of parents and the family unit and could easily be the beginning of the disollution of the concept of family and an autonomous family unit.

Big deal. As a society, we interfere with families' and peoples' rights all the time. Every single law that exists infringes upon your freedom, but that doesn't mean that every single law is unjust. As a society, we agree to certain limitations on our rights. And sure these parents are going through a lot right now, but whose fault is that?

[Kanada Kev]

freedom from religion requires reason which a 15 month old infant is entirely unaware.

Tell that to the Pro-Life movement.

[SaggyBalls]

"Every single law that exists infringes upon your freedom, but that doesn't mean that every single law is unjust"

But in the name if innocent justice, there is potential for far more harm to be done when the state can move in to remove the rights of family, asserting that family is not to be trusted.

If the State were to eventually make their way into our family, there would realistically have to be much greater push for preventative medecine and healthy lifestyles. it would need to be supported in every facet of living - business, food, lifestyle, economics, law, what have you.

I'm not saying that I'd be entirely against certain measures, but I wouldn't be for it at the present time, as I can't see how health and well being is entirely supported by State and Society.

...A nice sentiment, but not really there yet.

KK: Are you talking about reasonless pro-lifers?

They'd be more than happy to assert their beliefs on every fetus and mother in the land.

[d_rawk]

I don't know how you make it legal, but maybe there should be an "age of consent" for these sorts of things, as there is for other things.

There is, at least here (I don't know about Clackamas County, Ore.) It may have changed over the last few years, but IIRC, the Child and Family Services Act has the age of informed medical consent pegged at 16 y/o.

Overall, I have the same opinion about this as I do about sex with children, sex with animals, general neglect, general abuse: we don't disallow those things just because they are 'icky' and make us uncomfortable, it is more than that. It is because there is a consensus that consent can not be reasonably and intelligently obtained in those circumstances. You can completely demoralize the situation, ignore all the 'ickyness' of it all and you are still left with: can a 15 month year old make an informed, calculated, rational decision about medical intervention.

I'd posit that it can not.

Should that decision then be left not to those best equipped to assess the situation, rather than to ignorant individuals who may leave it to die (even if they be the parents?). That is tough. Physicians can be very wrong at times, and the right to deny is important. And while a child should not be considered 'property', parental rights should have some meaning. Some parents are going to make tragic mistakes, though, in the interest of exercising those rights. Some physicians are going to make tragic mistakes, though, too. I don't presume to have an answer .. but I think we come back to consent. A parent can not make claim to the right to have sex with their child just because it is their child - and the state can put a stop to such practices when they are identified. I think that you can extrapolate the logic behind this to life-critical essential medical care.

[hamilton]

If the State were to eventually make their way into our family, there would realistically have to be much greater push for preventative medecine and healthy lifestyles. it would need to be supported in every facet of living - business, food, lifestyle, economics, law, what have you.

I don't know if the slope is as slippery as you think it is.

[Kanada Kev]

Bizarro cartoonist talks about a couple of his "controversial" works that didn't go to press:

[d_rawk]

Just more random thoughts. Somehow this is on my mind today.

It's unfortunate how entirely closed-minded it is to not be on the side of Faith-Healing based beliefs...

I am not a big 'faith-healing' kinda guy, but I do respect it as individual choice. And I think it has its place, and from what I've seen there is medical benefit to deep belief and the peace of feeling 'at one' (to reuse an already terribly overused cliche) with the universe. But we've also seen, demonstrably, that while prayer for self is effective, prayer for other people is generally rather ineffective.

Here's the thing: children have rights. They have different responsibility to their rights than do adults, but they do have legally defined and recognized rights. The role of the state, if it has any role, is to protect the citizenry from abuses of what they are legally entitled to and to guarantee provision for what they are. I am not convinced that the parents' beliefs, in this case, warrant the side-stepping of the child's right to life or the medical care necessary for the sustaining of that life.

Further, Mr. and Mrs. Worthington urge that this prosecution contravenes their fundamental right to raise their children without interference by the State.

But this I have no idea about. I am not at all familiar with that state's laws, and I presume that their lawyer is and has given this all quite a bit of thought before formulating the defense. I'm curious though whether the 'fundamental right to raise their children without interference by the State' is a valid defense in that state where there is documented child abuse, for example.

And who gets to define what constitutes 'child abuse'? You see where I am going with this, I'm sure ..

[SaggyBalls]

"I don't know if the slope is as slippery as you think it is."

Exactly. You don't know. It's great to have faith in mankind to lead you to think that it's not slippery, but making more laws that fuck us over isn't anything we NEED, especially as a knee-jerk reaction from a few freak incidents.

[d_rawk]

But bronchial pneumonia (nor round worm, which I suspect they were getting at in the article by the reference to 'and an infection') is hardly a "freak incident". It is a common, identifiable, and treatable affliction.