Teen's death blamed on faith healing

[Tanstaafl]

This is just so sad. From the CNN website:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/19/faith.healer.deaths.ap/index.html

Authorities say a teenager from a faith-healing family died from an illness that could have been easily treated, just a few months after a toddler cousin of his died in a case that has led to criminal charges.

Tuesday's death of 16-year-old Neil Beagley, however, may not be a crime because Oregon law allows minors 14 and older to decide for themselves whether to accept medical treatment.


I really don't have any bright ideas, no brilliant solutions for this sort of thing, I'm just sad that religion has claimed this poor kid's life.

[The Grave]

Nelson:-

"You just build up so much urea in your bloodstream that it begins to poison your organs, and the heart is particularly susceptible," Nelson said.

Nelson said a catheter would have saved the boy's life. If the condition had been dealt with earlier, a urologist could easily have removed the blockage and avoided the kidney damage that came with the repeated illnesses," Nelson said.

This exemplifies the Faither mentality - how many more will suffer due to their ignorance and arrogance?

All Faithers should be criminalised as man-slaughterers if their filthy faiths cause harm or death to any family member.

Look at this terrible result of FAITH!

I watched this TV program and was moved to tears by this woman's struggle to persuade her brother to have treatment.

Truly shocking!

http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/myshockingstory/manwithnoface/index.shtml

[A Christian Sceptic]

This is just so sad. From the CNN website:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/19/faith.healer.deaths.ap/index.html


Quote:
Authorities say a teenager from a faith-healing family died from an illness that could have been easily treated, just a few months after a toddler cousin of his died in a case that has led to criminal charges.

Tuesday's death of 16-year-old Neil Beagley, however, may not be a crime because Oregon law allows minors 14 and older to decide for themselves whether to accept medical treatment.



I really don't have any bright ideas, no brilliant solutions for this sort of thing, I'm just sad that religion has claimed this poor kid's life.

Here's a bright idea. How about change the law to 18 or older. There - problem solved.

[A Christian Sceptic]

This exemplifies the Faither mentality - how many more will suffer due to their ignorance and arrogance?

All Faithers should be criminalised as man-slaughterers if their filthy faiths cause harm or death to any family member.



They wanted their kid to die?

[JoeTheJuggler]

They wanted their kid to die?

Not a requirement for manslaughter.

[wollery]

They wanted their kid to die?A charge of manslaughter requires no intent to harm on the part of the accused.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Not a requirement for manslaughter.

But what about a slaughterer of man - a man-slaughterer - like he wrote? If he just meant "charged with involuntary manslaughter" then my bad.

[devnull]

intent has little to do with that sort of thing.

AFAIK a judge would decide whether the average person would understand that it would cause harm. Otherwise, a valid defense to any action could be "I didnt think it would cause harm". Shot a guy in the head? "I thought the bullet would bounce off".

Would an average person think that withholding medical treatment given these circumstances would cause harm? Id believe so.

Having a crackpot faith does not exclude someone from responsibility for their actions.

[The Grave]

Maybe ACS shouldn't be sooo skeptical!

And surely it must be appreciated that anyone who claims to have, or actually does have, 'real faith' in a here-after and a god to couch-up to, will be only too happy to see their 'loved' ones go to that nice fairyland in the sky.

It's stinks of the same hypocrisy as a debate I held {if you can call it that} on the World-Wide xians web site. They were asking people to pray for a person who was a xian and was held by the muslim terrorists, on pain of death.

I thought my question was reasonable:"Why bother praying & worrying for this guy, when he's off to a better place, with god? Or is it that they are afraid he doesn't quite believe enough and could go to hell?"

I never got a satisfactory answer - just the usual crap - we'll pray for you to!

[quixotecoyote]

intent has little to do with that sort of thing.

AFAIK a judge would decide whether the average person would understand that it would cause harm. Otherwise, a valid defense to any action could be "I didnt think it would cause harm". Shot a guy in the head? "I thought the bullet would bounce off".

Would an average person think that withholding medical treatment given these circumstances would cause harm? Id believe so.

Having a crackpot faith does not exclude someone from responsibility for their actions.

I think there's a reason they tend to use "reasonable" instead of "average"

[A Christian Sceptic]

It's stinks of the same hypocrisy as a debate I held {if you can call it that} on the World-Wide xians web site. They were asking people to pray for a person who was a xian and was held by the muslim terrorists, on pain of death.

I thought my question was reasonable:"Why bother praying & worrying for this guy, when he's off to a better place, with god? Or is it that they are afraid he doesn't quite believe enough and could go to hell?"

I never got a satisfactory answer - just the usual crap - we'll pray for you to!

They're probably feeling the same way you'd feel if a loved one of yours was being threatened with being murdered.

But I see you're one of those people who like to use the Lobotomized Christian Strawman to prop up your feelings of superiority.

Whatever floats your boat, dude.

[GoodGuysEatPie]

Very sad. The article implies though that the family is still going to be prosecuted, under the precedent of the overturn of the 1999 law. I'm not sure if this will apply for the 16-year-old though...

What a messed-up law. 14-years-old and you get to decide on medical treatment? Sheesh.

~ggep~

[Rufo]

I find it sad when religious authorities disregard medical authorities and discourage others from following their advice. You don't see medical doctors systematically advising people not to pray for the sick because they consider it ineffective. When someone's life is on the line, one should have good reasons to refuse help from someone and - belief aside - medical treatment is an effective method for saving someone's life.

Here's a bright idea. How about change the law to 18 or older. There - problem solved.
Well, I don't know if I would call that 'problem solved'. While I agree that these decisions should be made by adults, if it's a 18-year-old dying for the same reasons in a few months, I would still find it sad, and I would still consider it a problem.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well, I don't know if I would call that 'problem solved'. While I agree that these decisions should be made by adults, if it's a 18-year-old dying for the same reasons in a few months, I would still find it sad, and I would still consider it a problem.

Sad- yes?
A problem - why?
They would be an adult making a choice. At what point should a person be allowed that responsibility to make a choice about themselves if not 18? 21? 24? 30?

[Rufo]

Sad- yes?
A problem - why?
They would be an adult making a choice. At what point should a person be allowed that responsibility to make a choice about themselves if not 18? 21? 24? 30?
I didn't mean to question their right to make a choice - although when it comes to certain medical questions I do believe that right can be questioned - I simply think that if they make a choice that leads to their needless death - for whatever reason - that is a problem.

Maybe I just misunderstood which problem you were referring to as solved.

[devnull]

I think there's a reason they tend to use "reasonable" instead of "average"

true :) you reckon its at about the 90th percentile then?

[krazyKemist]

There's another issue that bothers me in these cases, at least in US.

I know this may sound cynical, but how many of these cases are actually the decision of parents to avoid paying for treatment rather than religious objection ? In the recent cases of the diabetic kids, maybe that's a low factor, but in the case of cancer, we're talking about much higher costs. How much would this factor in ?