Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Oregon Live)   Oregon to eliminate "religous whackjob" exemption as a defense for withholding medical care to children   (oregonlive.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, withholding, court tv, faith heals, minimum sentence, found guilty, Oregon, middle ground, mistreatment  
•       •       •

6047 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2011 at 1:09 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-21 11:50:17 AM  
It should have happened years ago, but good for them for finally getting around to it.
 
2011-02-21 12:05:59 PM  
About fu*king time.
 
2011-02-21 01:07:35 PM  
I wonder if this will hold up to a challenge under the Freedom of Religion? I really hope it does. The fact that they are letting children die from very treatable illnesses is criminal.
 
2011-02-21 01:11:38 PM  
What about non-religious whackjob? Can I avoid vaccinations for my kids not because they are against God's law, but because I don't want to catch the autism?
 
2011-02-21 01:11:58 PM  
I wonder what the standard will be for "whackjob" religion.

Don't get me wrong, I think the "prayer to cure cancer" schtick is reprehensible and irresponsible.
 
2011-02-21 01:12:02 PM  
in before the B-B-B-But Abortion posts
 
2011-02-21 01:12:49 PM  

Anastacya: I wonder what the standard will be for "whackjob" religion.

Don't get me wrong, I think the "prayer to cure cancer" schtick is reprehensible and irresponsible.


Whackjob religion is redundant.
 
2011-02-21 01:12:54 PM  
www.thatsweird.net


Mother was a Jehova's Witness, so he couldn't have surgery to remove the tumor (because he would need blood transfusions). farked up shiat.
 
2011-02-21 01:13:31 PM  
This is where white people go to feel accepted for being an individual.
 
2011-02-21 01:14:55 PM  
Is the hero tag away worshiping false gods?
 
2011-02-21 01:15:26 PM  
It's about time common sense prevailed. Too bad it took this long....
 
2011-02-21 01:15:32 PM  

Anastacya: I wonder what the standard will be for "whackjob" religion.

Don't get me wrong, I think the "prayer to cure cancer" schtick is reprehensible and irresponsible.


I think this is mostly referring to Jehovah's Witness and Christian Science nuts that allow their children to die from a cold or allow a paper to become gangrenous because they won't even put so much as soap on it to clean the cut. Freedom of Religion doesn't cut it here. If I claimed that my religion believed in human sacrifices, would I be allowed to murder people in the name of god?
 
2011-02-21 01:15:52 PM  

palelizard: What about non-religious whackjob? Can I avoid vaccinations for my kids not because they are against God's law, but because I don't want to catch the autism?


So your kid can get polio and infect the community with other random ailments so you can feel good about your pseudo-science way of life? Sure go ahead.
 
2011-02-21 01:16:17 PM  

Anastacya: I wonder what the standard will be for "whackjob" religion.


If you think your religion can heal a problem better than modern medicine, and fails the attempt: it's a whackjob religion, and you'll be up on homicide charges.

palelizard: What about non-religious whackjob?


Presumably, deaths resulting from non-religious whackjobbery are already prosecutable under existing law.
 
2011-02-21 01:17:58 PM  

SpaceyCat: I wonder if this will hold up to a challenge under the Freedom of Religion? I really hope it does. The fact that they are letting children die from very treatable illnesses is criminal.


Indeed it is and the parents should be tried for murder.
 
2011-02-21 01:18:04 PM  
Step 1: Become religious whack job
Step 2: Have Baby
Step 3: Get Million Dollar Life Insurance Policy on Baby
Step 4: Have Fatal Accident
Step 5: $$$$$$$$$$
 
2011-02-21 01:18:08 PM  

palelizard: What about non-religious whackjob?


We have an entire section of law code already devoted to taking away Gary's rights.
 
2011-02-21 01:19:11 PM  

Trance750: Indeed it is and the parents should be tried for murder.


Maybe not murder, because murder implies intent to kill. Manslaughter would be a fine choice though
 
2011-02-21 01:19:20 PM  
So when do we start eliminating religion?
 
2011-02-21 01:23:57 PM  

Jambalaya James: So your kid can get polio and infect the community with other random ailments so you can feel good about your pseudo-science way of life? Sure go ahead.


I'll give them the number of my homeopathic guru.

abb3w: Presumably, deaths resulting from non-religious whackjobbery are already prosecutable under existing law.


That's a debatable presumption.
 
2011-02-21 01:24:23 PM  
All three couples have said that taking their children to doctors would be a sign of spiritual weakness.

Well they should be happy now. They can have their cake and eat it too.
 
2011-02-21 01:25:06 PM  

Trance750: So when do we start eliminating religion?


Soon.
 
2011-02-21 01:25:11 PM  

spman: Anastacya: I wonder what the standard will be for "whackjob" religion.

Don't get me wrong, I think the "prayer to cure cancer" schtick is reprehensible and irresponsible.

I think this is mostly referring to Jehovah's Witness and Christian Science nuts that allow their children to die from a cold or allow a paper to become gangrenous because they won't even put so much as soap on it to clean the cut. Freedom of Religion doesn't cut it here. If I claimed that my religion believed in human sacrifices, would I be allowed to murder people in the name of god?


I agree with that; like the kid who wouldn't take chemo for cancer because his parents thought it was bad. Or the children who have died from "simple" infections because the parents prayed rather than took them to the hospital.

I think my fear is it will be misinterpreted and extended to an innocuous objection. Of course, I cannot think of any so I will have to get back to you on that one.
 
2011-02-21 01:26:18 PM  

Trance750: So when do we start eliminating religion?


i31.photobucket.com

Soon.

/sorry, take 2.
//smoke if you got em.
 
2011-02-21 01:29:05 PM  

tortilla burger: Trance750: Indeed it is and the parents should be tried for murder.

Maybe not murder, because murder implies intent to kill. Manslaughter would be a fine choice though


Willful neglect that leads to death is grounds for murder, in my opinion.
 
2011-02-21 01:30:54 PM  
Good on you Oregon. It's not like there hasen't been enough people running to Oregon to start this new batshiat religion or that one.

/Remember the rajneeshies? The lemurians from CA?
 
2011-02-21 01:32:09 PM  
TFA: "Ava's parents testified that they believed their faith-healing rituals - prayer, anointing with oil, fasting and laying on of hands - were working right to the minute the girl died of bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection. ... Ava's parents, Raylene and Carl Brent Worthington, were found not guilty of second-degree manslaughter."

I would say 'Worst. Jury. Ever.', but that bar is pretty low.

Imagine comparable defenses:
"Your Honor, we reject the secular claim that water is more important for life than prayer. We were convinced this was working up until the moment she died, so I guess we're not guilty of neglect."

"Your Honor, we reject what so-called "science-people" call 'gravity', as it is only a theory. We instead believe that God hugs people gently to the Earth through Intelligent Falling. Imagine our surprise when, per His Divine Will, our daughter was crushed by the impact of us chucking her off that cliff."
 
2011-02-21 01:35:00 PM  

spman: Anastacya: I wonder what the standard will be for "whackjob" religion.

Don't get me wrong, I think the "prayer to cure cancer" schtick is reprehensible and irresponsible.

I think this is mostly referring to Jehovah's Witness and Christian Science nuts that allow their children to die from a cold or allow a paper to become gangrenous because they won't even put so much as soap on it to clean the cut. Freedom of Religion doesn't cut it here. If I claimed that my religion believed in human sacrifices, would I be allowed to murder people in the name of god?


Well.....not like it hasen't been tried already.
 
2011-02-21 01:35:58 PM  

palelizard: What about non-religious whackjob? Can I avoid vaccinations for my kids not because they are against God's law, but because I don't want to catch the autism?


Depending on the state, yes.
 
2011-02-21 01:36:01 PM  
Whackjobbery aside, I'm not sure locking these people up is the best solution, though. Can't we just sterilize them or something? I'm not sure I consider faith healing people to be so much of a threat to society that I want to pay for them to be in jail for 20 years.
 
2011-02-21 01:36:39 PM  

CastorPimp: Mother was a Jehova's Witness, so he couldn't have surgery to remove the tumor (because he would need blood transfusions). farked up shiat.


If he would get more active in sports. Maybe play catcher for a baseball team. Could be taking one wrong ball would cure that.
 
2011-02-21 01:36:51 PM  

Trance750: So when do we start eliminating religion?


Well, if you stop inacting laws like this the religious will eliminate themselves over time.
 
2011-02-21 01:36:58 PM  

spman: Anastacya: I wonder what the standard will be for "whackjob" religion.

Don't get me wrong, I think the "prayer to cure cancer" schtick is reprehensible and irresponsible.

I think this is mostly referring to Jehovah's Witness and Christian Science nuts that allow their children to die from a cold or allow a paper to become gangrenous because they won't even put so much as soap on it to clean the cut. Freedom of Religion doesn't cut it here. If I claimed that my religion believed in human sacrifices, would I be allowed to murder people in the name of god?


Jehovah's Witnesses allow medical care for thier children. We just chose not to accept blood tranfusions in treatments. Late last year, both myself and my son were in the hospital for pnuemonia. My father accepted chemotherapy for cancer. My family takes vitamins, works out, and has band-aids and a first aid kit. We do take care of ourselves and we accept health care.

We just dont accept blood transfusions.
 
2011-02-21 01:37:32 PM  

Anastacya: I think my fear is it will be misinterpreted and extended to an innocuous objection. Of course, I cannot think of any so I will have to get back to you on that one.


Trickier case: A doctor prescribes a regimen of chemotherapy for an aggressive cancer. The parents decide that because it is unlikely to succeed and will lead to more suffering in the short term, they will forego treatment and prepare for the inevitable. Consider how you would rule in the cases that:

1) The parents are driven purely by secular quality-of-life concerns, and the rational analysis of probable outcomes.
2) The parents are driven only be the belief that their child will go to Heaven anyway, so there's no sense letting her suffer here on Earth.

Consider also that the parents may not have to disclose if they are in camp #1 or camp #2. It might be sufficient for them to claim that they had a serious talk about it, and came to their decision for intensely private reasons.
 
2011-02-21 01:38:19 PM  
Just like Charlie Manson the leader of these religions need to go on trial with the parents for putting these ideas in their heads (or re-enforcing those ideas).
 
2011-02-21 01:39:37 PM  
If God didn't want His followers or their children to partake in modern medicine then he wouldn't have blessed scientists and physicians with the intellect and curiosity to find cures and treatments in their environments. I don't believe that there is a heaven but if there is I hope it goes like this for these people:

Religious Whackjob: Whew, what a ride. Well, I'm ready to take my place beside the Lord so open the gates and let me in!

St Peter: Not so fast. It appears you have a glaring mark on your record here in regards of Thou Shalt Not Murder.

RW: What? I never killed anyone.

SP: Don't tell me you didn't read the clause and the fine print... ugh, every day with you people. It so clearly states in Section 3.2.6 of Commandment 13 that to knowingly deny anyone of help that could result in eminent improvement of station or health and well being is committing the same as actively murdering one by their own hand. By you denying your son of 3 years of age access to vaccinations and/or a trip to the ER resulted in his death. Now if you can just step out of the queue please and have a seat in the waiting room we may let you in in approximately 1,326 years.
 
2011-02-21 01:41:19 PM  

palelizard: I'll give them the number of my homeopathic guru.


Why waste time? I'll give out the number for mine: 6.

/don't worry, just dial that, it reaches him faster than those longer 7-digit ones
 
2011-02-21 01:41:45 PM  

SpaceyCat: I wonder if this will hold up to a challenge under the Freedom of Religion? I really hope it does. The fact that they are letting children die from very treatable illnesses is criminal.


freedom of religion does not give coverage to blatant, outright neglect, and that's what's being covered here, it seems.
 
2011-02-21 01:43:15 PM  

djujah: Jehovah's Witnesses allow medical care for thier children. We just chose not to accept blood tranfusions in treatments.


I think you could have a debate about whether or not you accept them for yourself. If you choose to bleed to death, and you're of sound mind when you make that choice, it's hard to argue that the state should compel you to do otherwise.

Forcing that decision on a minor makes you a dangerous whackjob of a parent. If your child is in a car accident, refusing a blood transfusion may kill him or her. This is child abuse and neglect for their well-being, because of an outdated and primitive superstition. You may differ from the people in this article by a matter of degree, but you're still horrible.
 
2011-02-21 01:43:29 PM  
i1097.photobucket.com


House Bill 2721 would remove spiritual treatment as a defense for all homicide charges. Moreover, if found guilty, parents would be subject to mandatory sentencing under Oregon's Measure 11.


Couldn't you argue this is an anti-sharia law law?
 
2011-02-21 01:50:29 PM  

djujah: spman: Anastacya: I wonder what the standard will be for "whackjob" religion.

Don't get me wrong, I think the "prayer to cure cancer" schtick is reprehensible and irresponsible.

I think this is mostly referring to Jehovah's Witness and Christian Science nuts that allow their children to die from a cold or allow a paper to become gangrenous because they won't even put so much as soap on it to clean the cut. Freedom of Religion doesn't cut it here. If I claimed that my religion believed in human sacrifices, would I be allowed to murder people in the name of god?

Jehovah's Witnesses allow medical care for thier children. We just chose not to accept blood tranfusions in treatments. Late last year, both myself and my son were in the hospital for pnuemonia. My father accepted chemotherapy for cancer. My family takes vitamins, works out, and has band-aids and a first aid kit. We do take care of ourselves and we accept health care.

We just dont accept blood transfusions.


Serious question here:

What about pre donating your own blood? Many emergency surgeries will take your own blood loss and give it back to you.
Is it a tranfusion when it was your own blood to begin with?

As I said I am genuinely curious & not troling
 
2011-02-21 01:50:53 PM  

spman:
I think this is mostly referring to Jehovah's Witness and Christian Science nuts that allow their children to die from a cold or allow a paper to become gangrenous because they won't even put so much as soap on it to clean the cut. Freedom of Religion doesn't cut it here. If I claimed that my religion believed in human sacrifices, would I be allowed to murder people in the name of god?


Actually, if you'd RTFA (yeah, I've been on Fark long enough to know nobody bothers for threads like this where everyone can just pile on the abuse...) you'd know that this particular measure has the support of the Christian Science church. The church in question (the 'Followers of Christ') actively ostracises and persecutes its adherents who choose to use medicine, something that is not particularly systemic among Christian Science churches.

Of course, to not pretend it doesn't happen would be foolish, there's at least one member of my own church who thinks anyone who uses any kind of medical treatment should be denied membership and any standing member who does should have their membership in the church revoked. Most, however, are a lot more reasonable about it and accept that there are cases where they feel it necessary to turn to medical science. Personally (and this has been the case with my own family and problems they've encountered) I'd rather accept that I can't handle something through prayer and seek help than die from something that could easily be handled through medicine. And there are a large number of families where one parent is a CS and the other not and they work out compromises regarding a child's medical care, vaccination, etc. between them.
 
2011-02-21 01:52:06 PM  

chimp_ninja: djujah: Jehovah's Witnesses allow medical care for thier children. We just chose not to accept blood tranfusions in treatments.

I think you could have a debate about whether or not you accept them for yourself. If you choose to bleed to death, and you're of sound mind when you make that choice, it's hard to argue that the state should compel you to do otherwise.

Forcing that decision on a minor makes you a dangerous whackjob of a parent. If your child is in a car accident, refusing a blood transfusion may kill him or her. This is child abuse and neglect for their well-being, because of an outdated and primitive superstition. You may differ from the people in this article by a matter of degree, but you're still horrible.


THIS! JW's ARE horrible on so many levels.

This exemption should have never been allowed in any form anywhere. IMO there should not be any religous exemptions for anything - being a "believer" or follower of any god doesn't make you special, or entitled to special rights.
 
2011-02-21 01:55:05 PM  

chimp_ninja: djujah: Jehovah's Witnesses allow medical care for thier children. We just chose not to accept blood tranfusions in treatments.

I think you could have a debate about whether or not you accept them for yourself. If you choose to bleed to death, and you're of sound mind when you make that choice, it's hard to argue that the state should compel you to do otherwise.

Forcing that decision on a minor makes you a dangerous whackjob of a parent. If your child is in a car accident, refusing a blood transfusion may kill him or her. This is child abuse and neglect for their well-being, because of an outdated and primitive superstition. You may differ from the people in this article by a matter of degree, but you're still horrible.



stylembe.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-02-21 01:57:24 PM  
t1.gstatic.com
 
2011-02-21 01:57:24 PM  

chimp_ninja: djujah: Jehovah's Witnesses allow medical care for thier children. We just chose not to accept blood tranfusions in treatments.

I think you could have a debate about whether or not you accept them for yourself. If you choose to bleed to death, and you're of sound mind when you make that choice, it's hard to argue that the state should compel you to do otherwise.

Forcing that decision on a minor makes you a dangerous whackjob of a parent. If your child is in a car accident, refusing a blood transfusion may kill him or her. This is child abuse and neglect for their well-being, because of an outdated and primitive superstition. You may differ from the people in this article by a matter of degree, but you're still horrible.


I'll allow blood substitutes, blood expanders, and any other treatment that isn't blood based. But I don't tow the staus quo to the very end, and I'm a bad person? Just because I don't believe like you do?

I'm alright with that.
 
2011-02-21 01:58:01 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: House Bill 2721 would remove spiritual treatment as a defense for all homicide charges. Moreover, if found guilty, parents would be subject to mandatory sentencing under Oregon's Measure 11.


Couldn't you argue this is an anti-sharia law law?


Uh no.

//not sure if serious though
 
2011-02-21 02:00:48 PM  

SpaceyCat: I wonder if this will hold up to a challenge under the Freedom of Religion? I really hope it does. The fact that they are letting children die from very treatable illnesses is criminal.


There is no Constitutional privilege to let your children die of a treatable condition. Even on religious grounds.

These same assholes support terrorist attacks on doctors who provide womens' medical services. They should be denied contact with all children under any circumstances.
 
2011-02-21 02:01:39 PM  
Doesn't bother me.

Gotta have a control somewhere. If every person who gets a specific illness gets medical treatment, and they get better, who's to say they wouldn't have gotten better without treatment?

Whack jobs sacrificing their kids for science. Thanks, moms and dads!

Oddly enough, it's vaccinations that are a more serious problem- not having enough kids vaccinated can cause problems in the vulnerable portion of the general population. Meanwhile, if the parents don't get their kid treated for leukemia, only their kid is going to die from it.

And I may be a heartless bastard, but I think the general beats the specific on this one. For every religious nutcase who makes their kid suffer, there's a dozen kids who get taken from their families by H&HS for being poor.

For those of you who think I'm a troll, you're wrong. Here's how it works:

1. I don't abuse kids. Neither do my friends or my family nor anybody I actually care about. What people who I don't care about do, well, I don't care.

2. Making a bunch of bullshiat rules to affect people I don't care about is bad, because those rules will affect people I care about.

3. Those rules will inevitably be used against normal people.

In this case:
1. I don't know anybody who would refuse to send their kid to a doctor for religious reasons.

2. But they are likely to hope that time and chicken soup will help a kid with a cold.

3. At some point, I guarantee you, prosecutors will try to remove a kid from a home because their parents tried to use time and chicken soup to help a kid with what appeared to be a head cold.

Leave us alone, dammit. Evolution and peer pressure will handle the fruitcakes.
 
2011-02-21 02:02:12 PM  

djujah: chimp_ninja: djujah: Jehovah's Witnesses allow medical care for thier children. We just chose not to accept blood tranfusions in treatments.

I think you could have a debate about whether or not you accept them for yourself. If you choose to bleed to death, and you're of sound mind when you make that choice, it's hard to argue that the state should compel you to do otherwise.

Forcing that decision on a minor makes you a dangerous whackjob of a parent. If your child is in a car accident, refusing a blood transfusion may kill him or her. This is child abuse and neglect for their well-being, because of an outdated and primitive superstition. You may differ from the people in this article by a matter of degree, but you're still horrible.

I'll allow blood substitutes, blood expanders, and any other treatment that isn't blood based. But I don't tow the staus quo to the very end, and I'm a bad person? Just because I don't believe like you do?

I'm alright with that.


Just to continue with some more curiosity....

U stated you would accept blood substitutes like synthetic blood (cant remember exact name) correct? What about cloned blood based off your own cells (assuming we ever get far enough where that is feasible)?

And I want to ask about bone marrow since it is basically the blood factory, but you dont have to answer that one if u dont want to.

/thank you
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report