2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I have a couple comments from the perspective of a former, yet sympathetic Christian Scientist.

1. Re: Rita Swan's comments--her characterizations of the religion are inaccurate. The church does not teach that you are cut off from God if you no longer have the assistance of a practicioner. This is a false statement. When I was still a practicing Christian Scientist, I decided to stop formal practioner care and have knee surgery at the age of 25. I was not excommunicated or denied access to church servies, the congregation or church literature.

2. Although I would choose to take my future child to a doctor, I do not think the State should force me. I should be allowed as a parent to choose what I think is best for my child. I haven't read this law, however, on the surface, it sounds like it has a strong bias in favor of Western medicine. Are Western medical doctors infallable? Do we prosecute parents if they have a "bad" doctor or if a child reacts to a medication and dies? I think not. This law sounds invasive, biased and like an affront to my personal freedom.
-Camille Reyes, Portland

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context