An Oregon couple was convicted on criminally negligent homicide. The Oregon couple are believers in faith healing. So, when their 16 year old son developed a urinary tract infection they had prayed instead of taking their son to the doctors for modern medicine to take care of the problem.
The son had a complication, he was suffering from a serious kidney disease resulting from a constriction in his bladder that was present at birth. A catheter could have saved his life. An a side note they previously had lost their granddaughter due to pneumonia and a blood infection because their granddaughters parents had believed the same way. Here is the
link to that article.
I am kind of split on this situation.
On one hand…
It is sad that the child had died from something that would have been preventable if only he would have be able to receive medical treatment. I mean I am sure the parents did not mean to kill their son but with the loss of their granddaughter you would have thought that they would have at least possibly reconsidered their stand on no modern medicine. A loss of a child is something that most of us want to prevent.
On the other hand…
It is their religious beliefs. I may not agree with the way they do things. I mean if my children get sick, I’ll take them to the doctor. If they get really sick I would go to the hospital and for me prayer would be all part of the process. It is just one of those situations where I feel if they start to ban and make laws against some religious beliefs, I don’t think it will be long till my religious beliefs will be infringed on.
Today it's faith healing, tomorrow it will be your right to deny flu shots or certain vaccinations or it will be the rights of you to decide that treatment option best for your child.
I mean I know plenty of people who don’t vaccinate or refuse blood transfusions because of religious beliefs. And they are good people, they just believe different things than I do. I would hate to see that their child die and they get charged with criminally negligent homicide all because if they went against their beliefs they might have been viewed as been able to save them. Especially because I know they would not intend for their child die but they wanted to honor the ways of the god and belief system they believe in.
All in all I think it may be a slippery slope that they went down when they charged these parents…a well intentioned slippery slope but a slippery slope none the less. But when it comes to whether this decision is for the best….my verdict is still out….Saving a life is precious …..the freedom of religion is priceless…and finding a balance is the great divide.
I guess someday we will find that balance.
The real question here is how far is too far? How far does a religion go till it becomes a crime?
What are your thoughts? Should the parents be charged?
Photo by Randy L. Rasmussen/The Oregonian
True 
Lifetime
Comments (204)
God often does healing through the work of doctors. Pray and take them to the doctor. I would hope most Christians would trust God to work through doctors, or obvious miracles, but don't neglect the doctor and expect God to produce a miracle when you're too lazy to go see a doctor. Like the people following Jesus that He chose to feed, how many meals do you expect He was going to give them? Go home and eat people! Or, in this case, go see a doctor.
Freedom of religion is not priceless. It can only go so far before it becomes detrimental to society. Do Mulim extremists have the same rights as other religious people? Of course not; they're not allowed to bomb people because that's their "belief." Why is murder of negligence better than murder of action?
This is a ridiculous post. There should be no question about how idiotic these types of people are.
yes, they should. I will never understand how someone's beliefs can come before the health of their child. When you can clearly see that whatever you're doing isn't working, isn't it time to get some medical help? Or do they just say, "it was their time to go"?
@SerenaDante@xanga - I was going to respond, but I think you said it better than I would have. Religious rights end when deliberate decision directly causes human harm or death--end of story.
That's just negligence.
As a Christian woman, I simply can't understand how they can stand behind their religion and do nothing. Of course they should be charged.
the kid has to be old enough, and the kid has to agree to the process they are going through with. that's the only way i can see that this is okay.
but i see what you're saying...
Every time I hear about "faith healing", it reminds me of this joke:
An old lady is studying in her living room, when there is a knock on the door. When she opens the door, it is a policeman, who informs her that the rivers are rising, a flood is expected, and evacuation is recommended.
The lady explains, "I am a devout follower of God. I am sure he will protect me from danger."
The policeman shrugs his shoulders and leaves.
As the lady is watching the rising water getting closer and closer to her house, there is a second knock, this time a State Trooper.
The trooper says, "Listen lady, we are evacuating the area as the flood is getting serious and you are in jeopardy."
Again the old woman explains, "I am a devout follower of God. I am sure he will protect me from danger. I am staying."
Well, the water continues to rise, until the woman is forced to stay on the second floor.
She hears some yelling and looks up to see two firemen in a rowboat right outside his second floor window. "Lady!" one of the firemen calls, "Get in the boat, the rains are not letting up! It's getting serious."
"I am a follower of God. He will protect me from danger. I'll stay."
The firemen, fearing for their own safety, row on.
As the flood rises, the woman is forced to climb out onto the roof, just as a helicopter is flying over. The helicopter drops a rope ladder and a voice calls down, "We're coming to get you, lady!"
"No, no.... God will protect me. You go on."
Well, needless to say, the water continues to rise and the old woman drowns. When she gets to Heaven, she is really upset.
"I must see God," she pleads. "Please take me to God."
She is granted an audience with God. "Lord," says the woman, "after a lifetime of devotion to you, why would you forsake me in my moment of need?"
God says, "You know, I sent two cops, a rowboat full of firemen, and a helicopter...."
Sometimes God provides for others what they really need, but they can't see past the end of their noses to know it is there!!
@nickiesneon@xanga - Love that joke :D
@gwacemom - They belied their religion does it all, and handles it all, proving that they believed a little too much in the power or are leaving too much in the hands of religion. Not to piss of Christians, but this is exactly the point that some non-Christians or some skeptical Christians were trying to make.
@nickiesneon@xanga - I almost used that story. I love it.
@nickiesneon@xanga - My thoughts exactly. I mean, come on, people. Don't be idiots.
@nickiesneon@xanga - Love that joke!
That is homicide, period end. If we allow "faith healing", why not "faith feeding"? What if I decide I'm not going to feed my newborn because God will do it?
God works through doctors. God is not against modern medicine. It is absolutely disgusting to me to allow, in two thousand freaking ten, a child to die from a URINARY TRACT INFECTION, in a day and age where antibiotics are literally free, and as was stated above, he could have been cured by a simple catheter.
These people should not be allowed to have children, period. Their core beliefs involve child endangerment.
this is complete bullshit. you have the right to refuse treatment if you want, but why should anyone have the right to refuse treatment for their children? if you're dumb enough to think modern medicine is worthless then it's your own prerogative, but it's not fair to force that belief on a child
I understand the ire of most people here who say that these people's religious rights shouldn't supercede the basic medical care necessity. Okay. That's fair. But the OP brought up a valid point. What if it goes further, and parents who don't vaccinate (as an example) are held criminally negligible if their child contracts and subsequently dies of a "preventable" disease. And this doesn't even have to be religious in nature ..... it can be any belief a parent holds. What then? When do choices start and stop? At what point can the govt or health agencies force us to do things?
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy and generally employed only by those with no real argument. Luke (you might know him, he was the author of two books of the New Testament) was a doctor. There is no basis in Scripture on which to reject modern medicine. Religious beliefs must be legitimate and "sincerely held" before they can be used to circumvent the law, that's why we don't allow people to sacrifice virgins and claim they are followers of ancient Mayan religions. What you are describing is moral relativism and it is antithesis to actual morality.
This is ridiculous. What they did is negligence, period. I don't want my religious beliefs infringed on, but what they did is going to far.
@nicolevw@xanga - if your child dies because you didn't vaccinate them then you should go to jail. you cannot force your beliefs on your child to the point that it dies. doing it to yourself is your right, but not a child. when that child turns 18 they can refuse whatever life-saving treatment they want.
you can make a choice for your child when the doctors aren't sure what you should do, or when there are multiple proven options, or when it's not life threatening. clearly, prayer is not a proven alternative to a catheter, nor is it an alternative to a malaria vaccine. of course, in the U.S. there's no reason to get a malaria vaccine, but if you moved to Africa it would be criminally negligent to refuse it to your child because you have some opposition to vaccines.
looking at whitetrashpoet's comment below mine, I can see it her way as well, that a vaccine can be reasonably refused if the actual chances of your child needing such preventative treatments are slim. if they die in that case, it's not exactly the same as refusing a treatment, though I still would think it bad parenting at the least
@nicolevw@xanga - But vaccination is preventative medicine, not treatment for an existing condition. I'm not pressing charges against anyone who doesn't vaccinate - but if your child contracts a disease you didn't vaccinate against, and you just decide not to treat it, that is criminal negligence. Willingly letting your child die is a crime. Vaccination is different from disease treatment.
I understand she wanted to rely on faith but to see that it was preventable .. that's really sad.
I believe in the power of God to heal that is why he provided us with doctors and medicines to heal. If we believe that God provides all and we believe that he gives us a purpose then why would we not believe that a doctors purpose of being here is to provide healing in his name. Well anyway I believe God gives us people of help and through their knowledge they help us...My faith is simple...
They committed a crime and it is very sad.
It depends: what did the kid want? That's what matters. This whole "age of majority" to decide whether you want medical treatment or not is BS. We're all about individual rights, what about that kid's right to make up his own mind?
It's his body, his illness, his choice. Whatever decision he made should have been honored. I really hate that 1) we set a magical age number as to when someone can make medical decisions themselves, and 2) modern medicine really isn't all about making people better anyway, rather making them worse. So I'm not so sure.
Without knowing all of the particulars, I can't say one way or the other. Did the kid want treatment? If so, charge the parents. If not, then no. It all comes down to what HE wanted. I would have also refused treatment (for myself) in that situation, but if that was my kid, he could make up his own mind. Just because I'm anti-modern medicine (and I'm atheist, by the way), doesn't mean my kid would be (that said, I wouldn't pay his medical bills and he'd have to foot his own).
I often think about these things. My personal belief is that I'm supposed to stop whatever I can; God doesn't play each of our lives like a chess game, and he expects us to take care of ourselves.
But I do understand the people that believe that God is planning every single little thing out.
I guess the real question is, did the child believe in the same thing? Or was he pleading for help? Not once would I let my own religious beliefs tarnish the lives of my children. If he didn't want it either, then so be it. Unless, of course, this was a child of an age who didn't understand death or medicine. In which case, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and treat them, no matter what my religion says.
Legally, we can't have this whole consent thing go in two different directions. If a child isn't old enough to legally say, "Let's have sex", and the parents are responsible for that consent (in marriage in some states), then the parents should be responsible for this consent to. And if patients are allowed to refuse treatments, technically parents should be allowed to refuse treatment for their kids because they are the guardians and give consent for various other things.
I'm not saying I agree with what these people did, but I do understand it.