Oregon approves bill - Faith healing no longer legally protected

[VanillaGorilla]

The Oregon House approved a bill Thursday that would remove legal protection for parents who choose faith healing over medical intervention when treating their children.

The bill passed unanimously, though two Republican representatives raised concerns that the legislation was taking the issue away from juries and sending the state down a slippery slope.

The legislation comes in response to an Oregon City church, the Followers of Christ, that has a long history of child deaths even though the conditions from which the children died were medically treatable.

Currently, spiritual treatment can be used as a defense against all homicide charges. The bill would eliminate that defense and subject parents who chose faith healing over medical treatment at the expense of their child's life to mandatory sentencing under Measure 11.

"In the past two years alone, two children have died and another had been severely disfigured due to lack of medical care," said Democratic Rep. Carolyn Tomei, one of the bill's sponsors. "These children suffered needlessly. Their deaths were avoidable."

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/bill_ending_faith_healing_exce.html

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Rep. Jim Weidner, R-Yamhill, said he worried "we might be heading down a slippery slope." He said he prayed earlier in the day about his son's severe tonsillitis. His wife took his son to the doctor Thursday morning, he added, but "am I going to go to prison because I took the time to pray with my child?"

What a fucking idiot.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

What a fucking idiot.

Why is he an idiot? Can he not pray for his child?

 

[Natebishop3]

I do not think that this is a violation of church and state. I believe that there is absolutely a connection between prayer/good thoughts/whatever you want to call them and improved health, but I also think that it would be criminal negligence to deny your children medical care while they are ill, especially if it's life threatening. It's the duty of every parent to do whatever is necessary to keep your children healthy.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I do not think that this is a violation of church and state. I believe that there is absolutely a connection between prayer/good thoughts/whatever you want to call them and improved health, but I also think that it would be criminal negligence to deny your children medical care while they are ill, especially if it's life threatening. It's the duty of every parent to do whatever is necessary to keep your children healthy.

Perfectly stated.

 

[LittleAlex]

I do not think that this is a violation of church and state. I believe that there is absolutely a connection between prayer/good thoughts/whatever you want to call them and improved health, but I also think that it would be criminal negligence to deny your children medical care while they are ill, especially if it's life threatening. It's the duty of every parent to do whatever is necessary to keep your children healthy.

I agree completely. If an adult wants to count on faith healing then fantastic, knock yourself out.

But to let a child die for your beliefs is just plain wrong.

 

[Minstrel]

Why is he an idiot? Can he not pray for his child?

He can and the bill doesn't say he can't. It says he can't choose prayer instead of medical care for his child, which is not what he did. So no, he's not going to jail.

For him to ask that question, he either doesn't understand a bill in his own legislative body or he's grandstanding. I think it's probably the second.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Why is he an idiot? Can he not pray for his child?

He can and the bill doesn't say he can't. It says he can't choose prayer instead of medical care for his child, which is not what he did. So no, he's not going to jail.

For him to ask that question, he either doesn't understand a bill in his own legislative body or he's grandstanding. I think it's probably the second.

The bolded is why I called him an idiot. He has every right to pray for his son.

 

[Eastoff]

Why is he an idiot? Can he not pray for his child?

if he is taking time away from when he could be driving his kid to the hospital...

 

[PapaG]

So, if a "Faither" or whatever they're called brings their kid to the doctor when they ordinarily would not, and the kid dies, does the "Faither" then have a legitimate lawsuit for religious discrimination against the state, as well as a wrongful death suit?

 

[PapaG]

if he is taking time away from when he could be driving his kid to the hospital...

What if the kid gets a staph infection at the hospital and dies, when all they were doing was going to the ER for stitches?

 

[chris_in_pdx]

So, if a "Faither" or whatever they're called brings their kid to the doctor when they ordinarily would not, and the kid dies, does the "Faither" then have a legitimate lawsuit for religious discrimination against the state, as well as a wrongful death suit?

What's all this about "Tort Reform" that conservatives keep talking about? Is that just when someone else dies due to a doctor's mistake?

 

[PapaG]

What's all this about "Tort Reform" that conservatives keep talking about? Is that just when someone else dies due to a doctor's mistake?

Huh? I'm not a "Faither". I'm just asking a question under the current tort rules. Plus, I didn't talk about suing doctors, just the state in my post. Although I assume the doctor/hospital would be sued as well, society as it is.

Please try to stay on topic. You're not making any sense.

 

[Natebishop3]

So, if a "Faither" or whatever they're called brings their kid to the doctor when they ordinarily would not, and the kid dies, does the "Faither" then have a legitimate lawsuit for religious discrimination against the state, as well as a wrongful death suit?

So let's be clear, you're opposed to this legislation?

 

[PapaG]

So let's be clear, you're opposed to this legislation?

I'm ambivalent toward it. Selfishly, I'm concerned about the potential cost to me as a taxpayer. Kids die in hospitals, too.

 

[Minstrel]

So, if a "Faither" or whatever they're called brings their kid to the doctor when they ordinarily would not, and the kid dies, does the "Faither" then have a legitimate lawsuit for religious discrimination against the state, as well as a wrongful death suit?

No, because medicine is viewed as a necessity for health while faith healing is not. Just as you cannot refuse to provide a child you are responsible for food, clothing or shelter, you cannot refuse to provide traditional medicine.

If there were some nutcase who felt that prayers would feed their child, and essentially let their child starve to death, they would have been criminally negligent. Same should be the case for standard medical care in relation to prayer. If someone wishes to provide prayer in addition to all the material things deemed necessary for survival, that's a parent's choice.

 

[PapaG]

No, because medicine is viewed as a necessity for health while faith healing is not. Just as you cannot refuse to provide a child you are responsible for food, clothing or shelter, you cannot refuse to provide traditional medicine.

If there were some nutcase who felt that prayers would feed their child, and essentially let their child starve to death, they would have been criminally negligent. Same should be the case for standard medical care in relation to prayer. If someone wishes to provide prayer in addition to all the material things deemed necessary for survival, that's a parent's choice.

I agree, but that really doesn't answer the question, does it?

 

[Minstrel]

I agree, but that really doesn't answer the question, does it?

It does. This law in no way opens up a "I wanted to faith heal but the government forced me to medically heal" lawsuit. Because not enough people believe in, and therefore no laws exist for the sake of, protecting faith healing as a legitimate need for a child.

We currently require parents to feed their children food. Can someone sue the state because they wanted to feed their child prayers instead of food but were forced to use food? I don't think such a lawsuit even has a chance of being heard, let alone won. Likewise for your hypothesized lawsuit against the state for faith healing, IMO.

 

[PapaG]

It does. This law in no way opens up a "I wanted to faith heal but the government forced me to medically heal" lawsuit. Because not enough people believe in, and therefore no laws exist for the sake of, protecting faith healing as a legitimate need for a child.

We currently require parents to feed their children food. Can someone sue the state because they wanted to feed their child prayers instead of food but were forced to use food? I don't think such a lawsuit even has a chance of being heard, let alone won. Likewise for your hypothesized lawsuit against the state for faith healing, IMO.

I think it may, at least in terms of the US Constitution. I'm not really considering your opinion as an answer, but I do respect it.

 

[Minstrel]

I think it may, at least in terms of the US Constitution.

I think it does in so far as the government forcing people to feed their children food opens the state up to lawsuits. I agree that anyone who answers your hypothetical-based query will be rendering an opinion, not an "answer." Only the courts will answer this as the torrent of faith healer lawsuits unfold.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm ok with protecting kids from whacky parents. I'm a bit skeptical, though, about the pressing need for this legislation. How many kids die each year b/c of faith-based non-healing, vs. from neglect, child abuse, malnutrition b/c of non-payment of child support, not getting vaccinations, etc.?

If this legislation protects children, good. Can we shift, though, from an attack on people with good intentions doing what they believe in to people with bad intentions intentionally harming another.

 

[PapaG]

Only the courts will answer this as the torrent of faith healer lawsuits unfold.

Heh

Pretty much.

 

[barfo]

I'm against this bill. I believe we should allow natural selection to winnow the herd.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

I'm ok with protecting kids from whacky parents. I'm a bit skeptical, though, about the pressing need for this legislation. How many kids die each year b/c of faith-based non-healing, vs. from neglect, child abuse, malnutrition b/c of non-payment of child support, not getting vaccinations, etc.?

Those are all illegal also.

As for how many have already died from the neglect of this particular church in Oregon City, Oregon, the "Followers of Christ"?

According to a 1998 analysis by The Oregonian, at least 21 of the dozens of children buried since the 1950s in the Followers of Christ church cemetery south of Oregon City could have been saved by medical intervention. None of the deaths from that era resulted in prosecution.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/parents_indicted_in_faithheali.html

"During the latter part of the twentieth century, the church began to attract attention from authorities in the state of Oregon due to an unusually high mortality rate among its children. Larry Lewman, a former medical examiner in the state, alleges that during a ten-year period twenty-five children perished due to the lack of medical intervention—a death rate 26 times higher than among the general population.[2] An investigation by The Oregonian claimed that at least 21 out of 78 minors found to be buried in the church cemetery died of preventable causes, including simple infections which would be easily treated with routine antibiotics.[3] The high death rate among church children attracted national media attention, including coverage of the church by Time magazine,[3] ABC News newsmagazine 20/20,[10] and the PBS program Religion & Ethics Newsweekly.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Followers_of_Christ

This cult of child-murderers has been an alarming disgrace for Oregon throughout most of my life, with nobody doing anything about it.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

So, if a "Faither" or whatever they're called brings their kid to the doctor when they ordinarily would not, and the kid dies, does the "Faither" then have a legitimate lawsuit for religious discrimination against the state, as well as a wrongful death suit?

This makes no logical sense at all. Can you restate it.

 

[MARIS61]

If this legislation protects children, good. Can we shift, though, from an attack on people with good intentions doing what they believe in to people with bad intentions intentionally harming another.

I do not believe these people had "good" intentions. Their church is comprised of pathological narcissists (the men) and subservient cowards (the women), and of course the children they abuse, torture and murder.

Most of these children suffered horribly for months, some for years from their untreated but very treatable diseases.

Playing the "faith" card doesn't change or excuse or explain why they killed their children.

There is no greater betrayal than a parent who betrays their child.

They should rot in prison til they die.

 

[PapaG]

This makes no logical sense at all. Can you restate it.

I'm sorry if you can't understand it. Others have, and have commented on it. It's basically a reversal of current laws, but I won't bore you with the details.

 

[MARIS61]

So, if a "Faither" or whatever they're called brings their kid to the doctor when they ordinarily would not, and the kid dies, does the "Faither" then have a legitimate lawsuit for religious discrimination against the state, as well as a wrongful death suit?

Why would they have any basis for any lawsuit, unless you are suggesting malpractice by the doctor (who is not designated by law, but a choice made by the parent)?

 

[PapaG]

I'm against this bill. I believe we should allow natural selection to winnow the herd.

barfo

I agree with this. I also believe that the idiots who had to be rescued at Gold Beach yesterday, after repeated tsunami warnings/evacs, should have been left alone to see if it was their time to leave the gene pool. Which leads me to this question. Why are we as a society forcing the children of people dumb enough to not believe in modern medicine into life-lengthening treatments? Are we sure we want the offspring of such people becoming a part of society?

 

[MARIS61]

I agree with this. I also believe that the idiots who had to be rescued at Gold Beach yesterday, after repeated tsunami warnings/evacs, should have been left alone to see if it was their time to leave the gene pool. Which leads me to this question. Why are we as a society forcing the children of people dumb enough to not believe in modern medicine into life-lengthening treatments? Are we sure we want the offspring of such people becoming a part of society?

Don't judge them by their parents, as intelligence often skips a generation.

Also, one can learn much from simple observation when surrounded by idiots.