Oregon Votes To End "Faith Healing" Exception

[mrjarrell]

No longer will people who allow their children to die, via their reliance on superstition and mythology as medicine, be allowed to have an exception in court. Oregon already had a system whereby juries and the courts decided culpability in these matters. The politicians are going to remove the courts from the equation. This is a slippery slope that shouldn't even be approached. The courts have apparently been working well enough, but just not the way the politicians would like. Another box gets removed from the redress equation.

Oregon House unanimously votes to end faith healing exception | OregonLive.com

 

[rambone]

Slippery slope indeed.

If the State doesn't "allow" us to use our faith to guide us through important life decisions, then they don't really "allow" us to practice faith at all.

Chalk up another victory for the Nanny State and the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

 

[Redemption]

Good.
Faith that results in needless deaths should be punished. Just like practicing Islam resulting in deaths and should be punished.

 

[88GT]

Good.
Faith that results in needless deaths should be punished. Just like practicing Islam resulting in deaths and should be punished.

That's about all I can say without violating the rulez. Suffice it to say your concept of freedom is no better than politician telling you what guns are okay for you to have.

 

[orange]

Slippery slope indeed.

If the State doesn't "allow" us to use our faith to guide us through important life decisions, then they don't really "allow" us to practice faith at all.

Chalk up another victory for the Nanny State and the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

I disagree. A person's right to practice their faith ends where the welfare of another person is directly impacted.
Not really seeing how the pharmaceutical industry enters the picture - this makes me think of cases like Dale and Leilani Neumann praying over their daughter while she died a slow, agonizing, and entirely preventable death from diabetes.

There have been cases where vegan parents whose babies died of malnutrition were charged with criminal neglect. Same thing or different?

 

[jsharmon7]

I disagree. A person's right to practice their faith ends where the welfare of another person is directly impacted.
Not really seeing how the pharmaceutical industry enters the picture - this makes me think of cases like Dale and Leilani Neumann praying over their daughter while she died a slow, agonizing, and entirely preventable death from diabetes.

There have been cases where vegan parents whose babies died of malnutrition were charged with criminal neglect. Same thing or different?

+1 to this.

If somebody wants to try to cure their own cancer by eating only green jelly beans then go right ahead. If they decide to try to cure their child's cancer by feeding them green jelly beans, I have a problem with that. Somebody has to protect the child. Now, if somebody has some good evidence to show that green jelly beans fight cancer better than other available methods then I say go right ahead. Does anyone have proof that there are more effective faith-based methods to fighting cancer (or any disease) than what's currently available through conventional medicine? I honestly don't know.

 

[88GT]

I disagree. A person's right to practice their faith ends where the welfare of another person is directly impacted.
Not really seeing how the pharmaceutical industry enters the picture - this makes me think of cases like Dale and Leilani Neumann praying over their daughter while she died a slow, agonizing, and entirely preventable death from diabetes.

There have been cases where vegan parents whose babies died of malnutrition were charged with criminal neglect. Same thing or different?

Different, but if the only standard one sees is the ridiculous one of extending life for the sake of extending life, you likely won't recognize it.

 

[orange]

Different, but if the only standard one sees is the ridiculous one of extending life for the sake of extending life, you likely won't recognize it.

No, I don't recognize it.. please explain?

Here's how I see it.
Case one, kid dies because medical practice was overridden by parents' beliefs: a child can survive on a vegan diet.
Case two, kid dies because medical practice was overridden by parents' beliefs: a child can survive if we pray enough.

Whatever their beliefs, I don't believe a parent's right to raise their children how they see fit extends far enough to decide life or death.

 

[Hotdoger]

I

No, I don't recognize it.. please explain?

Here's how I see it.
Case one, kid dies because medical practice was overridden by parents' beliefs: a child can survive on a vegan diet.
Case two, kid dies because medical practice was overridden by parents' beliefs: a child can survive if we pray enough.

Whatever their beliefs, I don't believe a parent's right to raise their children how they see fit extends far enough to decide life or death.

+1

You are out of lockstep with some INGOers.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ussion/144154-more_truth_about_chemo_mom.html

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Good.
Faith that results in needless deaths should be punished. Just like practicing Islam resulting in deaths and should be punished.

So if a parent has faith in science and chooses modern medicine and a child dies should the parent be held culpable because chinese medicine would have saved the child?

No, I don't recognize it.. please explain?

Here's how I see it.
Case one, kid dies because medical practice was overridden by parents' beliefs: a child can survive on a vegan diet.
Case two, kid dies because medical practice was overridden by parents' beliefs: a child can survive if we pray enough.

Whatever their beliefs, I don't believe a parent's right to raise their children how they see fit extends far enough to decide life or death.

Case one, kid dies because parents chose option 2 of 3 modern medical options.

Case two, kid dies because of an allergic reaction to a prescribed med.

Case three, kid dies because medical staff didn't properly diagnose disease and parents didn't seek second opinion.

Case four, kid dies because parents are Asian and rely on Chinese medicine that predates modern medicine by 6,000 years.

Case five, kid dies because parents thought he had a cough when it was pnemonia and didn't take the kid to the doctor.

Who's culpable in the above cases? Does the dead child care?

I'm sorry, but your comment is a little strange. Parents make decisions every day for their children that extend far enough to decide life or death. Those decisions have nothing to do with health needs. They can be ride your bike to school. Clean up the dishes in the sink. Take a bath. Walk the dog.

This is nanny-statism, an unwarranted interference in the parent-child relationship, and an abrogation of religious freedoms. Should parent's be negligent? No. Should their faith (and the exercise of that faith) be considered in determining negligence if a tragedy befalls one of their children? Yes.

One man's mythology is another man's redemption.

 

[Garb]

I hate to say it... but what SemperFiUSMC said. I don't like the idea of parents letting their children die because of a superstitious belief, but I like the state controlling it even less.

 

[orange]

So if a parent has faith in science

True that medical science is far from perfect. However there is no faith at all involved when I say, for instance, insulin beats prayer in managing diabetes.
We're discussing here cases where established and known effective remedies are ignored in favor of superstition. Let's stay on topic.

Criminal neglect cases are prosecuted and the faith healing defense allows an out, where criminal neglect is justified because the parent had the child's best interest at heart. Best intentions.. you know what's been said about those. Parents that evaluate treatment options that give their kid a chance of surival and intentionally discard them in favor of religion are guilty, and there is an enormous difference between a decision like that and telling a kid to ride a bike or wash dishes. Established, known-effective medical science should not be overruled by superstition, whether that's Chinese herbology, praying to Jesus or blood sacrifice to Ixtlilton.
Saying otherwise makes the child property of the parents. Denies the child's humanity with its inherent right to life. Defense of such a right is an area where I'm willing to tolerate government intrusion.

Another reason this law is good - overrules judges willing to commute or suspend sentences because they happen to agree with the guilty parties' particular superstition.

Probably not going to argue this further. I doubt anyone here can sway me and I'm probably not going to convince anyone.

 

[Redemption]

So if a parent has faith in science and chooses modern medicine and a child dies should the parent be held culpable because chinese medicine would have saved the child?

No, Chinese medicine is religious medicine and is therefore nothing more than tripe. Only scientifically supported medicine need apply.

 

[Bond 281]

True that medical science is far from perfect. However there is no faith at all involved when I say, for instance, insulin beats prayer in managing diabetes.
We're discussing here cases where established and known effective remedies are ignored in favor of superstition. Let's stay on topic.

Criminal neglect cases are prosecuted and the faith healing defense allows an out, where criminal neglect is justified because the parent had the child's best interest at heart. Best intentions.. you know what's been said about those. Parents that evaluate treatment options that give their kid a chance of surival and intentionally discard them in favor of religion are guilty, and there is an enormous difference between a decision like that and telling a kid to ride a bike or wash dishes. Established, known-effective medical science should not be overruled by superstition, whether that's Chinese herbology, praying to Jesus or blood sacrifice to Ixtlilton.
Saying otherwise makes the child property of the parents. Denies the child's humanity with its inherent right to life. Defense of such a right is an area where I'm willing to tolerate government intrusion.

Another reason this law is good - overrules judges willing to commute or suspend sentences because they happen to agree with the guilty parties' particular superstition.

Probably not going to argue this further. I doubt anyone here can sway me and I'm probably not going to convince anyone.

If you want all the arguments summed up for you see Hotdogers link. It's often not as simple as just "herp derp I don't want my kid to get medical treatment becoz i r religious." There are some faiths that have pretty strict issues with blood transfusions, for example. Should we coerce parents, and possibly the child, to violate their religious beliefs?

It's a far too complex issue to be so simplistically portrayed as letting a child die or not. All your arguments, and Redemptions, simply amount to...

 

[Garb]

No, Chinese medicine is religious medicine and is therefore nothing more than tripe. Only scientifically supported medicine need apply.

Who's definition of science are we talking about here? Surely you don't mean the same government who's backing up Al Gore and the EPA on the junk science of global warming. In the end, the parents should be making the decision here, not some government entity or official with little to no interest in the matter.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

No, Chinese medicine is religious medicine and is therefore nothing more than tripe. Only scientifically supported medicine need apply.

So says you. Billions say otherwise.

It's not government's place to tell the lowly how to live. Or die.

I would take my chance with my faith before some faceless Intezweb expert.

 

[superjoe76]

Faith based healing at my house means we all pray for the medical doctors to do the right thing and for the treatments to be swift and effective. However, I do not want the federal or state govs telling me what I should do.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

It's not government's place to tell the lowly how to live. Or die.

Yous crazy. Everyone knows they needs tax revenue. That's why suicide is criminal. We don't take kindly to those who would dare opt out of future taxes. It's hard to manage a budget if your revenue sources don'mt fully mature.

 

[ViperJock]

this is a complicated topic. And some posts are already riding the slippery slope pretty far. Think of the five year old that doesn't even have a chance to say what they want. Perhaps that child is not willing to die for their parents beliefs? If an adult wants to refuse treatment for themselves that is fine. Preventing a child from getting "Standard of care" IMHO is criminally negligent.

The child's right to live supercedes anybody else's right to whatever. period.

Remember the thread about the vet in AZ that was killed by LEOs when they kicked down his door and shot him 71 times? Most people used the fact that the SWAT refused medical attention to show that they wanted the man dead. Interesting.

I'm not saying people that believe in faith healing want their kids dead, but one has to wonder if the parents are insane thereby making them incompetent to make decisions regarding the health of another, if they really believe that the kid will be healed, or if they just want the kid to die. Either way the kid gets the short straw.

IMO we should allow any adult to practice whatever voodoo they want with regard to their own health care. Let Darwin weed them out. Kids though, have to depend on someone else to make decisions for them until they can comprehend that prayers might not lower blood sugar as well as insulin.

Its like the joke/story of the flood and a religious guy is in a boat and rejects help from some boats and a helicopter and prays for help instead and when the guy dies he asks God why God didn't save him. God says. "I sent you three boats and a helicopter."

I agree that we don't need a nanny state telling us how to live, but in this case they are protecting children from needless death. Why they choose not to let the courts sort it out though is a little concerning. I can see this being applied out of context.

Just to finish up, a couple questions; Anybody have any great stories about parents who refused to get medical care for their kids facing imminent death that turned out well? On the other hand, anyone know a kid that has been saved by medical science?

 

[indykid]

Is this considered "reasonable restrictions" on the first amendment? Similar to "reasonable restrictions" on the second?