SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Faith healing is back in the news.
We've talked about faith healing twice in the last year: once when the Ava Worthington case first came to light and then again when the verdict was released. (Carl Brent Worthington, fifteen-month-old Ava's father, was found guilty of criminal mistreatment in the second degree and sentenced to 60 days in jail; her mother, Raylene, was acquitted on all counts.) For both shows, we mainly focused on how this particular case would fare as the first real test of Oregon's 1999 faith healing law.
Neil Beagley's death brings up a related but different constellation of questions. The 16-year-old — who was Ava Worthington's uncle — died in June 2008 of complications from a blocked urinary tract. Beagley had said he didn't want to see a doctor, and was given a faith-healing session. A state medical examiner later found that the blockage could have been fixed with a catheter.
Under Oregon law, children 15 years of age and older can seek medical care independent of their parents. But there is some legal disagreement about whether that also means they can refuse care. Opponents of faith healing have also called into question an individual's ability to give informed consent if he has never had experience with the medical system. In other words, can you give meaningful consent for or against a particular treatment if you don't know really know what you're getting... or turning down?
What experience have you had with Oregon's informed consent laws — as a healthcare provider, or a first responder, or a lawyer, or a patient?
Tagged as: faith-healing · health
Photo credit: sparktography / Creative Commons
-
I do believe that faith has the power to heal any types of situations. When a person is in Medical Alert stage his main level of healing is the state of the mind plus the medicine that he intakes. If the medice needs to do its work fully then the mind of the patient should be perfect and accepting the medicine as a cure. In other case, if a person trust fully that his faith would help him cure his disease, this trust of the mind in faith would work well.
-
Ha, that’s actually a really good suggestion.
http://helpgodme.hpage.com/
-
There is a propensity for the secular or the non-religious to attack what they see as extreme forms of religion and faith. This is a dangerous, not to mention pointless, precedent. Advocating against extreme displays of faith has a converse pitfall, it means you define religious normalcy, and by extension legitimize mainstream faith. When really the goal should be to decry religion and faith of all kinds. Even if the outcomes of religious faith appear to lead to different extremes, the point of origin is just as obtuse and unfounded. The concept of all religious belief, from the mainstream religions, to the obscure religions, is just as preposterous.
By cleaning house, or marginalizing what we think of as extreme faiths, we are really doing the dirty work for the mainstream religions. We are getting rid of the easy targets, the wayward cousins. We help polish up the religious brand or portfolio as a whole.
-
Yes, agreed completely.
This is why I really love the Mormons and Scientologists. Those two are pretty well-documented case studies in the formation of organized religions and society's reaction to them has been very interesting...amusing even if were not so sad and hypocritical.
-
I want to agree with you. Rather than try to cull the worst offenses of religion, we could hold them up as examples of why they are all false and try to wipe them all out.
There is one thing that gives me pause. As slow as the progress has been, it's still progress. In our very recent history, people assumed that demons were the cause of disease, and women were burnt at the stake as witches. It was through marginalizing the extremists and rewarding the milder forms of faith that has brought us to where we are today. (im speaking of the world, not just the US)
As much as I would like to get the world off the faith crutch, I think it will have to be done in steps. And those steps can only be through marginalizing the radicals and rewarding the moderates. Once their faith is moderated into meaninglessness, deconversion is simple and painless.
-
@Revyloution
Progress toward secularism comes through education, better understanding of the world around us, and the free-flow of information.
It does not come from confusing the justice system with targeted laws, breaking tenants of freedom, and attempting to force a differentiation between cults and religions.
Honestly, I think we are just going to have to put up with people like this until education and natural selection weed them out.
-
slakr007, isn't state mandated secular education a targeted law intended to do exactly that?
The fundies who think global warming and evolution are farces have been fighting against having these things taught in public schools for decades. They've failed, and children are being taught these realities in spite of their parents ignorances.
There were targeted laws that banned witch burning, and Negro lynching. Those laws were also specifically targeted to limit the 'freedoms' of certain ideological majorities in those regions. And those laws worked to get us past that dark stain in our history.
Don't count on natural selection too much. It's no guarantee that the smartest will survive. It only guarantees that the individuals with the most offspring that survive to mate will be successful. Thats why the quiver full movement frightens me so much.
-
Revyloution,
Yes, I have thought about your point before. It does in some ways seem preferable to essentially improve or tone down religion, so it causes allegedly less harm and is perhaps more tolerant. But, in some ways I fear it allows religion to flourish. If you take away all the difficult parts, the requirements, the restrictions, the craziness, then you increase your audience. You could also argue against this, by mentioning the increase of Islamic radicals. But, I suspect that is more of a fluke and is tied to political issues, and will perhaps dissipate. I think there is more danger in the new Christians, because once they take route and infect the planet, it will be hard to control.
P.S. I think there was an article in the recent Portland Monthly about the growth of liberal Christians in the northwest. Although I didn't read it.
-
@Revyloution
I guess you could say mandated secular education is targeted in the sense that it gives preference to secularism over religion. I'm not sure how you can really compare that to a law that says this religion can practice its beliefs but not that religion even though they all cause harm.
Witch burning and negro lynching are torture and murder. Special laws were not required, we just needed to enforce the existing ones. In fact, I think hate crime laws are bad for society in of themselves since they put more value on one person over another, but that's another discussion. It's also important to remember that those laws passed because we were already growing beyond that dark stain in our society...and that's all that was really needed.
-
If a 15-year-old had terminal cancer and declined chemotherapy, or, had kidney failure and declined dialysis, (I assume) they would have every right to do so under current law and thinking. It becomes difficult to separate a decision not to seek treatment based on faith from a decision not to seek treatment based on a desire not to fight a disease through further medical intervention. How would you begin to parse these choices? What would the law look like? And, what would you do with a terminal case who also happens to be a member of the Followers of Christ church?
-
Seems like this case will be more interesting than the Worthington case. I think it is going to make a lot of people grapple with the impossibility of drawing an arbitrary line where child abuse stops and faith healing as an acceptable practice starts.
It seems so easy to call the Worthington case child abuse, and a lot of people I spoke with about that case had almost knee-jerk reactions to it. I suspect a lot of people are going to feel much less strongly about this case, but I do not see it as anything less than child abuse.
The problem is...
If you DO NOT draw a line, then faith healing has to be outlawed completely. If you outlaw faith healing completely, it has to be done on the basis that it is a form of brain washing. If you do that, you have to outlaw all organized religions. Good luck doing that without breaking free speech.
If you DO draw a line, you are breaking religious freedom and, more importantly, you break equal justice under the law since other religions are doing the same basic things and get a pass. And, I would argue, the main stream religions getting a pass are doing far more damage to society than this group of faith healers by creating voting blocks that vote for policies that have no basis in logic and do large-scale, measurable harm in some cases.
-
Free speech should not be extended for the defense of causing harm to others.
As long as minors are considered under the guidance of their guardians, they should be accountable for harm that comes to their wards from neglect.
I don't think anyone is arguing about outlawing faith healing. They are saying that if pushed upon someone else, that it constitutes neglect. Prayer does nothing. If a child needs medicine, and fails to receive it in lieu of prayer, thats neglect.
It should be the same punishment for refusing to give food, water or shelter to a child. If someones religious faith told them food was evil, they have every right to not eat themselves, but an obligation to make sure their child is fed.
-
Free speech should not be extended for the defense of causing harm to others.
But it is every single day.
Like I said, I think the main stream religions cause real, measurable, large-scale harm to society by voting in blocks in ways dictated (indirectly to avoid losing tax-shelter status, of course) by their churches. But, we give them a pass and go after these people.
Take abortion, for instance. Main stream Christianity is against it, but most Conservative Christians are also against providing social services to single/teenage mothers and their children. Consequently, we have a great deal of children that live in poverty, abusive homes, jump from foster family to foster family, and get nowhere in life. How is that not damaging to those children and society on many many levels?
Outside of religion, I think people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, etc. are effectively the same as a religion. They cause harm to society in exactly the same ways. But, you can't shut them up. You have to let them talk because the alternative is worse. Instead, you educate people. You teach them to think critically for themselves. You teach them to seek out and evaluate all options.
-
That is the real hazard of a democracy, even a representative democracy like ours.
You can, and will get bad leaders. You can and will get bad policies.
Its another slippery slope to argue against churches voting in blocks, when I doubt you would argue against our local atheist group (which I'm a member) choosing to vote as a block . If people willingly choose to vote as a group, that is their choice.
I hold with Chris Hitchens opinion. The appropriate response to bad speech is more speech. Forcing silence on any group is detrimental to the core values of democracy.
-
@Revyloution
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Free speech itself causes harm, so there is no way to say free speech cannot be a defense for those causing harm. It already causes harm in so many ways.
And, I'm not arguing against churches voting in blocks. I just used that as an example of how you cannot say this church is causing harm, but this church is not. They all are. You just can't draw that line.
Going down that route, I do not see a difference between not seeking medical care for your child and brain washing your child not to seek medical attention. However, most people would say the first is not protected speech and the second is. They both have exactly the same consequences, and drawing a line breaks equal justice.
-
Revyloution,
This case is not one of 'neglect.' It could be some other grievance. But, one cannot neglect something, when the entire point of their calculated response, is not to take action. If I decide to go into hospice, rather then fight my disease, I am not neglectful, I have simply chosen another course. It is not 'willful neglect' either, because they are not 'failing to perform,' they have chosen another response based on a faith. That is perhaps, the difficultly of this, the only way to accurately argue against it, is to argue against the faith itself. Every other argument will be specious.
We put too much stock in democracy. (Although, it is true I don't know what the alternative would be.) Democracy has no inherent good versus bad compass, it is a system that doesn't output 'goodness.' It is merely garbage in, garbage out. It will never save the world, unless the world has already chosen to save itself.
-
Democracy has the very best 'good vs bad compass' because what is considered 'good and bad' are just social distinctions. Morality isn't absolute, its a reflection of the cumulative morals of the individuals living in it.
That is the one thing that democracy excels at over other forms of government. The protection of individuals rights. Its not perfect, but it is better than the others. Don't forget Churchills words "Democracy is the worst type of government, accept for all the others"
And we can easily determine if prayer is effective. There have been numerous studies on it. Medicine is always more effective than prayer. There have never been any side effects from mixing prayer with medicine. It's not a leap of logic to equate supplying medicine with supplying food, water or shelter. Denying the later 3 is legal neglect of a minor, so should be denying medicine.
And people keep saying 'If I choose this, or if I choose that" Im all in favor of people choosing for themselves all they want. I don't see any reason suicide or euthanasia should be illegal. Laws should only be there to protect others. And I think there should be laws to protect children from physically harming their children through neglect of any type.
-
The only way these folks are going to see the light is if enough prosecutions happen. That way, they will begin to realize that there is no god, faith healing does not work, and relying on it will only result in death and prosecution. Brain washing children into believing in faith & faith healing should be an offense.
-
no lets not prosecute ppl for faith healing because this is survival of the fittest if these folks parish then they will not be able to instill this religous zealism into there children. they leave smaller carbon footprints, lower populations, and a chance for moderates to outlast them.
-
How will prosecuting them show them that there is no god and that faith healing does not work?
I'm pretty sure prosecution is synonymous with persecution in their minds. I don't think it says anything else to them.
-
I doubt if "faith" will ever go away-- by prosecution, legislation or natural selection. When science, laws, morality, etc fail for some people, all they got left is "faith".
-
How about this- I have faith that the religious will see the light and realize that there is no god. The more this is proven to them the more likely they are to open their eyes.
-
As regards 15 being the age of medical consent, one needs to realize that the law also means that once a child is 15 health care providers may not release any information - even to the parents - without the child's consent. A situation we faced repeatedly after our daughter left home. We would get a call whenever she wound up at ER, but they wouldn't tell us a thing once we go there. Very frustrating and, at times, frightening for us as parents.
-
A drug-addicted 15-year-old can refuse treatment and consent for his/her parents to speak with a doctor or therapist.
This poses a problem for parents. Drugs can easily control an adolescent's mind. If they become addicted, they are not thinking independently -- rather, they are dependent on a substance. Their brains are extremely vulnerable to permanent damage. Yet parents, who are held responsible for their well-being, are blocked by this law.
-
"...can you give meaningful consent for or against a particular treatment if you don't know really know what you're getting... or turning down?"
Yes. They are objecting to medical treatment in general. They are not singling out one type of medical treatment, so that it would seem arbitrary for them to accept another type of medical treatment. Like a mastectomy versus radiation---that would perhaps require knowledge of each treatment in order to decide the best course. They object to all medical treatment in general. Proposing that if they understood the treatment or were familiar with medical care, is really saying: if they knew more about the treatment, it would change their faith or their religious belief. It is like suggesting to someone who is against sex without or before marriage: well if you just knew more about it, and watched a porno or two, you would see how enjoyable it was, and want to try it---even though they object to the sex on other grounds.
-
This boy was not able to make decisions because he had been brainwashed.Brainwashing is essentially convincing someone of something for which there is no evidence.Teaching evolution,plate tectonics, big bang etc is not brainwashing because there is evidence. All religions use brainwashing but some are more malignant than others. This presents the problem when you don't challenge religions.If you don't challenge beliefs where there is no evidence, where do you draw the line? Why draw the line with this couple?
-
Very well said. One caller (I believe her name was Tessa) was an excellent example of a brain washed child. This is child abuse!
-
I do not agree with the young man's choice, personally. However, some people call this "fundamentalism," but I wonder why we are spending such resources to pursue those whose faith harms NO ONE. All who believe the Bible do not see death as harming them. We permit faith as a reason to take drugs, which all understand as harmful, but not to engage in an utterly peacable, harmless faith?
-
If that child could some how be asked if he wished to live or die, I am most confident he would have chosen life and not religious or legal semantics which make attorney's wealthy. In short, I do not know of any fifteen year olds who are able to make medical decisions on there own. Nor do I know of anyone including adults whom like to go a doctor without some sort of prodding from others.
Raoul
-
For the caller Tess (Tessa?),
What is the difference between bleeding to death and have a disease? You stated that you would possibly seek medical help if you were bleeding but that "God will take care of me" in the case of a disease? I ask what the difference is?
As a parent, and a spiritual person, I truly believe that God gave us medical doctors and hospitals to get that much needed life saving help.
At what age would the government decide a teenager is responsible to make their own decisions?
-
why not make the age of consent uniform for choices to engage in sexual activity and choices to receive medical attention?
(sorry if this has been mentioned already I just tuned in)
-
All this talk about a 16-year-old choosing to see a doctor: how does a 16-year-old have the money to see a doctor?
-
The short answer is, they don't. In the case of our daughter, even though we could not necessarily get any info about her condition from age 15 on, no one saw any disparity in the fact that we were still liable for her medical expenses.
-
darkstarr62:
You bring up a very interesting legal question: if society is going to require we see a doctor, shouldn't society help pay for it?
-
Bible verses written about faith in healing power were transcribed at a time before germ theory or surgical developments that we now rely on. It is baffling why the myths still hold sway.
-
This is one more example to add to the massive case files, that Religion is Child Abuse.
This case is on the extreme end of the range but is more proof.
Religionists should not be allowed access to children until the children reach the age of 21, so that the children at least get a chance at a decent life unencumbered by Religion. Once they are over 21 they can drink, smoke, and make other personal choices to hurt themselves, including Religion.
Protect the children.
-
As beautiful as I find that, I have to disagree.
I would never trust any government enough to determine what is, and what isnt a religion. Ive been told often enough that my understanding and acceptance of biologic evolution is a religion to know how loose the definition of the word can be.
-
@ Revyloution
If you strip away everything that is "not Religion", everything that is common to all of mankind, ideas of social justice, rituals, songs, beautiful buildings, robes, burning incense, pilgrimages, etc, all you have left that "is religion" is a belief in some supernatural being. Everything else can be legislated.
All Religion is, is a belief in some supernatural being.
But Religionists like to wrap that belief up in pretty wrappings like social justice, robes, songs, etc, to try and make their "Religion" look good and be acceptable generally.
It does not take any "government" to define religion, all it takes is logical and rational thinking, the use of Critical Thinking Skills.
And as to your statement:
"Ive been told often enough that my understanding and acceptance of biologic evolution is a religion to know how loose the definition of the word can be."
That is just a lying tactic used by Religionists to "Generalize" their Religious beliefs to Science. The Three Ways of Lying are Deletions, Distortions, and Generalizations. Science does not promote a belief in a supernatural being, so Science is not Religion. Evolution is fact based, it does not promote a belief in some supernatural being, so Evolution is not Religion.
Don't let the Religionists buffalo you into rejecting Logical and Rational thinking on their say so. They make the assertion that some "God" exists, let them prove what they assert. It is not up to non-religionists to disprove every silly assertion that Religionists make. They are the nutcases, not you. The burden of proof is on them, not you.
-
Tom we obviously have very similar world views. I imagine that either of our versions of utopia would be nearly interchangeable. Critical thinking is as much a part of my world view as 'do unto others...'
I just have serious reservations giving the government the power limit someones access to children based on belief in a superstition. That would leave less than 5% of the US in charge of raising all of the children!
I think a far better solution would be to tax churches as businesses. No one should be considered a charity unless they give away more than 75% of their income to non-members.
Im a hard core economist. Everything comes down to incentives. Churches are popular scams because they are tax free, and nearly investigatable. If we taxed them, the crooks would look elsewhere for easy money.
-
@ Revyloution
Religionists are hustlers, and in the worst sense.
They either hustle money or power and either way they do damage to their followers.
I am with you on taxing churches, and I think that the laws giving them special tax free rights are Un-Constitutional on the basis of "Congress shall make no law respecting Religion", for one reason, because those "tax exempt" laws give churches respect.
But how do you tax Power? How do you tax the Power Mongers, the Fear-Mongers, out of business?
I think that the preachers in these faith healing churches misused their power over their followers and are responsible for the deaths of these children. The appropriate analogy is that Hitler didn't do the killing of the Jews, he just told other people under his power, to do the killing. And these faith preachers are just as accountable for the childrens deaths as Hitler was for the deaths of the Jews.
-
There was soo much hypocrisy in today's show, i felt like i was about to get sick!
These "faith-healing", evangelical zealots want to claim ALL THE RIGHTS IN THE WORLD when it comes to zealous parents who make medical, life or death decisions regarding their children. They claim that [said] children suddenly have a "god-given" right to make such decisions for themselves.
BUT, if a grown woman wants to make a MEDICAL DECISION to terminate a pregnancy, OH, all of a sudden, things are diffrent!
Plus, one of the callers showed herself to be a hypocrite when she said [in her own words] that if she were ill she would NOT seek medical treatment; that it was in "god's hands". BUT, if she were cut & needed stitches then YES, she would go to a doctor. Can anyone explain that to me? How is it that "eeevil secular medicine" is good enough when you need stitches to keep you from bleeding to death, but if you're slowly dying from [say] cancer or a urinary track infection - it's "in god's hands"?
And ofcourse any teenager can refuse a shot, duh! It might not always be a wise decision, depending on the particular circumstances, but it is a decision that teenagers have a right to make. Given, said teen is in a doctor's office, is well informed, & is allowed to weigh to pros & cons of making such a decision. OBVIOUSLY, you can't physically restrain someone & force them to take an untested shot for some H1N1 flu virus that's killed only afew thousand (statistically, almost nothing) people around the world.
BUT, that's a faaar cry from a teen who's grown up in a dangerous religious cult his whole life, has NEVER consulted with a doctor, & makes a medical desicion for himself with will definately result in DEATH!
And how on Earth is it that a teenager can suddenly be trusted to their own life or death medical decisions, but, they can't be trusted to:
vote
drink
make financial decisions, etc.
Why is it that christian fundalMENTALists seem to have all this leeway to do whatever the Hell they want? Does secular law not apply to them as well? For crying out loud, why is this church still allowed to operate?!
-
"...Why is it that christian fundalMENTALists seem to have all this leeway to do whatever the Hell they want?"
Exactly right to use the word "hell". They create hell on earth for their children. No child should ever have to suffer what those people did to those they killed and to the other children in their church.
-
The state should continue to prosecute these cases and give harsh sentences to neglectful parents. Their children are being denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All children have a right to health care. Parents should be required to provide it. Sadly, these parents are victims of religious brainwashing too.
-
Doctors have an obligation to protect the health of their patients, and when they violate this responsibility, they may have committed medical malpractice. Medical malpractice is a serious breach of acceptable physician behavior, and the victims of medical malpractice may be entitled to seek remuneration for their injuries. Body Face Shop
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
Comments are now closed.
This case raises many issues about responsibility and maturity. I have a real problem even visulizing a 16 year old with enough knowledge and maturity to answer as to whether a medical procedure is appropriate. The child had a very limited view of the world and what knowledge was available and apropriate.
I would have a major problem being a levelheaded juror in this case. These cases and issues are getting international covreage. I am a member of an internet chat room of Deists that have been monitoring this case. We have members throughout the USA, Britian, Australia, some of the former Soviet sattelite states, and Iraq.