Pages

▼

2 Mar 2011

Oregon bill targets faith healing parents who rely on spiritual treatment as a defense to homicide charges


Respectful Insolence - ScienceBlogs February 22, 2011

Oregon: On the verge of stripping legal protection based on religion from parents who choose prayer instead of medicine

by Orac


Over the years, I've said it many times. Competent adults have the right (or should have the right) to choose or refuse any medical treatment they wish for any reason. It doesn't matter how ridiculous the reason might be. If a competent adult believes that magic water (i.e., homeopathy) can cure him of cancer, we can try to persuade him that such a view is at odds with reality, but in the end personal autonomy and the right to self-determination mean that there will be a few people who will refuse effective medication in favor of quackery. A major force in motivating people to choose unscientific medical treatments is all too often religion. For instance, there's the nonsense that is Scientology castigating psychiatry and claiming that a device that looks as though it were constructed from leftover bits and pieces from the dumpster behind the local Radio Shack can diagnose all sorts of things about your personality and health. Then there are faith healers like John of God,Issam Nemeth, or Benny Hinn.

Most vulnerable of all to faith healing quackery are children. Over the years, I've been enormously depressed to record and comment on the deaths of children who had medical care withheld by their parents in favor of prayer because the parents were fervently convinced that prayer can heal. Madeline Neumann, for instance, died a miserable death from untreated diabetic ketoacidosis because her parents believed that the power of prayer would heal her. Madeline's was an utterly pointless death. Even up to very close to the end, doctors could have saved her with intravenous hydration, correction of her electrolyte disturbances, and, of course, insulin to bring her blood glucose under control. These same parents ignored the desperate entreaties of friends and neighors to take Madeline to the hospital as her health rapidly declined, proclaiming Madeline's illness a "test of faith" for them. Traditionally, the law has stated that adults can refuse treatment for any reason. In essence, adults are free to let themselves suffer and die, but they are not free to subject their children to the same fate by withholding medical care from them. Unfortunately, given the privileged position of religion in society, many states have laws that specifically protect religious child abuse through the withholding of medical care, as CHILD, Inc. documents in addition to the types of horrific deaths children have suffered due to religion-inspired lack of medical care. [see Links section below for related news articles]

Unfortunately, such is the pull of religion in this country that in many cases parents who let their children die by choosing prayer instead of medicine are often not prosecuted. When they are prosecuted, often they are not convicted. In addition, many states have religious exemption laws that make prosecution difficult or impossible. Indeed, I was shocked that Madeline's parents were actually not only prosecuted but her mother was actually convicted for her death despite the law being stacked against the prosecutors. Laws exempting parents using prayer instead of medicine to treat their children are indeed frighteningly common, but that's not the only way religious beliefs are privileged when it comes to children. Consider vaccine exemptions, for example. Nearly every state allows parents to refuse vaccines for their children based on religion alone. Many fewer states allow philosophical exemptions.

One state, it appears, is actually taking steps to try to strip legal protections for parents who choose to treat their children solely with faith and prayer:
Oregon lawmakers will take the first step today toward ending legal protections for parents who rely solely on faith to treat their dying children.
The bill targets the Followers of Christ, an Oregon City church with a long history of children dying from treatable medical conditions. A previous crackdown restricted but did not eliminate religious immunity from state criminal statutes.
Rep. Carolyn Tomei, D-Milwaukie, said deaths of three Followers children in recent years - all without medical intervention - prompted her to introduce the bill. "Such gross and unnecessary neglect cannot be allowed, even if the parents are well-meaning," Tomei said.
The legislation appears primed for approval. It has wide support both political parties, prosecutors, medical providers and child-protection groups, and there is no organized opposition.  [see full article below]

When I first discovered this story, quite frankly, I was surprised. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised. This is a very good thing indeed. Religion is not a permissible excuse for letting children die. Or, at least, it shouldn't be. Yet for over thirty years in Oregon, Followers of Christ have allowed at least 20 children to die of treatable or curable diseases. Just last year alone, for example, one notorious case was that of Neil Beagley, a 16-year-old boy who died of urinary obstruction that could easily have been treated. About a year ago, his parents were finally convicted of negligent homicide. However, deaths from faith healing appeared to be kept "all in the family," so to speak, because it was more than just Neil involved:
The two most recent cases to go to trial, involving the deaths of 15-month-old Ava Worthington and her teenage uncle, Neil Beagley, clearly showed that some church members will defy the law, even if it means a prison sentence.
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.
Beagley's parents testified that they never considered taking their dying son to a hospital or calling 9-1-1, even when he stopped breathing.
Ava's parents, Raylene and Carl Brent Worthington, were found not guilty of second-degree manslaughter. Beagley's parents, Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, were convicted of criminally negligent homicide last year and sentenced to 16 months in prison.

An additional case came to trial last year as well. This time around, it was a 7 month old infant with a hemangioma. The infant, Alayna Wyland, developed a hemangioma near her eye. This is generally a treatable condition, with the hemangioma being a benign tumor. However, even though hemangiomas are generally benign, that doesn't mean they can't do damage. They tend to grow slowly, and, being very vascular, they can develop considerable blood flow. In Alayna's case, the mass grew, pushing her eyeball down and its large blood vessels eroding the bone of her orbit. She was in danger of losing the vision in that eye. Yet her parents, Timothy and Rebecca Wyland, let the hemangioma grow to this size. In Alayna's case, precious time was lost, because, even though 95% of strawberry hemangiomas involute, the natural history of hemangiomas that do not is to grow slowly like this, sometimes to huge sizes. If they are treated early, often with surgical excision, this sort of horrific outcome can be prevented quite effectively.

It's long past time that every state eliminate the protections that allow loving but misguided parents to use their religion to justify denying life-saving medical care to their children because they believe that their faith will heal their children. Right now, Rep. Carolyn Tomei, D-Milwaukie is showing us the way in Oregon. One thing that gratifies me right now is that there appears to be little or no opposition to this law. Given how easily fundamentalists are able to hijack the concepts of freedom and parental duty to persuade even more moderate religious people that stripping protection for faith healing represents a direct assault on religious freedom, I would have expected more opposition. Maybe a couple of dead children and a baby going blind with a big red growth on her eyebrow made it hard to oppose a bill like this.

Still, the real test will come after the law is passed. The reason is that, stripped of protection based on religion, parents convicted of medical neglect leading to the death of a child could be prosecuted for homocide. The hard part is that such parents, if convicted, would then be subject to Oregon's mandatory sentencing laws. They'd be facing real jail time--long sentences. The question will be whether prosecutors, juries, and judges will have the stomach for that. As much as I'd like to think it possible, a far better solution would be to educate the parents, or even to get them to accept the idea that doctors are actually tools through which God works his will. Unfortunately, so powerful is the pull of religions like Followers of Christ that it's highly unlikely that that will happen. Worse, I don't know that even the threat of long prison terms will deter religious zealots, but right now I don't have any better ideas.

Here's hoping that Tomei succeeds in getting this law passed and that it becomes a model for the rest of the country.


This article was found at:


******************************************************************************
The Oregonian  -  February 20, 2011

Oregon lawmakers appear ready to end legal protections for faith-healing parents

By Steve Mayes, The Oregonian


Oregon lawmakers will take the first step today toward ending legal protections for parents who rely solely on faith to treat their dying children.

The bill targets the Followers of Christ, an Oregon City church with a long history of children dying from treatable medical conditions. A previous crackdown restricted but did not eliminate religious immunity from state criminal statutes.

Rep. Carolyn Tomei, D-Milwaukie, said deaths of three Followers children in recent years – all without medical intervention – prompted her to introduce the bill. "Such gross and unnecessary neglect cannot be allowed, even if the parents are well-meaning," Tomei said.

The legislation appears primed for approval. It has wide support both political parties, prosecutors, medical providers and child-protection groups, and there is no organized opposition.

"I don't think there'll be anyone coming to testify against it," Tomei said.

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.

Legislators and prosecutors hope the threat of long prison sentences will cause church members to reconsider their tradition of rejecting medical treatment in favor of faith healing.

"This will level the playing field so all parents will be operating under the same rules," said Clackamas County District Attorney John Foote. "It's going to make it easier to hold parents accountable who don't protect their children."

Previous reforms 

In the late 1990s, a series of news stories in The Oregonian documented dozens of cases of Followers of Christ children dying from curable medical conditions.

Oregon legislators responded in 1999 with a proposal to eliminate the use of religious belief as a criminal defense. But the bill faced opposition from Christian Scientists and mixed support from lawmakers.

"That was the most we could do at the time," said Kevin Mannix, a Salem attorney who then chaired the House Judiciary subcommittee on criminal law. Mannix is now president of the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance, which supports HB 2721.

Another wave of Followers of Christ faith-healing deaths started in 2008 and received wide media attention, including television coverage on TruTV, a cable channel formerly known as Court TV.

The publicity of trials "had a dramatic impact" on the need to strengthen the law, Mannix said.

The Christian Science Church also changed its position. The continuing deaths "reached a critical mass," said John Clague, Christian Science media and legislative liaison.

"This is not about Christian Science," Clague said. "This is all coming from another denomination. We should never risk the life of a child through the practice of spiritual care."

Will a new law work?

Practically speaking, it's hard to say how the Followers will react to losing legal protections. Church leaders do not speak to the media and rarely issue statements, and the church did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

Foote has taken a dual approach in dealing with the Followers. He aggressively prosecuted parents who failed to seek medical care for their children. And he reached out, sending a letter last year inviting church members to join him in seeking a middle ground, protecting children while respecting religious practices.

The Followers appear to be divided on the issue of medical care, according to multiple sources familiar with the congregation. Some take their children to doctors but do so privately to avoid criticism or shunning. Some want to use doctors but fear ostracism. And some are hard-core believers who would never seek medical care.

The two most recent cases to go to trial, involving the deaths of 15-month-old Ava Worthington and her teenage uncle, Neil Beagley, clearly showed that some church members will defy the law, even if it means a prison sentence.

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.

Beagley's parents testified that they never considered taking their dying son to a hospital or calling 9-1-1, even when he stopped breathing.

Ava's parents, Raylene and Carl Brent Worthington, were found not guilty of second-degree manslaughter. Beagley's parents, Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, were convicted of criminally negligent homicide last year and sentenced to 16 months in prison.

A third Followers of Christ couple, Timothy and Rebecca Wyland, were recently charged with first-degree criminal mistreatment for failing to seek treatment for a growth that covered their infant daughter's left eye and left her on the verge of blindness. They are scheduled for trial in May.

Since the Worthingtons, Beagleys, Wylands and other church members won't talk to the media, it's impossible to gauge how they and other parents have been affected by the trials.

All three couples have said that taking their children to doctors would be a sign of spiritual weakness.

Mannix, a devout Catholic, strongly defended a family's right to use prayer and faith healing but emphasized the need to protect children.

"It's not like the state is going out and trying to undermine religion," Mannix said. "(Parents) can adhere to their values as adults, but as a society we will protect their children so they can achieve adulthood and make decisions for themselves," Mannix said.

"God also gave us doctors and the capability to heal physically, and we should use those gifts."

TIMELINE

1995: Lobbied by the Christian Science Church, legislators introduce a religious defense to Oregon's homicide statutes, protecting parents who try to heal their children solely with prayer and faith-healing rituals. Parents who could prove to a judge or jury that faith governed their actions become immune from criminal liability, just as others can assert a claim of self-defense or extreme emotional disturbance.

1997: Again at the behest of Christian Scientists, Oregon legislators add religious shields to the state's first- and second-degree manslaughter statutes.

1998: Citing legal immunities for faith-healers, Clackamas County District Attorney Terry Gustafson declines to prosecute Followers of Christ church members whose 11-year-old son, Bo Phillips, died from untreated diabetes. As he suffered for days, his parents withheld medical treatment in favor of prayer. The boy's death sparks a statewide controversy and calls for changes in Oregon law.

1999: After months of debate, legislators reform Oregon's faith-healing laws, eliminating religious protections in cases of first- and second-degree criminal mistreatment and second-degree manslaughter. In a compromise with advocates of religious freedom and parental rights, legislators also approve a faith-healing exemption to mandatory minimum sentences.

2009: Raylene and Carl Brent Worthington of Oregon City become the first parents prosecuted under the 1999 reforms after their 15-month-old daughter dies from untreated bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection. A Clackamas County jury acquits the mother and convicts the father on a single count of criminal mistreatment. Since then, charges have been brought against several more Followers, including Raylene Worthington's parents, Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, who were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide in the death of their teenage son.

2011: Lawmakers consider eliminating the last remnants of Oregon's religious-defense statutes.


Faith healing and Oregon law  -  WHAT'S NEW

Current law: Oregon is the only state that provides immunity from prosecution for murder by neglect and first-degree manslaughter to those who provide care or treatment to minors "solely by spiritual means pursuant to (their) religious beliefs." Some cases are also exempt from mandatory minimum sentences.

House Bill 2721: Repeals spiritual treatment defense in cases of homicide and criminal mistreatment of children. Those convicted of second-degree manslaughter would be subject to a minimum sentence of six years and three months.


For many more similar articles search for "faith healing" on this blog.



at

No comments:

Post a Comment