Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUN 19, 2008 10:56 AM

What a surprise. puke puke

Authorities say a teenager from a faith-healing family died from an illness that could have been easily treated, just a few months after a toddler cousin of his died in a case that has led to criminal charges.

Tuesday's death of 16-year-old Neil Beagley, however, may not be a crime because Oregon law allows minors 14 and older to decide for themselves whether to accept medical treatment.

"All of the interviews from last night are that he did in fact refuse treatment," police Sgt. Lynne Benton said Wednesday. "Unless we can disprove that, charges probably won't be filed in this case."

An autopsy Wednesday showed Beagley died of heart failure caused by a urinary tract blockage.



Urinary tract blockage can be remedied without medicine - burdock root in your food and lots of water, easy on the salt - but the family believed that Jesus was on their side.

Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington ... have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, and their defense attorneys have indicated they will use a religious freedom defense.

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer. No one had been prosecuted under it until the Worthingtons' case.



Oregon needs to catch up with the times, methinks.

evil_jim13

evil_jim13

Iraq
August 2007

JUN 19, 2008 11:06 AM

i am a firm believer in beter living thru chemestry. a simple z-pak and a rubber mallot would clear that right up.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

JUN 19, 2008 11:17 AM

So, a simple change in diet is all it would have taken to save this child's life? I could conceive of, but not condone, withholding medal treatment in the name of religion, but how could they claim that changing his diet was sacrilegious? Did they have some prohibitions on certian foods, like pork, or dairy, or rutebegas or something?

They should at least be prosecuted for child neglect if all they needed to do was feed him something different, although I hope the manslaughter sticks. Religious freedom does not include the right to murder.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

JUN 19, 2008 11:23 AM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
So, a simple change in diet is all it would have taken to save this child's life? I could conceive of, but not condone, withholding medal treatment in the name of religion, but how could they claim that changing his diet was sacrilegious? Did they have some prohibitions on certian foods, like pork, or dairy, or rutebegas or something?


To be fair, the article doesn't say anything like that (in fact, it says that a catheter was needed). That seems to be added by the OP.


They should at least be prosecuted for child neglect if all they needed to do was feed him something different, although I hope the manslaughter sticks. Religious freedom does not include the right to murder.


Murder?

There are no manslaughter charges. There won't be. The kid was over 14, and at that age in Oregon you're able to turn down medical treatment. That's what he did.

Mr_Matt_

Mr_Matt_

Pompano Beach, FL
July 2005

JUN 19, 2008 11:31 AM

Wasn't the option to turn down medical treatment seen as an individual's rights idea? I don't know the details, but I think it stems from the whole Terry Schiavo and Dr. Kevorkian issues over the past decade. In which case I'm all for it.

cpkz

cpkz

Portland, OR
September 2006

JUN 19, 2008 11:39 AM

Wodanaz said:

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer. No one had been prosecuted under it until the Worthingtons' case.



Oregon needs to catch up with the times, methinks.



Wait what? One of us is reading your quotes wrong.

From what I understand about my great home state, the quote says that "religious shields" can NOT be used as defense in Oregon. Despite having this law, no-one has been brought to court under it...until now.

In this case, Oregon is ahead of the times. The kid was over 16 and therefore allowed to make his own decisions. The fact that he chose to be ignorant is still his choice, and unfortunately one he won't have the chance to regret.

My major problem with these articles is how the parents can even attempt to protect themselves. Yes, yes, I understand the laws...I'm talking emotionally. Even if I tried everything in the world to protect my child from dying, I'd still hate myself for not being able to do more. Now if there was an obvious and easy way to help my child, and I didn't take it...I don't know how I could live with myself, let alone even try to defend my position to the public.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

JUN 19, 2008 11:40 AM



There are no manslaughter charges. There won't be. The kid was over 14, and at that age in Oregon you're able to turn down medical treatment. That's what he did.




From the OP's original quote:


Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington ... have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, and their defense attorneys have indicated they will use a religious freedom defense.

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer. No one had been prosecuted under it until the Worthingtons' case.



Did I misread something there?

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUN 19, 2008 11:44 AM

English isn't my first language. I apologise for the misconstruing comment.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

JUN 19, 2008 11:47 AM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:



There are no manslaughter charges. There won't be. The kid was over 14, and at that age in Oregon you're able to turn down medical treatment. That's what he did.




From the OP's original quote:


Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington ... have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, and their defense attorneys have indicated they will use a religious freedom defense.

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer. No one had been prosecuted under it until the Worthingtons' case.



Did I misread something there?


He's combining two different cases. The story here is the boy who died from urinary tract blockage, and who was old enough to turn down medical treatment. The "she" refers to a different case (bronchial pnemonia) from the same church (and cousin) as the boy who died.

cpkz

cpkz

Portland, OR
September 2006

JUN 19, 2008 11:47 AM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:



There are no manslaughter charges. There won't be. The kid was over 14, and at that age in Oregon you're able to turn down medical treatment. That's what he did.




From the OP's original quote:


Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington ... have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, and their defense attorneys have indicated they will use a religious freedom defense.

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer. No one had been prosecuted under it until the Worthingtons' case.



Did I misread something there?




There's a disconnect.
The main article is talking about a 16yr old kid who died after making a (stupid) choice not to go to the doctor. His parents are not being charged.

Carl and Raylene Worthington had a 15month old child that died from pnuemonia. Those two are being tried from manslaughter.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

JUN 19, 2008 11:51 AM

cpkz said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:



There are no manslaughter charges. There won't be. The kid was over 14, and at that age in Oregon you're able to turn down medical treatment. That's what he did.




From the OP's original quote:


Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington ... have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, and their defense attorneys have indicated they will use a religious freedom defense.

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer. No one had been prosecuted under it until the Worthingtons' case.



Did I misread something there?




There's a disconnect.
The main article is talking about a 16yr old kid who died after making a (stupid) choice not to go to the doctor. His parents are not being charged.

Carl and Raylene Worthington had a 15month old child that died from pnuemonia. Those two are being tried from manslaughter.



AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH.........

cpkz

cpkz

Portland, OR
September 2006

JUN 19, 2008 11:55 AM

Wodanaz said:
English isn't my first language. I apologise for the misconstruing comment.



NP.

Oregon protects children on multiple levels against "Faith Healing." For one, parents aren't allowed to use 'religion' as a reason to refuse treatment from a doctor. Doing so will get you prosecuted with manslaughter, and the Worthingtons (parents of the 15month child who died of pnuemonia) will be prosecuted as such.

Also, when you're 14 you can make your own medical decisions. This is another guard against Religious nuts and their children, allowing for 14+ to get contraceptives and medicine without parental approval (although, money may still be an issue, Oregon attempts to help there as well).

Unfortunately, the two laws together kind of back fired. Since the kid was over 14, he was allowed to make his own decisions. Unfortunately, he was stupid enough to believe in faith healing.


Faith healing reminds me of the joke:
So there's a guy in the ocean, no life preserver or anything, bobbing around in the water. A boat comes by, asks him if he needs help. "No, Jesus will save me."
Awhile longer, the guy is struggling having a hard time keeping his head above water, when another boat comes by. Again they ask him if he needs help. "No, Jesus will save me."
Now the guys almost drowning, struggling, swallowing more water than air. A third boat comes by, tries to save him, he refuses saying "Jesus will save me."
Guy drowns.

In heaven, Jesus waits. Guy "Why did you let me drown?"
Jesus: "Dude, I sent three boats out there to save you...what more did you want?"

moral of the story: Maybe Jesus gave us medicine, idiots!

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

JUN 19, 2008 12:16 PM

Wodanaz said:
English isn't my first language. I apologise for the misconstruing comment.



Hold up what is your first language? because we have met several times and never has there been an issue with english.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

JUN 19, 2008 02:02 PM

Colinism said:

Wodanaz said:
English isn't my first language. I apologise for the misconstruing comment.



Hold up what is your first language? because we have met several times and never has there been an issue with english.


He's lying.

abbazappa

abbazappa

Sacramento, CA
June 2006

JUN 19, 2008 02:11 PM

Well when the good Lord calls there is nothing that can be done... whatever

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

JUN 19, 2008 02:46 PM

What attracts people to faith healing anyway?

Is it just that generations of people have been raised to believe in it, or are there new converts being drawn in every day by stories about some guy whose cancer inexplicably went into remission?

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

JUN 19, 2008 02:52 PM

Hooraydiation said:
What attracts people to faith healing anyway?

Is it just that generations of people have been raised to believe in it, or are there new converts being drawn in every day by stories about some guy whose cancer inexplicably went into remission?



Yes

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

JUN 19, 2008 02:54 PM

Ah, yeah, I guess it would be both.`

cpkz

cpkz

Portland, OR
September 2006

JUN 19, 2008 03:05 PM

Hooraydiation said:
What attracts people to faith healing anyway?

Is it just that generations of people have been raised to believe in it, or are there new converts being drawn in every day by stories about some guy whose cancer inexplicably went into remission?



Well, there is some science to it. Basically, if you have positive emotions, you're immune system is stronger and this can definitely help over all longevity, as well as fight off many diseases and sicknesses.
The problem is, full out faith healers use this evidence to argue that faith healing works. Thats just not true...with the right medication and all that, this type of 'healing' might help things go through quicker, or give the person an extra year, but faith healing alone won't save people.

Also, a lot of it is reactionary to the previous generation. With more and more science, a lot of people are finding it hard to reconcile their faith with science, and as opposed to allowing their faith to transcend the Bible (the Bible moreso than other books) decide to forsake science and go to more extreme idiotologies (see, its funny because the word ideologies sounds the same). As such, we're getting people going to Faith Healing and "Intelligent Design" and all that.

felony187

felony187

Denver, CO
June 2007

JUN 19, 2008 05:45 PM

There was a scientific study done on the power of prayer. 3 groups, those being prayed for but the patients didn't know this. Another group not being prayed for. And the last group being prayed for and knowing about it. These were all cardiac surgery patients, similiar procedures. The first two groups results for recovery were roughly the same. The last group(knowing about prayer) actually did not respond as well during discovery. Added stress was thought to be the cause.
Tragically this kid died and it wasn't neccesary . How do they explain this, that this kids believe in god wasn't strong enough. I call that horsecrap and the parents should be charged with manslaughter as well.

Sydni

Sydni

SUICIDEGIRL

Washington, USA

JUN 19, 2008 07:50 PM

PointBlank said:

Colinism said:

Wodanaz said:
English isn't my first language. I apologise for the misconstruing comment.



Hold up what is your first language? because we have met several times and never has there been an issue with english.


He's lying.



Oh this is good. This is awesome.


scylis

scylis

USA
November 2004

JUN 19, 2008 07:50 PM

bald_eagle said:

felony187 said:
Tragically this kid died and it wasn't neccesary . How do they explain this, that this kids believe in god wasn't strong enough. I call that horsecrap and the parents should be charged with manslaughter as well.


If he had been a bit younger, I would agree with you. But at some point you have to let people make their own decisions on such things. Oregon has said that point is 14, which I think is a bit young.

But at 16, we trust people to take the controls of the most deadly machine ever invented. I have a visceral feeling that it's about the right age to have the right to make your own medical decisions, to the extent you can go by age.

The only thing the parents did was to instill their own religious beliefs into him. Almost all parents do that. Trying to say they can't opens a huge can of worms.



they have the freedom to do such, and i have the freedom to call them fucking morons because of it.

Thistle

Thistle

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

JUN 19, 2008 08:24 PM

Would this law in Oregon maybe make it easier for minors to obtain abortions? Or am I crazy?

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUN 19, 2008 08:35 PM

Colinism said:

Wodanaz said:
English isn't my first language. I apologise for the misconstruing comment.



Hold up what is your first language? because we have met several times and never has there been an issue with english.



Arabic, actually.

cpkz

cpkz

Portland, OR
September 2006

JUN 19, 2008 09:10 PM

Thistle said:
Would this law in Oregon maybe make it easier for minors to obtain abortions? Or am I crazy?



Thats part of its purpose, yes.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next