SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Worthington Trial: The Verdict Is In
After a week of deliberation, the jury in the trial of Carl Brent and Raylene Worthington returned with a verdict shortly before 2 pm today. In what some people might consider a surprising turn, Carl and Raylene received different verdicts. Neither was found guilty of manslaughter, but the jury found Carl Brent Worthington guilty of criminal mistreatment in the second degree. Raylene was found not guilty of manslaughter and criminal mistreatment.
The Worthingtons were on trial for the death of their 15-month-old daughter, Ava. She died in March 2008 from bacterial pneumonia and a blood infection. They testified that they didn't think she was gravely ill. They say they did what they believed was best by praying, instead of seeking medical attention, for their daughter. The Worthingtons are members of Oregon City's Followers of Christ church. Carl Brent's sentencing is now scheduled for Friday July 31st.
Oregon's faith healing law took effect in 1999. It bars defenses based on religious practices in most abuse cases. What do these verdicts say about that law?
(Note: you may also be interested in listening to the show we did shortly after Ava died.)
GUESTS:
- Bruce Starr: Oregon state senator (R-Hillsboro)
- Stephen Kanter: Constitutional law scholar at Lewis & Clark College
- Matthew Graham: News editor for the Clackamas Review
- Lane Borg: Criminal defense attorney and executive director of Metropolitan Public Defender
Tagged as: faith-healing · law
Photo credit: Joe Gratz / Creative Commons
-
Well, at least they know now it was God's plan for them to go to jail. I'm sure they will not appeal. It would be rude to question God.
-
Good points.
Sadly enough.
The Score: Religion kills one more!
-
Rite on the money!
-
I have to admit... I am still torn about this. On one hand, I think a line has to be drawn somewhere between religious freedom and child abuse. On the other hand, it is extremely dangerous work to draw such a line and I am not sure they really did cross it.
I am not even reasonably satisfied that they broke the Oregon law. I am reasonably satisfied that they would have broken the Oregon law in the long run, but you cannot prosecute someone for something they have not done.
I can say one thing for sure though, I would rather be dead than reared by those two in that church.
-
The kid died from a baseball-sized cyst on her neck that went untreated. How is that at least not negligent homicide? Has slak r007 even read the facts of this case?
-
Yes, I have.
What I am wrestling with is the slippery slope of making laws where religion is involved. If we are going to talk about freedom of religion, where do you draw the line at child abuse?
If it is illegal to not seek medical attention for your child because of faith, then should it not be illegal to rear your child in such a church? If the child knows nothing but faith healing and dies later, are the parents responsible? If they are, should it be illegal to rear your child in a church at all?
And, as far as I can see, the cause of death is really up in the air.
If she did of a fast-acting blood infection, then I'm not sure that makes them guilty under the law. However, I do feel that they would have eventually broken the law. But, you cannot prosecute someone for something they will do.
-
I too see this as an issue of willful neglect if competant medical care was available and the odds of success were good. It's like food: Sure, in some countries parents subject their kids to malnutrition, but it's not a matter of choice. Here, that would probably be considered criminal neglect, regardless of what religious beliefs the parents might have about food. Context matters.
-
@ Alex J
If it were clearly willful neglect and/or child abuse, then the state would not have tried to prosecute them under the faith healing law...that would have just been one more charge in the list of charges. It is not clear that this is child abuse. It is not clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that their refusal to seek medical treatment directly led to the death of the child.
And, I am not sure it matters. It is extremely hard to draw lines in the sand when it comes to religious matters and parental matters. You can draw a line in this case, but that line will not apply in another case. You have to keep moving the line, and that is not democratic.
-
The transcript of that trial testimony must be really interesting and I wish we had a recording of the jury deliberations.
If they had other kids, my guess would be that the jury wanted to let the kids have one parent to look after them, while at least one parent ought to receive some punishment, and so the verdicts that were rendered.
-
I will probably be kicking myself for asking, but...
I hear all the time that God knows all, God loves you, God has a plan. OK. Then why pray? Why do anything? Why go to school? Why pay bills?
I mean, if it is acceptable to not take your child to the doctor, why do anything else?
I'll bet they did some baby-proofing in the house. Why bother? God has a plan. If she died from drinking liquid laundry detergent, oh well...that was God's plan.
-
Exactly! Speaking to the point above made by DamosA, why even have a legal defense? If God wanted you to stay out of jail for your actions, you could easily defend yourself, right?
-
"God's plan" is always the catch all.
To summarize the Worthington's:
"This works because we have seen it work. When it doesn't work, it was God's plan."
Rationalizations like that are like nails on a chalkboard to me.
-
I understand what you are saying and I have an answer for you. I have a very dear friend whom I have a lot of respect for. I consider her to be smart, down to earth, and she also happens to be very religious. I know what she would say to your question. God gave us free will and an intellegent mind of our own so we can make the right decisions in our lives. We are not ment to follow things blindly.
-
God gave us free will and an intelligent mind of our own so we can make the right decisions in our lives. We are not ment to follow things blindly.
Yes, you are, at least if you are religious. You cannot claim to have free will and an intelligent mind if you are going to fall back on "God's plan" when something goes wrong or you encounter a fact contrary to your beliefs.
-
slakr007,
I think you kind of can have free will and still fall "back on God's plan." I personally don't believe in free will. But here is an example of how it could work for the religious: Say we are all dancing on platforms and the platforms are moving in an ordered pattern according to a computer program (or plan) but we are still free to dance on top of the platforms in a random seemingly free-willy way. There is still a plan to our movements but some of them are allegedly still free or from our own doing. That is obviously a simple example, but it could be taken to a higher level. -
@ scottmil
Hmmm. That does not sit well with me. Mainly because if I fell off of one of your platforms and died, my girlfriend would be told: "It was God's plan, he was called up to Heaven." In other words, predestination.
I would have to think about that more, though.
-
slakr007,
I am not saying I agree with it. But it certainly seems possible that some things are part of some plan and some things are random or at least have the illusion of being random. I think they are wrong about free will in general. But, if it did exist: I suppose it wouldn't mean that part of life could not be caused and part could not be free (whatever that means).
The platforms: you could be dancing and I could speed the platform up and it might effect your dancing or stop it completely because you are clinging to the top of the platform, but it doesn't mean you still aren't free in a sense, or at times your dancing was not impeded by my interference at the computer.
-
@ scottmil
Yeah, I know you were just offering a possibility. It was kind of stupid to go down this road in the first place.
-
If some people don't have free will then we can't make them responsible for their actions. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with that.
-
It reminds me of a great old quote:
"Mankind will never be free until the last Monarch is hanged by the entrails of the last Priest".
Hmm, so will their "Priest" be charged with some kind of "inciting" criminal mistreatment in the second degree? After all, Hitler didn't do any actual killing himself, he just told other people to do it, and so he was "responsible" for what was done. This Priest and his Church ought to be charged with something like "contributing" or the legal equivalent.
-
Oh, one other thing... I want to invite people to join my new Church of the Holy Topiary.
Whenever I have a cold, a stiff neck, a hang nail, or even food poisoning, I pray to my Topiary and, eventually, I am healed!
I know some skeptics out there might ask: "And if someone dies after devoutly praying to your Topiary? What then?" The answer is simple: "The Topiary has a plan for everyone. The Topiary's plan for you might not always be clear, but you must have faith that the Topiary loves you."
My church accepts anyone. Just remember to tithe. 8%. The Topiary is not greedy.
-
My God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, can beat up your God, the Holy Topiary.
And he tastes better.
Henh.
-
Unlike The Flying Spaghetti Monster, my topiary plant is a real tangible thing that makes my office a more pleasant place. So, there.
-
The point goes to you.
-
I do not understand how someone who calls themselves a Christian can doubt that doctors are not given their abilities by God. they can somehow accept that God gave them their abilities, knowledge etc... why can't they see that God gave the Doctors theirs. if they saw this they would accept modern medicine like penicillian. pennicillian may have saved the little girl. pennicillian was not invented it was discovered due to the power of God.
even the amish use doctors for such things as broken legs.
why don't these people just go to Christian doctors as other Christians do. they could reject transfusions or other invasive proceedures but a pill that comes from nature just shows they are ignorant of even basic health care. aspirin originally came from tree bark, pennisillian from mold. all natural.
-
Many people who called themselves Christians in the Middle Ages believed that doctors were given their abilities by Satan (e.g. witches). At least no one is burning doctors at the stake yet (although health care reform IS on the way...)
-
Just because medical science is available does that mean we have to use it?
-
Yes. Unless you've found another way to heal people.
-
Venessa,
No, You don't have to use modern medical science, however it is wrong to make the decision for another person.
Even if that other person is a minor they have the right to a healthy life and to medical care.
When the minor is of legal age to make informed decisions for themselves then they should be allowed to forgo modern medical care if They choose, but not before they are of legal age if it will cost them their lives.
Of course, that is only my opinion.
-
DianeLP -
So parents shouldn't be the gaurdian of their own children when it comes to medical attention? Isn't that kind of the point of being the parent, you make the decisions how to raise your child? Don't you think its better for you to decide what is best for your child, not your neighbors?
-
What bothers me most about this case is that it assumes that Western medicine is always the best course of action. Western medicine tends to be reactionary rather than holistic, and can often prove extremely harmful to the patient. While I do not agree with the decision the Worthingtons made, could parents now be prosecuted for treating their child with homeopathic care, acupuncture, or other alternative medicine? As someone who has often found homeopathic remedies to be the most effective option, I find this ruling frightening.
-
Yes! Life expectancy and quality of life were so much better before advances in research-based medical science ruined it all.
-
I don't think that the law says that alternative medicine is illegal in these cases. It just says that the child should be seen by a medical pratitioner.
-
Homeopathy is pure bunk. Anyone who treats their child with homeopathic medicine is endangering the health, if not the life, of their child.
-
The sad ending of Ava's precious life seems to be lost in all your silly conjecture...her parents made NO rational effort to save her...that's the point!
-
I don't buy the verdict.
First, when does a parent step in and stop the neglect/abuse? When the child is being beaten to the point of bruising? When the child is being burned with cigarettes? When the child has gained only six pounds in fifteen months? When the child is choking on their own mucus? How can anyone absolve the mother in this case?
Second, how can you deny this child was neglected? Let's review an infant gaining only six pounds in fifteen months. This was their third child, correct? The other children are healthy? How can they NOT have known that this infant was in trouble? They knew what a normal, healthy, thriving infant looked like.
Lastly, I have yet to hear of god healing anyone of an amputated limb. Find me someone who has grown a new limb after praying, and I'll start to believe there might be something to faith healing.
-
Yeah, I almost choked on my breakfast when I heard the juror explain their reasoning. Amazing. I guess the Worthington's received a jury of their peers.
-
I also am disturbed by the assumption that western medicine is the indesputable solution to all our health issues. While I do not think that faith healing is a very effective treatment method, unless the doctors could have GUARANTEED that she would be cured by their treatment, I'm reluctant to impose one option over all others. Especially in this case. This is not an untreated broken bone, a burn, or something like a heart defect. It is an infection, which by it's very nature is open to variable treatments.
A friend of mine's adult daughter died of pneumonia because she was sent home from the emergency room with cold medicine. I doubt those doctors were prosecuted for having faith in the wrong medicine. But she put her faith in them.
Plus I'm just a cynic. Would this even have gone to court if they didn't take her to the doctor because they had no insurance and no money, rather than for reasons of faith?
-
Surely, no naturopath has made a poor diagnosis that has lead to a death.
As far as going to court if faith had not been involved... I am new to Oregon, but I know the parents would have been railroaded through the courts if they were poor and did not have faith as an excuse.
-
I agree with your last comment/question. But what the unisured do is to go to an emergency room. No one should be uninsured however.
Were their guarantees that praying would work? If not they why should medicine have to guarantee their approach? Have you read about how many children are in this church's graveyard? This group is also anti-abortion yet they'll just let them die, as Raylene Worthington's parents did their son, when effective treatments are readily available.
-
The bottom line is the Worthington's attorney did what he was paid to do -- create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury about the parents' responsibility for their daughter's death. But the jurors' comments indicate the faith healing defense is alive and well in Oregon, now called "empathy" for people who have "a different style of parenting." And the jury's acquittal of Mrs. Worthington on the basis of her subservient role in the marriage as dictated by her church is equally troubling. So how as a society do we protect the children of faith healing parents? Surely over 21 preventable deaths of children in the Followers of Christ church is more than enough.
-
To me, this says that if you are simply ignorant, you can do just about whatever you want. They thought she just had a cold? Not only should these people have been punished for effectively killing their child, but also ignoring good common sense. How is that not a factor? I can see future parents who neglect their child claim that they just "didn't know" how serious the situation was in order to evade the law.
-
Now that I'm reading the other posts I'm kind of disturbed by the vitriol aimed toward faith itself. I'm an atheist and I can still respect the health benefits that faith gives a person.
There is lots of hard scientific evidence that faith can work, be it faith in god, faith in medicine, or just faith in your doctor. Even the NIH admits that, "Integrating the spiritual and emotional well being of our patients, caregivers, family and friends, enhances the course of treatment, healing process."
-
I don't feel full of vitriol, just disgust. Yes, you can find studies that show that someone who has faith is comforted by care givers who accomodate that faith. However, I know if I have certain infections, what works is antibiotics, not faith or hope or belief. Do you know someone who was "cured" by faith healing of an amputated limb, paralysis, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, brain injury? Most of the so called "faith" healings are head aches, back aches, and other stress induced aches. Anyone who has been "healed" of diabetes has to go back on insulin or die. My grandmother-in-law died of a bleeding ulcer because she thought "faith" would heal her.
If praying for your child who is ill comforts you, I encourage you to pray away. But don't refuse to attempt other treatments. It is the refusal to attempt other treatment that disgusts me, not the prayers.
-
There is a huge difference between keeping hope alive, keeping your spirits up, etc., and just flat out refusing to seek medical attention because your church says not to.
"Spiritual well being" should not be confused with religion.
-
I think the vitriol is based on the undisputed fact that a baby died. That sort of thing upsets people, even the most tolerant of them.
-
I'm sorry Katied, as a REAL Atheist i must call BS on your statement:
"There is lots of hard scientific evidence that faith can work, be it faith in god, faith in medicine, or just faith in your doctor."
This evidence does NOT exsist. Having faith in tooth faries won't make your toothache go away.
And all the "faith" in the world won't save nor help you in the lest, if you're a baby who's slowly dying & your idiot parents refuse to help you.
-
It is not faith!---it is perhaps "hope" or a "positive attitude" that can have some benefit.
-
"There is lots of hard scientific evidence that faith can work, be it faith in god, faith in medicine, or just faith in your doctor. Even the NIH admits that, "Integrating the spiritual and emotional well being of our patients, caregivers, family and friends, enhances the course of treatment, healing process.""
That is a big slice of baloney that was created in the Bush/Cheney administration.
-
@ DamosA
She is not entirely wrong. There is good research showing that keeping your spirits up, remaining hopeful, and having solid emotional support helps...if even a little.
However, that is completely irrelevant to this discussion since it assumes you are seeking medical attention. Also, religion is not the only way to keep your spirits up, so this research does not dismiss the vitriol against religion.
-
While , I was not on the Jury for this case,so I don't know all the facts, I do feel that Carl and Raylene may not be totally guilty of this crime.
Carl and Raylene may of had some kind of conditioning all their life to belive in faith healing, like the Christian Science's,Pentenostal movement,Catholics with intercecessory prayer,L.D.S. with priesthood blessings and so on.
Which brings up the question, what religons and societies are exempt from our US laws, I know that the state is just following the bylaws with the C.A.P.T.A. .
-
This is the rathole my mind is currently grappling with. I despise what they did to their child, but...
As you say, what is the difference between not seeking medical treatment for you child and rearing your child in a church that believes in not seeking medical treatment?
So, if you say it is illegal to follow that aspect of your religion, shouldn't it then be illegal to indoctrinate your child in that religion?
-
"So, if you say it is illegal to follow that aspect of your religion, shouldn't it then be illegal to indoctrinate your child in that religion?"
When you really look into religions you will find that all religions are child abuse. And adult abuse.
All religions were created by Kings, Pharoahs, and that ilk, to keep their subjects ignorant and beaten down into subservient submission. Ever notice that the King and his "Priests" always claimed to speak for "God", and "God" always favored the King and his Priests? The idea of a "God" outside of a human takes the persons power away from him and puts that power into the hands of someone who misuses it. Religion is completely unsuitable in a Democracy.
-
@ Tom D Ford,
When you really look into religions you will find that all religions are child abuse. And adult abuse.
I kind of agree with you. The problem is, if not religion, then something else. Parents tend to impose their beliefs on their children. No matter how hard you try, you cannot draw a legal line saying: "Parents you can teach your kids X, but not Y."
All you can do is teach your kids your values and hope they spread those values. Fortunately, these people are letting (and that's important...letting not killing) their kids die, so their damage should be somewhat contained.
-
Dear Emily Harris,
It figures that 12 Clackamas County jurors aquitted the Worthingtons of manslaughter. The area to the southeast of the Portland metro area is the local center of religious fundamentalism.
Bible literalists are more interested in their notions of the afterlife than anything that happens here on earth. Letting a child die is just part of their program.
The child died of a baseball-sized cyst on her neck that went untreated. If that isn't at least negligent homicide, what is?
Thank you,
Matthew Sproul
SE Portland
-
It occurred to me that this case is quite similar to a case of human sacrifice. If someone threw their daughter into a volcano to appease a god, I hope we can all agree that it would be wrong. Isn't it therefore wrong to sit and watch that daughter die to appease a god? It seems like the difference between human sacrifice and faith healing is the difference between murder and manslaughter: one is an "active" crime and the other is a "passive" or "negligent" one. I realize that my language is incendiary, but it's just strange to me that everyone agrees that volcano healing is wrong but there's suddenly a debate when you use "faith" instead.
-
It’s difficult to understand why our courts will let anyone off for neglecting your child and letting them die. As long as you “believe” it’s the right thing to do because of the man in the sky, of course. When your love for your own delusion is stronger than your love for your own child you probably shouldn’t be procreating. The individuals who brainwashed you should also be held accountable for installing these faulty ideals which allowed you to justify letting your own child die. How is this any different from the woman who cut off her child’s limbs because she believes god told her to? Or the daily atrocities committed in the name of one’s god?
-
For all you folks that find these people to be worthless as parents.....if they had taken their child to a hospital and their child still died (for example, as a result of an infection that the child received from being in the hospital) would you then call for the doctors and nurses to be punished?
I am so sick of all the people who see western medicine as some kind of answer to every problem.
A person will likely live a much longer and healthier life if they never set foot in a hospital.
-
Perhaps that is true, that you are more likely to die if you are in the hospital. But then, you are more likely to be extremely ill if you are in the hospital, true? Maybe there is a connection-----
-
It's not western medicine being perfect. It's the fact that they chose not to give their child the opportunity to benefit from medicine we know works.
It's about the ignorance that religion perpetuates.
-
So, bluna - would you propose state mandated atheism?
-
Letting alone the actual and perceived issues with hospitals, hospitals are not the only places that provide medical treatment.
And, yes, there are actual issues with hospitals. A hospital in Florida almost killed my girlfriend's father with an overdose of blood thinners. However, if he had not gone to the hospital, he would have certainly died.
-
For all you folks that find these people to be worthless as parents.....if they had taken their child to a hospital and their child still died (for example, as a result of an infection that the child received from being in the hospital) would you then call for the doctors and nurses to be punished?
I am so sick of all the people who see western medicine as some kind of answer to every problem.
A person will likely live a much longer and healthier life if they never set foot in a hospital. Quit seeing modern medicine as YOUR religion. -
So you believe that doctors, nurses and hospitals are never punished for problems that occur while patients are under their care?
Why were the Worthingtons so eager to bring in a doctor to their defense? How could they believe a word the doctor spoke?
If you break your arm/leg/back/whatever what is your response? Hang around the house and hope you feel better tomorrow?
-
Are you a believer in non-western medicine? -
Repeating my post from above...
Letting alone the actual and perceived issues with hospitals, hospitals are not the only places that provide medical treatment.
And, yes, there are actual issues with hospitals. A hospital in Florida almost killed my girlfriend's father with an overdose of blood thinners. However, if he had not gone to the hospital, he would have certainly died.
And to add to it... Should we have just let him die because Western medicine should not be our religion?
-
I wonder what would be decided by an adult member of this church if he or she suffered an compound fracture of, say, the lower leg. They'd have both bones protruding through the skin, bleeding would be profuse and the pain quite powerful. The prognosis is very bad if left untreated. What would this adult do in that situation?
-
NO GO!
I am an atheist (if that is relevant). But, I'm not with the verdict on this one. While I think it is shear stupidity to believe in faith over facts, a crime was not committed. I personally think it harms everyone by considering this a crime. If parents want to let their child die because of faith so what? Particularly if the child is not old enough to decide for themselves. I think intervening in cases like this harms the pro-choice view on abortion. Because it says the state can intervene to allegedly save the life of a child. I don't think this is much of a stretch from saying the state should intervene to prevent the alleged killing of a potential life.
I find it odd that many are so certain about this case and have no doubt.
-
I agree. Also, as no one has answered my question, I wonder what people really think. Just because we have advances in medicine does that mean we have to use it? We all die eventually and I don't think anyone should be forced to seek medical treatment if they don't want it, including those that have that idea based in faith.
I'm atheist as well if it really matters.
-
You make a good point about abortion but I think it's causing you to throw the baby out with the bathwater (is that a poor choice of words?) For those of us who are pro-choice, we see a clear distinction between fetuses and children and once the child is born, we already have a clear policy of protecting the child's best interest.
Just because you don't intend to hurt a child, doesn't mean you haven't. If you were beaten during childhood and see it not as harm but as a lesson, that doesn't mean you are free of fault if you beat your own child.
-
Would it be OK if parents attempted to cure their child's starvation by praying rather than with food?
I thought the law was currently about neglect.
There is a grey line between neglect and what is criminal. As for what is a religious defense or not, that should no longer be for juries to decide. Ultimately it should be up to the Supreme Court, not a case at this level.
Bob
-
Venessa,
I think that if you are speaking on behalf of a minor who is not in a place to make those choices for herself, it's your duty to protect her in any way you can, so yes, for a minor, you should seek every avenue possible to protect her. As for adults, I don't care if they let themselves die.
-
Bob88salem,
Food and human-made medical care are quite different. There is a clear line between life and eating. You could obviously go to a country with no medical care and the parents would not be prosecuted because the child would die anyway. So they are different situations.
-
MissMarnie
Do you want other people who don't know you telling you how to raise your child and what faith they can or can't belong to? As a society we allow ANYONE to have children. We have a duty to protect children from abuse. This child would have died many years ago due to lack of medical knowledge. Why is everyone so scared of death and allowing nature to take its course?
-
MissMarnie,
"For those of us who are pro-choice, we see a clear distinction between fetuses and children and once the child is born"
But that distinction is not entirely accurate. Many people who think about the ethics of abortion don't see this as such a big line. The line at what point in pregnancy abortion should be allowed is also not clear. And, realistically there is no accurate place to draw the line. Suppose you give birth prematurely and the baby lives? It is apparent preemies can often survive with the advance of medicine. What if at some point fetuses can survive after only two months outside the body, would abortion then be wrong? Would aborting the fetus outside the body be any different?
-
Venessa,
We already have rules about how children are raised and the point is that if your choices hurt your child, you cannot hide behind your religion. There are parts of the world where female castration is standard operating proceedure for young girls. It's unnacceptable here for any reason. Even if you think you are doing the right thing, you cannot give your baby kool-aid instead of a proper diet of breast milk or formula. Your ignorance is not protected by relgion and your child's health and well being trumps your belief.
-
"Many people who think about the ethics of abortion don't see this as such a big line. The line at what point in pregnancy abortion should be allowed is also not clear."
Indeed but I don't think we can dismiss all discussions of child health and well being because it might impact the abortion debate. Taken on it's own merits, I think this is a clear cut case of child neglect and relgion is no excuse.
-
MissMarnie
"We already have rules about how children are raised and the point is that if your choices hurt your child, you cannot hide behind your religion. "
There is a law that allows faith healing. These parents excercised that right. If you have a problem with it then try to get the law changed.
-
MissMarnie,
"clear cut case of child neglect"
How is this clear? How it is even neglect I can't figure out?
+ They were paying attention.
+ They were not indifferent or careless.
+ They did not to fail to carry out or perform, because they specifically chose another method. -
A child's life always trumps her parents beliefs. I really don't see how this can even be debated. A child is too young to make these decissions for herself. Had she been beaten or undernourished (for any reason) she would have been taken into the custody of the state. This should be no different.
-
It is clearly different from abuse because there is no intent to harm the child.
-
Negligent homicide doesn't require intent. The parents were not prosecuted because they wanted to harm their child of because of their religion. The prosecution was for negligently causing the child's death and religion was not allowed as a defense.
-
rivertrip,
They weren't lazy or careless, which should be required in order to be called negligent! It was entirely intentional to withhold care.
The intent (comparison) is still there between abuse or withholding care, regardless of what they were found guilty of.
-
Their is no coddling these people. Where on earth do you do nothing when your child stops breathing. Their is no excuse they didn't know any better. They are like someone who drove willingly through a red light and ran down their daughter. She had fever and symptoms. To give thses these ignorent people any respect after the killed their child is ridiculous. They are ignorent crimianls and the people who let them off, the same.
-
Well, two things are for sure, people of that church won't be listening to the radio or posting on this blog, because neither of the two came from either "God" or prayers.
-
If it's God's will that 78 children from that church died, who, in their right mind, would want to worship such a deity?
-
Sorry to object the main question for todays show, but from what I understand, verdicts should not say much about law; it is not up to juries to decide if laws are good or bad, just or injust, fair or unfair, constitutional or not... Those things should be discussed when the law is drafted, and then when a case is before the supreme court. I think there are opportunities to argue constitutionality before judges, but not juries. At most what verdicts could say about a law is whether it is clearly written or written in such a way that it may be impossible for a prosecutor to obtain a conviction.
So what does this verdict say? Understand this is from me, somebody that was not at the trial, and didn't follow it in much detail, and assumes that the law was written for exactly this type of tragedy. This verdict says either (1) the law is poorly written, or (2) the prosecutors did poor job, or (3) the jury allowed their emotions/prejudices to effect their decisions or took it amongst themselves to decide what would be fair/unfair. Or some combination.
As I understand it, there is no law against prayer/faith, and probably most M.D.'s would support families doing that. What is wrong is not seeking other help when a "reasonable" person would have done so.
Bob in Salem -
"... it is not up to juries to decide if laws are good or bad, just or injust, fair or unfair, constitutional or not... ..."
Actually there is a longstanding tradition of Juries deciding that a law is wrong and refusing to convict, I forget what it is called, something like "Jury Nullification" but in Latin. Prosecutors don't like to tell juries about it but it is legal to do it.
Juries actually have a lot of power but most jurrors don't know that. The English Magna Charta established that power in 1216.
-
Even though I am not a Christian and not a religious person at all, I guess I feel that religious freedom is more important than many other people do. I think it's unfortunate that this child had to die, but I would support the parent's rights to practice their religion. I would find it a different situation if the parents had completely ignored or neglected the child's health, but in their view and in their religion they were doing what they were supposed to do - praying.
I would ask the question of people, why is it so bad that someone dies? Why are we as a society so afraid of death? Before the days of hospitals and antibiotics, this child would have died regardless of her parents decisions. And in many, many countries around the world she would have still died. For some reason as privileged americans, we believe that because medical care exists we are also obligated to use it.
-
Good point.
Perhaps many of the people commenting on this topic need to STOP seeing science and modern medicine as their religion.
-
Exactly! Unfortunately many people have a habit of sticking their noses where it doesn't belong and then complain in the same breath that the government is too involved in our lives.
-
So there should be no limits on religious freedom? Can I create a church that believes that it's correct to let the elderly die once they've reached the Biblically prescribed three score and ten years and then just let the elderly starve because that's what the Bible says? If not then why not?
-
I have a question in response to your question;
If you were choking on something and turning blue and I was the only one there who could save you but my religion stated that I had to wait to see if God would save you and the only way I could help would be to pray over you as you slowly choked to death would you still feel that my religious freedom trumps your right to life and the help needed to retain that life?
If it isn't so bad that someone dies then in the above scenario why would it be so bad if it was your life forfeit for my religion?
Just trying to put this in another perspective so you can understand what it is that people are really so upset about, it isn't about the religion and it isn't about medical care...it is about Ava not having a choice to live or die.
-
DianeLP,
But Ava doesn't necessarily have a choice to live or die anyway---not in her own right. Or at least a small child probably would die if left on their own, because small children don't have the capacity of survival, which is why parents are generally responsible for them.
If we ask parents to be responsible for their children, then how can we at the same time ask them to treat their children differently, then they would treat themselves? Or, violate their own beliefs in respect to care for the child? Isn't it antithetical to expect them to do so? Isn't this really the issue?
-
I can't believe the jury was stupid enough to buy the defense lawyer's claim that this illness came on suddenly. How long did the child have the growth on the side of her neck?
If your kid had a softball sized growth on her neck, would you not be kicking in the doctor's door?
These parents murdered their child. I am sick that the jurors said they were trying to seeing things from the parents' side. Bull. They should have seen it from the child's perspective. She had no one advocate for her when she was sick for a long period and died. The church elders and the parents murdered her.
And this jury has just aided and abetted the next murder.
-
"They should have seen it from the child's perspective. She had no ne advocate for her when she was sick for a long period and died."
Exactly. Who speaks for the child?
-
There is no evidence that the parent's intention was to harm their child. I do not believe the state should not or need to intervene in the parent's decisions on how to care for their children. This country was founded on religious freedom; so allow religious freedom. It does not make any difference if I agree with their ( the parents) decision. I do not want the state to intefere with my right to raise my child as I see fit; not what the state or anyone else thinks.
-
Freedom of religion also means you get no special treatment BECAUSE you are relgious. If you simply neglect your child with no relgious justification, that's no better or worse than doing it in name of a god.
-
If the parents decided it was a good idea to amputate a child's hands as part of their religious practices, would the state be obliged to intervene?
This is the same thing. The parents decided that whether an illness kills their child was in God's hands and not be to interfered with.
-
"I do not want the state to intefere with my right to raise my child as I see fit; not what the state or anyone else thinks. "
The Law says that children (and women) are no longer Chattel Property. What you call "your" child is a separate human from you and with his/her own human rights under the law of the state. I encourage you to get your brain fixed on that.
-
I would like to know if any members of this church have dental fillings or prescription lenses.
I bet they do.
And that would be hypocricy.
-
Absolutely! And what would an adult member do if they had a compound fracture, agonizing kidney stones, or extensive burns or other life threatening and exceedingly painful condition? I'd bet a paycheck that they'd get to a doctor as fast as possible.
-
If I were driving a car and found myself in a tricky life threatening situation and, putting myself in God's hands took my own hands off the wheel to pray, and subsequently hit and killed someone I could have avoided killing--would that be considered religious freedom or reckless endangerment under the law? It seems to me we have every obligation to avoid killing someone or precipitating someone's death regardless of our religion.
-
What if you take your child in for cancer treatment. They give them poison, sometimes it helps sometimes it kills them. It is up to the parents as to what is best for the child not the state. People die in hospitals everyday!
-
Holy smokes.
If you don't treat a fatal cancer at all, they are guaranteed to die. With treatment, you save lives. Not ALL of them, but more than if you do NOTHING.
-
Luke T.
So you think everyone should live because they can and medical science makes that possible?
-
The guy speaking right now completely fails to understand that failing to take your child to the doctor when the child is obviously ill IS CHILD ABUSE.
-
Also, the "Followers of christ" cult church the Worthingtons belong to have a cemetary full of dead children that they (the church) put there over the past 20-something years! The trial of another child death (Ava Worthington's uncle) will start next week. If a daycare center was even thought to be negligent in the death of just one child, that place would be shut down immediately & the people who ran it would do time!
I don't understand why this church hasn't been investigated. Do people simply have free reign to do whatever they want - solong as it's done on religious(christian) grounds?
Again, the COWARDISE of these so-called parents to get lawyers (paid for by their church, i believe) to try & save their own sorry hides after watching they child die, while they just stood over her babbling supersticious spook nonsense! If the Worthingtons TRUELY have faith that what they did (or didn't do) was indeed rightous, why couldn't they have just marched right in that court room, made their plea, spoke for THEMSELVES (no lawyers) & trusted that a "just" outcome would occure?
They didn't even have enough faith in THEIR OWN GOD, so they went & got all lawyered up! These are the same [type] of people who argue tirelessly that "God's" law is above man's law. Sadly, this verdict only serves to validate such silly, dangerous behavior. I guess noone have to be responsible for ANYTHING in this country, geez...
-
"Cult church"? That's kind of redundant.
-
I guess I'm confussed because a lot of people seem to think that child abuse is bad and cannot be justified but a child's preventable death is just an "oh well, it happens" sort of situation.
-
I wholeheartedly agree with the current speaker, Michael, it was EXACTLY what I wanted to say! Thank you, Michael.
There are no guarantees for life. We can only do what we think is best in the moment. Hindsight is 20/20.
Just because someone disagrees with the dominant culture, are they a criminal? People die with standard medical protocols all the time.
My America respects my right to make my own choices. I don't think any parent would take their child to the hospital just because they feared a criminal charge. They are busy with integrating the information they are receiving in the present moment, thru the lens of their beliefs. If they thought they were doing something wrong, they probably wouldn't hold those beliefs in the first place.
I am a naturopathic doctor and I treat my child outside of conventional medicine standards, but within Naturopathic standards.
Dr. Wylie, Naturopathic Physician
-
"If they thought they were doing something wrong, they probably wouldn't hold those beliefs in the first place."
Isn't this the case for everyone or every decision? Do we think people actually think they are doing something wrong---ever? So where does this kind of thought get us? Maybe, back to go?
Seems like you are trying to twist reality, or rationalize, to sidestep the lack of empirical evidence you see mirrored in your own field. -
"Hindsight is 20/20"
That may be. But alot of times, FORTHSIGHT is 20/20 too. And when you have a child who is gravely sick, & there's a HOSPITAL down the road, it ought to be crystal clear what needs to be done!
I swear, this whole issue is starting to make ME sick! We criticize parents faaar more harshly for letting their kids dress a certain way. How could anyone make excuses for the Worthingtons?!
One measly year (if he does that) for killing his kid. The pothead who's doing 3-5 for possession must be rolling over in his cot!
-
I find it rather ironic that most of the people denouncing this couple and their beliefs are believers themselves. ANYONE who has ever prayed, and done so with the expectations that they are important enough that they're prayers will have any effect on what they're praying for has no place to comment. Prayer either works or it doesn't. You don't get to "pick" your level of prayer. These folks have a higher level of commitment is all. 1 Samuel 15:3 says, "Do not spare them; put to death men and women,children and infants." Nice book. We're a nation that drives to church talking on our cell phones about American Idol. How pathetic. It's time religion is exposed for the embarrrasing relic of our past that it is and move on.
-
There's no difference between the Worthingtons and some meth cook
-
Except, if you're the child of a meth cook there's still a chance you can get out alive.
-
How about that woman in Texas a few years ago who drowned her children in the bathtub in order to save them from Satan? This jury would have let her free because it was her "Faith" that made her do it.
-
Yeah, that was the nut who murdered all five of her sons. She got life in a prison hospital, but this was in a state that LOVES to kill people! Again, she got off light because of her religious affiliation.
-
A simple antibiotic treatment would have saved this child's life. Such a treatment is not some kind of gamble that may or may not have made a differerence. It is a near certainty that a simply antibiotic course and she would be alive today.
-
What about parents who don't vaccinate their children? If the child then got the disease (and could have been inoculated) and died---would this be similar?
-
@ scottmil
Oh man, vaccinations... Those parents have no idea what they are doing. If vaccinations only affected their own child, then that would be comparable to this case.
However, refusing vaccinations is a public health disaster waiting to happen.
-
@ Luke T.
That is too narrow of a view. This is one case. You cannot develop public policy based on one case. As scottmil is pointing out, the issue becomes much more hazy when you take a wider view of the implications. Rights and laws have to be applied evenly for everyone. While what they did is, to me, disgusting, the implications of a hardline approach to this will be much more dangerous to society than letting a bunch of religious people refuse medical treatment for their children.
-
Aren't vaccinations preventive medicine? Which we just had a program on how important it was. I think they are actually very similar cases. Vaccines are proven empirically to work, to prevent the disease. If the child is not vaccinated and gets the disease, then how is that alleged neglect different? I personally don't think either case is neglect, but I think if one is, then the other should be.
-
@scottmil
I think you missed understood me. I believe in vaccines...very strongly. My point was that refusing vaccines will affect many more people than one's own child.
If a parent refuses to give his/her child a vaccine, that child is at risk to contract, say, measles. If that child contracts measles without a vaccine, the child becomes a walking incubator. As the virus multiplies, it will mutate. Mutated versions of the virus nullify the vaccines other children receive, thus they will also contract measles. It also nullifies the vaccines the parent probably received.
What you end up with is a public health problem. Much different...much worse than just letting you own child die.
-
slakr007,
Yes, I totally misunderstood! Sorry!
-
@ scottmil
That's the trouble with online forums.
-
With respect to the law professor's comments, he ignores the fact that many crimes do not require mens rea, or specific intent. There are many crimes that are only general intent crimes, the perpetrator need only have the intent to do the prohibited act, not an evil intent behind it.
I feel the discussion has minimized the individual separateness of the child. The parents, and many of the adults commenting, are imposing an adult-centric viewpoint on the situation. I think the standard of care should wholly disregard the parent's belief system, religious or otherwise. Rather a best interest of the child standard should be applied, and failure to act in the child's best interest, regardless of personal beliefs, should be punished. This would be true for denying traditional medical care, but would also be true in a hypothetical situation where homeopathic or traditional care could reasonably have been expected to improve the outcome for the child. It seems like few participants in this discussion are speaking adequately for the child.
-
The Bible commands that a willful child be taken to the public square and stoned to death.
CHRISTIANS: You are missing a commandment
JEWS: The Rabbis outlawed this practice thousands of years ago.
MODERN SECULARISTS: HELP HELP HELP!
CHILDREN: You should behave outside your age range, get a lawyer, and a doctor and leave your abusive parents!
Simply because a child or an elderly person is not capable of deciding for him/herself that they need medical care, society MUST step in where extremists abuse the weak.
Act in the best interests of the child, not the adult. NOT THE ADULT. CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS! DAMN IT!
-
I am a prosecutor in Oregon. This case does not mean the law is wrong. This is just one jury in one case. It's going to happen again, and maybe the next jury will come to a different conclusion. Jury trials are crapshoots: I have won cases I thought I'd lose, and lost cases I should have won. And why don't you have a prosecutor on your show????
-
"Jury trials are crapshoots: I have won cases I thought I'd lose, and lost cases I should have won."
It's just like gambling... only with people's lives, GREAT! And this coming from a prosecutor. So EVIDENCE means nothing. Obviously, it didn't mean jack in this case.
Since our [American] system of law & justice is an offensive joke, why not just drop the whole act all together? Toss abunch of people into a room, seal the door shut, & have them start beating each other with boards & big rocks.
The last person left alive gets to be innocent. It's about equivalent to what we have now, plus it would save a fortune in jail space & court costs. Might as well.
-
Where is the public's right to opt out of the State's institutions? Faith Healing may be completely unfounded to some but where is the right to opt out of care for alternative means? How much of the State's power should intrude upon a parent's right of guardianship? This trial was one case. We should not make our laws off of brash extreme cases like this one while throwing our rights to opt out of public institutions.
-
A child does not get to "opt out". They cannot make decisions for themselves. They should not suffer as a result of that because of the stupidity of their parents.
-
I'm sorry to say it but the state has no right to intrude upon a parent's guardianship decisions over their child when no neglect has been found. The active treatment in this case was "faith healing" which was found to not be neglectiful on behalf of the parent's rights over the child. As I said before this is an extreme case and we should not prop up the State's power and responsibility to force parents to make decisions at the expense of their guardianship rights when found not to be neglectful. I don't necessarily make this a blanket statement but the intrusion of mandatory medical care via the State is a power that should not be expanded upon and any further mitigation of "parent's rights" should be preserved in large.
-
I am deeply saddened my the death of this little girl, but I too feel this is a difficult case that calls into question larger issues of State powers and interventions.
Regarding the case of Ava, an excellent book that explores the issue of who knows what is best for a child's healthcare is The Spirit Catches You And You Fall Down by Ann Fadiman. It is a book used in many anthropology classes and even medical ethics courses in med school. We are quick to attack what we do not fully understand or believe in.
-
The seperation of church and state should enforce a basic human right; that no human should have the right of life or death over another, regardless of the will of God. People need to be educated on preserving life regardless of their religious belief, especially if it involves a childs life, that also means keeping the child as healthy as possible. A small sentence such as this implies that the state is`nt commited to protecting minors. What next another accidental death when a parent beats their child because they are doing it for the childs good.
-
"People need to be educated on preserving life regardless of their religious belief, especially if it involves a childs life, that also means keeping the child as healthy as possible. "
I completely disagree. This is a western value. Just because we have medical science does not mean we need to force people to use it. What about children with cancer that no longer want chemo and parents support that right? Parents have been taken to court over that. Ridiculous.
-
It's funny that we never involve 'experts' when it comes to matters of religion, because... there are some. They're called Theologians. If you want a historical view on matters of religion, you consult a Theologian. Even Herod was smart enough, when confronted with the Magi, to have someone open the Scriptures to find out where the King of the Jews was going to be born.
Religious organizations should be subjected to a simple historical orthodoxy test. There is a LONG record of course corrections by the church -- and by that I mean The church, not churches -- that have left us with an established, orderly, orthodox ['straight opinion'] Theology. If tomorrow I wanted to start the Church of Ed, claim that only 16 of us are going to be saved, and insist that we don't need to use medical doctors, I should expect to have my creed evaluated by experts. If it fails to meet the historical criteria of what a Christian church is (and isn't), then no freedoms for me, no protections, no place to hide if my child dies.
I know it's cultural heresy to say such a thing, because everyone wants to be their own Theologian, but you could, if you wanted to save time, take my word for it that there is nothing in the Bible that forbids the assistance of doctors, or lawyers, or policemen, or farmers, or bankers, or tax collectors, etc.
-
Theologians are not exactly experts in the sense we normally think of an expert. They are sort of the art critics of religion, arguing or commenting on the inarguable.
-
I'm appalled with the reckless decision of the jury! Is that ALL baby Ava's life is worth??? A possible year in jail? I would be satisified with NOTHING less than FIVE YEARS IN PRISON!!! And for HER...she ought to be going to prison TOO!!! And pregnant AGAIN?? And they call it religion....it's beyond ignorance, it's MURDER!!!
-
Sunnyone, you're exactly right!
I'd loved to see how this jury would've decided had the Worthingtons been MUSLIM & adhered to a depraved form of Islam that forbids any/all medical treatment.
-
I enjoyed reading all the comments!!!
These people murdered their child and the deserve to be in jail for the rest of their natural lives. I don't know any parent, even religious ones, that wouldn't lie, cheat, steal, kill or die themselves to save the life of their child(ren).
These parents knew there was something wrong with the baby which is why they prayed over her. When something is wrong and one thing alone isn't working, doesn't one proceed to other options?
We have to fight blind ignorance that religion in this country and the world promotes. Educate yourselves, your family and your community. We are so far removed from the creating force and divine spirit of energy that man calls GOD that we fight one another for having a difference in belief of what to call it [GOD] and how to worship it [GOD]. We would even let a child die in the name of 'GOD'.
When is the world going to wake up????????
-
Comments are now closed.
Does it not strike anyone else as HYPOCRITICAL/SADISTIC that the Worthingtons refused to use doctors to save their daughter - whom they let die - but these "parents" have NO problem using a doctor (Dr. Janice Ophoven) to try & save THEMSELVES!?
Also, the Worthingtons don't have faith in doctors, but they sure seem to have alot of faith in lawyers to [try &] defend them in court. If these two [& the child-killing church they belong to] are soo rightous, why don't they just stand in their own defense & consult "God" for any spiritual advice?