Faith-healing parents charged in baby's death

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Jan 8, 2007
30,528
2,263
1,045
15-month-old girl died from untreated infection, authorities say

OREGON CITY, Ore. - A couple whose church preaches against medical care are facing criminal charges after their young daughter died of an infection that authorities said went untreated.

Carl and Raylene Worthington were indicted Friday on charges of manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in the death of their 15-month-old daughter Ava. They belong to the Followers of Christ Church, whose members have a history of treating gravely ill children only with prayer.

Ava died March 2 of bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection. The state medical examiner’s office has said she could have been treated with antibiotics.

Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner, said the child’s breathing was further hampered by a benign cyst on her neck that had never been medically addressed, The Oregonian reported.

Laws passed in the 1990s struck down legal shields for faith-healing parents after the deaths of several children whose parents were members of the fundamentalist church.

Since those laws took effect in 1999, “We haven’t seen any cases of significant medical neglect ... until now,” said child abuse Detective Jeff Green of the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office.

The Worthingtons could face more than six years if convicted on the manslaughter charges and up to a year on the mistreatment charges, said Greg Horner, chief deputy district attorney. They were released on $250,000 bail, he said.

Horner said he didn’t know whether the couple had lawyers to speak for them. A number listed for the couple was disconnected. A man who answered the phone at the church Monday would not identify himself and said: “We’ve been told ’No comment.”’

The Worthingtons also lost a baby boy in 2001, but an investigation was closed after family members told police the child was stillborn. Several other Followers of Christ children have also been stillborn or died during home births in recent years, and none of the deaths resulted in criminal charges, authorities have said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/
 
I hope they go to jail.

I don't want them siphoning room and board off the tax payers any more than I want them siphoning medical resources from hospitals.

Their dumb is clearly taking it's course--just let it.
 
I believe there is a right to practice your religion with your children. Do you all honestly believe there is a right to practice your religion ON your child in this manner? What about her rights? Where are all the pro-lifers here? Why is it acceptable for parents to simply pray while their child dies?

The parents have right to refuse medical treatment for themselves, they're able to make that decision, a child has no ability to make such a decision and for a parent to refuse medical treatment on their behalf is child abuse and should be prosecuted. This little girl died as a result of parental neglect. I'm glad the parents are facing criminal charges.

acludem
 
I believe there is a right to practice your religion with your children. Do you all honestly believe there is a right to practice your religion ON your child in this manner? What about her rights? Where are all the pro-lifers here? Why is it acceptable for parents to simply pray while their child dies?

The parents have right to refuse medical treatment for themselves, they're able to make that decision, a child has no ability to make such a decision and for a parent to refuse medical treatment on their behalf is child abuse and should be prosecuted. This little girl died as a result of parental neglect. I'm glad the parents are facing criminal charges.

acludem

It isn't as simple as your argument attempts to present it. Your argument places an expectation that people will go against what they believe in under whatever circumstances you deem it correct to do so.

It is not unlawful to not seek and/or refuse modern medical treatment. It is not unlawful to not believe in it. If you don't believe in it, why on Earth would shoving a bunch of chemicals down your child's throat occur to you as being the right thing to do?
 
It isn't as simple as your argument attempts to present it. Your argument places an expectation that people will go against what they believe in under whatever circumstances you deem it correct to do so.

It is not unlawful to not seek and/or refuse modern medical treatment. It is not unlawful to not believe in it. If you don't believe in it, why on Earth would shoving a bunch of chemicals down your child's throat occur to you as being the right thing to do?

But it is unlawful to put your child in danger.
 
But it is unlawful to put your child in danger.

Uh huh ... now define "danger." What if the parents believe the chemicals YOU wish to shove down their child's throat are just as or more dangerous than the sickness?

While not based on any religious belief, I hate putting chemicals in my body. And you can just bet I passed that belief along to my children.
 
Uh huh ... now define "danger." What if the parents believe the chemicals YOU wish to shove down their child's throat are just as or more dangerous than the sickness?

While not based on any religious belief, I hate putting chemicals in my body. And you can just bet I passed that belief along to my children.

We have reasonable standards for child neglect findings. Medical neglect is still neglect, regardless of the parents' reason for the neglect. In NY these cases come up with the Santeria practitioners. The reults and culpability are no different.

And, yes, it is more dangerous to stand in a trance and pray than it is to avail oneself of standard medical treatment for a child with a simple infection.

They murdered their child. It's inexcusable.
 
Uh huh ... now define "danger." What if the parents believe the chemicals YOU wish to shove down their child's throat are just as or more dangerous than the sickness?

While not based on any religious belief, I hate putting chemicals in my body. And you can just bet I passed that belief along to my children.

Who cares what the parents believe? The parents could believe in a flat Earth. The medical care that the child should receive is based on science and not superstition. The child has the objective right to proper health care, the parents should have no right to deny it. The child is not the property of the parents, the child has rights beyond any putative ownership rights of the parents.
 
We have reasonable standards for child neglect findings. Medical neglect is still neglect, regardless of the parents' reason for the neglect. In NY these cases come up with the Santeria practitioners. The reults and culpability are no different.

And, yes, it is more dangerous to stand in a trance and pray than it is to avail oneself of standard medical treatment for a child with a simple infection.

They murdered their child. It's inexcusable.

Accusing them of murder is assuming much, and it is an incorrect accusation. Not mention it contradicts your first statement. Negligent homicide last I checked is not murder.

You can say it's inexcusable if you wish. It's quite understandable.

If you raise your child to be a pacificst and he's later beaten to death because he won't fight back, are you not guilty of exactly the same crime? I see no difference.
 
Accusing them of murder is assuming much, and it is an incorrect accusation. Not mention it contradicts your first statement. Negligent homicide last I checked is not murder.

You can say it's inexcusable if you wish. It's quite understandable.

If you raise your child to be a pacificst and he's later beaten to death because he won't fight back, are you not guilty of exactly the same crime? I see no difference.

If you don't see a difference then I can point you to some texts which will be useful.
 
Accusing them of murder is assuming much, and it is an incorrect accusation. Not mention it contradicts your first statement. Negligent homicide last I checked is not murder.

You can say it's inexcusable if you wish. It's quite understandable.

If you raise your child to be a pacificst and he's later beaten to death because he won't fight back, are you not guilty of exactly the same crime? I see no difference.

I'm afraid I think your analogy is flawed (particularly given that not fighting back would be the INDIVIDUAL'S choice -- but that's almost neither here nor there).

But tell me, would you be defending them if they waved a chicken over the child's head?
 
it's pretty sad to see how many in this thread are ok with letting kids die for the sake of parental dogma. Indeed, one might just laugh at your Right to Life crusade which, if I may extrapolate your logic, would all of a sudden become A-OK if the abortive mother claims that an ABORTION is a religious observation.
 
I wonder if the Amish or traditional fundamentalist christian sects seek medical help when they have illnesses. I know many don't drink caffine, cut their hair, or even watch TV. I'm not sure on thier beliefs concerning medical help...but if they do not seek sufficient medical treatment, would they also be guilty of this?

The native indians on reservations may also follow this belief....

They do follow some form of medical treatment...but then we're drawing a thin line between medical treatment and sufficient medical treatment. Are the people who choose to use herbs and natural medical treatment any better than those who do not?

Is it really so hard to believe that a fundamentalist christian group would believe that when "God calls you to heaven" that it's time, and that man's creation involving medical techonology should not be used?

just sayin...
 
yea.. but I dont believe that "god" tells warren jeffs to use prepubescent girls as cock decorations either so, to me, the whole "god said" arguement is weak as fuck.
 
No shit sherlock....but you know what...that's their freedom now isn't it. If what they believe is God tells them to not take medicine...then it's their right. There is not law that says you must accept medical treatment. The most they could legally be charged for is neglect, and that's if the Freedom of Religion thing doesn't trump that. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't give you the overwhelming authority to decide how people live their life.

You can be quite a deusch...are you bi-polar?? :eusa_think:
 
No shit sherlock....but you know what...that's their freedom now isn't it. If what they believe is God tells them to not take medicine...then it's their right. There is not law that says you must accept medical treatment. The most they could legally be charged for is neglect, and that's if the Freedom of Religion thing doesn't trump that. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't give you the overwhelming authority to decide how people live their life.

You can be quite a deusch...are you bi-polar?? :eusa_think:

when it comes to breaking the law? no, it's not. You saw that one set of pathetic christian parents were charged just like you see polygamist mormons matching 13 year old girls with men in their forties being hunted down and dealt with.

there IS laws concerneing Criminal Neglect of a child though.. and no amount of personal choice regarding a parent choosing faith over meds in their personal health will validate doing the same with your sick dependant child.

Bi-polar? no.. Awfully consistant? absolutely.
 

Forum List

Back
Top