Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

clag4christ -> Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/19/2008 5:53:01 PM)

Are the parents of the teen in the following article morally responsible for the death of their 16 year old son? Or is he alone to be held responsible for 'allowing' himself to be brainwashed?

Teen From Faith-Healing Family Refuses Treatment, Dies



GroupW -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/19/2008 5:57:49 PM)

Tough one. There's no bright line that divides stupidity from moral culpability. There's a difference between being wrong and being guilty, but personally I have no idea when an action crosses over from being mistaken into being morally wrong.



earthless -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/19/2008 6:12:35 PM)

They should be charged.

Beliefs have consequences - and this is yet another sad example where Word of Faith type teachings have caused the death, the pain and the suffering of people.



Jet_A_Jockey -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/19/2008 6:13:06 PM)

Looks like a case of people waiting for the miraculous while the miraculous was there all along. I have no doubt that God uses people and situations, and that doctors can heal (with God's will ofc) the sick. God sent Jesus here, not only to die for us, but also while here He healed the sick and afflicted, didn't He? Whats the big stretch to think that God wouldn't use others in a similar method? God created all things, including nature, so for people to think that He wouldn't use the natural to do His will totally baffles me.

People wait for the magical thunderbolt fly down from the sky, while the answer to their prayers may be waiting for them the entire time. God bless.



DougHorton -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/19/2008 6:15:56 PM)

By law, he was a minor.

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime.

Child abuse is a crime.

I would think that an intentional act that led to his death would fall under both contributing to the delinquency of a minor and child abuse.



Sideways -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/19/2008 6:17:49 PM)

Agreed. This one is tough. Legally it appears as though the boy had the right to refuse treatment at his age.

Since the parents were of the same church, it stands to reason that they encouraged this "prayer only" belief, so I believe that yes, they were morally culpable. If they did everything they could to try and convince him to accept treatment, and he still refused, then they would not be morally wrong.

The kind of stuff sickens me. God can use a good doctor just as well as he can perform a "miracle". But people don't want a normal, everyday medical cure; they want the fame and ego of a "miracle, faith healing".

It's kind of like saying that because "God designed women to give birth naturally" or "God designed women to breastfeed" that accepting medical intervention during childbirth or formula feeding is akin to not trusting God. It's stupid, frustrating and tragic.

But if the law states that this boy had the right to decide for himself, then the law should be changed, so that the authorities can override idiot parents who refuse God's blessing of good doctors and nurses who want to care for their child.

Once someone turns 18, they are free to kill themselves. Though I'd still hold the parents morally responsible for developing this kind of dangerous belief in their child.



Doc65 -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/19/2008 8:23:34 PM)

The unfortunate thing is that this has been happening with this group for some time:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/foc/foc1.html

I grew up/ went to school with many of the members of this cult (and yes, it is a cult; even the original "church" to which they belonged in Missouri, expelled/denies them). The Oregon City Cemetery has a section which has many graves of children who died as a result of their misguided beliefs. It is ironic, however, that they will go to see doctors - but they go secretly, out-of-state; they will see dentists and optometrists...
They have been and are under investigation by not only the State of Oregon but also Clackamas County authorities (CSD, Sheriff's Dept, etc) for their failure to safeguard their children's welfare.

About three years ago, a child up the street from my in-laws died because of an infection from an improperly set broken leg. Another died a few years before that because of an infected insect bite...

To answer the OP's question, these parents are both morally irresponsible and they are fools following a fool.[&o]

My extended 2 cents worth...



lexie -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/20/2008 8:22:25 AM)

quote:

The unfortunate thing is that this has been happening with this group for some time


I found it interesting in the original article that it was a board member of the church who contacted authorities about the child's death. Obviously, there is a lot going on in that church, and hopefully people are starting to see the error of their ways.

There have been a few high profile cases here about Jehovah's Witnesses refusing treatment for their children, and I believe in all, the children have been taken from their family and given the proper medical treatment.

It's so sad for me to see irresponsible parents who do this to their children, and even sadder to see these poor children paying for the stupidity of their parents.



stellaluna -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/20/2008 10:19:36 AM)

I believe the parents are morally responsible, but legally? It looks like probably not. The law in that state is that medical decisions can be made once you turn 14.

If it was my kid, he would have been getting treatment, regardless of what the law says. (Or my church, for that matter.)



cow451 -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/20/2008 11:23:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna

I believe the parents are morally responsible, but legally? It looks like probably not. The law in that state is that medical decisions can be made once you turn 14.

If it was my kid, he would have been getting treatment, regardless of what the law says. (Or my church, for that matter.)

The parents are morally reprehensible.



Doc65 -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/20/2008 9:13:43 PM)

quote:

The law in that state is that medical decisions can be made once you turn 14.


Nice idea, but if the child had requested to go to the doctor, the parents (and others) most likely would have persuaded him not to go, Also, if he had, or if the parents had allowed him to do so, he and his parents would have been shunned by every member of the congregation...the law does not deal with the reality of this group. Please remember that this is not a church but a cult...if you have ever had dealings with them or had grown up around them, you would understand what I mean and why I am saying this.



stellaluna -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/20/2008 9:33:25 PM)

Oh, I believe you, I'm just not sure they're prosecutable under their state law.



psende -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/21/2008 7:33:08 PM)

In answer to the OP; no, I don't think people should be held legally responsible in these situations. They were treating the illness in the way they thought was proper, leaving the outcome in God's hands (and until the person dies, there remains the hope that God may heal.)

We have come to rely on the medical profession to the point which we seek them first. Then, after no hope remains, we seek God's hand, pretty sure that Our Soveriegn Lord isn't going to do much to change the situation.

It hasn't always been this way.
quote:

And in the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa became diseased in his feet. His disease was severe, yet even in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but the physicians. (II Chronicles 16:12)

Suppose someone chose, because of this verse, to seek God instead of a doctor. Shouldn't they be allowed to do so? My opinion is "Yes."

Now, I think doctors and modern medical "miracles" are good things, but I also think that no one should be compelled to take advantage of their services or held accountable when they don't. The person who refuses treatment will have to live (or die) with his decision.

As sad as these situations are, there remains the fact that the death rate among humans is 100%, so it is just a matter of time anyway. Nature will eventually take its course, no matter how many times it is deflected.



Doc65 -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/21/2008 10:00:11 PM)

quote:

Now, I think doctors and modern medical "miracles" are good things, but I also think that no one should be compelled to take advantage of their services or held accountable when they don't. The person who refuses treatment will have to live (or die) with his decision.


The unfortunate thing here, and in many instances with this particular group, is that it is not some "miracle" that would relieved the pain and suffering of the child (and children) as well as preventing their death, it is usually a routine and common treatment - in this case, a simple catheter. In others, common antibiotics or even something as siomple as having a boil lanced, not a miracle such as some drug or treatment which may be worse than the illness itself...that is where the tragedy lies...
Perhaps if you saw the number of childrens' graves which lie in the Oregon City Cemetery (where the church is physically located - the town, not the cemetery [;)]), you would have a greater appreciation of how tragic this is, especially in light of how duplicitous the actions of many of the adults are regarding their own medical treament away from the watchful eyes of the church...
They'll take a dog or cat or cow or horse to a vet but they won't take their own children to the doctor for something so simple as urinary catherization...



Sideways -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/22/2008 11:52:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: psende
As sad as these situations are, there remains the fact that the death rate among humans is 100%, so it is just a matter of time anyway. Nature will eventually take its course, no matter how many times it is deflected.


This was a 16 year old boy, with a highly treatable condition. He's not old enough to fully understand the horrendous brainwashing he's had to endure from his parents and cult.

If he was 21, then I would say, yes, he had a right to refuse. But I'd still hold the church and the parents morally accountable for their teachings.

Just because this boy might've died at 75, doesn't make his death at 16 in any way acceptable. Otherwise we might just all kill ourselves now and get it over with. His parents murdered him with their false teaching. Under the law they cannot be prosecuted, but the law should be changed.

This is not an either/or situation. A person can seek God and modern medicine at the same time, and still be completely right with God. One Bible verse does not support this church's teachings at all.



Doc65 -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/22/2008 6:15:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sideways

quote:

ORIGINAL: psende
As sad as these situations are, there remains the fact that the death rate among humans is 100%, so it is just a matter of time anyway. Nature will eventually take its course, no matter how many times it is deflected.


This was a 16 year old boy, with a highly treatable condition. He's not old enough to fully understand the horrendous brainwashing he's had to endure from his parents and cult.

If he was 21, then I would say, yes, he had a right to refuse. But I'd still hold the church and the parents morally accountable for their teachings.

Just because this boy might've died at 75, doesn't make his death at 16 in any way acceptable. Otherwise we might just all kill ourselves now and get it over with. His parents murdered him with their false teaching. Under the law they cannot be prosecuted, but the law should be changed.

This is not an either/or situation. A person can seek God and modern medicine at the same time, and still be completely right with God. One Bible verse does not support this church's teachings at all.


Thanks, Sideways. I wish I could have summed it up as well as you. Blessings on your day!



psende -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/23/2008 8:37:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doc65

The unfortunate thing here, and in many instances with this particular group, is that it is not some "miracle" that would relieved the pain and suffering of the child (and children) as well as preventing their death, it is usually a routine and common treatment - in this case, a simple catheter. In others, common antibiotics or even something as siomple as having a boil lanced, not a miracle such as some drug or treatment which may be worse than the illness itself...that is where the tragedy lies...

Go back a couple hundred years and many of today’s routine procedures would certainly appear to be miraculous. A little further back in time, in some circles, they would appear satanic.

Now, I have no idea what this group’s doctrines are, but I assume they believe it is morally wrong to go to doctors and that they are to be completely dependant on God, who in His sovereignty (they believe), dictates the time and means of our departure. I am not trying to valididate that belief, I am merely stating that it should be their right to believe it and live (or die) by it.
quote:

Perhaps if you saw the number of childrens' graves which lie in the Oregon City Cemetery (where the church is physically located - the town, not the cemetery [;)]), you would have a greater appreciation of how tragic this is,

Perhaps my post sounds heartless; I don’t mean it to be. But if someone believes that “doctoring” is interfering with the will of God, it would seem that age or numbers would have nothing to do with “follow through.” It is not uncommon, for premature deaths (for whatever reason) to be explained and accepted as “God’s will.” I assume that is how these deaths are viewed by these people. And, I assume the families are as traumatized as they would be by a completely unavoidable death.

quote:

especially in light of how duplicitous the actions of many of the adults are regarding their own medical treament away from the watchful eyes of the church...

In every church or group, there are folks who do things that are looked down on by the group. Anywhere there are people, this kind of behavior will occur. I would guess that the seeking of medical treatment would be seen by this group as a “lack of faith,” and anybody with any religion in them does not want to be known as lacking in “faith.”

I’m not excusing duplicitous behavior, just pointing out that it is human nature.
quote:

They'll take a dog or cat or cow or horse to a vet but they won't take their own children to the doctor for something so simple as urinary catherization...

Ah, but animals do not have eternal souls. (That thought must accompany that practice.)

Again, I am not condoning their practices, only their right to practice. If it was felt that “doctoring” had eternal consequences, it would seem to me one would think twice before “doctoring.” Some folks would rather die than to risk eternal punishment.

Legally, they ought to be allowed to practice their faith. Doctrinally, they perhaps can be reasoned with, especially after the loss of a loved one.



psende -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/23/2008 9:04:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sideways

This was a 16 year old boy, with a highly treatable condition. He's not old enough to fully understand the horrendous brainwashing he's had to endure from his parents and cult.
If he was 21, then I would say, yes, he had a right to refuse.
We’re talking family groups here, not some purposeful, systematic, evil-governmental means of destroying lives. Most of us raise our children in the hope that they will believe along the same lines that we do. And we hope this because we think we are right. I don’t think we have any reason to believe these folks are any different. Their beliefs may be wrong, but they are the beliefs of the family unit.

And I’m pretty sure believing wrongly is the not same as being “brainwashed.” If it is, most of the world is completely “brainwashed.”
quote:

But I'd still hold the church and the parents morally accountable for their teachings.
Perhaps God, who considers motives and conditions of the heart, will hold them accountable. Legally, there should be no consequences.

quote:

Just because this boy might've died at 75, doesn't make his death at 16 in any way acceptable. Otherwise we might just all kill ourselves now and get it over with.

There was no attempt to force death. The boy died. It is as tragic as if he had died in a car accident or of incurable cancer. And I imagine the family’s grief is the same as if either of those had occurred.
quote:

His parents murdered him with their false teaching. Under the law they cannot be prosecuted, but the law should be changed.

Murder??

If a minor dies because he was taught truth, should those parents also be prosecuted?

Suppose a devout, Christian, 16 year-old girl is raped, becomes pregnant, and dies in childbirth. Should her parents be imprisoned for murder because a routine procedure called “abortion,” could have saved her?

I think the law should allow folks to believe what they believe. If, in the sincere practice of their faith, negative things happen, those folks should be allowed to sort things out without fear of “Big Brother.”

quote:

This is not an either/or situation. A person can seek God and modern medicine at the same time, and still be completely right with God.

Yeah, I think so too. But it appears that there are folks who don’t. They ought to be allowed to disagree. Perceived persecution only validates their beliefs in their eyes.

quote:

One Bible verse does not support this church's teachings at all.

I didn’t quote that verse in order to support this group’s teachings, but to show that such a teaching could be (wrongly) extrapolated from scripture.

Having certain beliefs because of one scripture, though a bit unwise, is not an uncommon practice, so I was presenting plausibility. It seems plausible to me that someone, wanting to please God ("without faith it is impossible to please God") could be influenced by that verse to swear off doctors. I think they ought to be allowed to do so while we do our best to convince them otherwise.



earthless -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/23/2008 9:35:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: psende

I think the law should allow folks to believe what they believe. If, in the sincere practice of their faith, negative things happen, those folks should be allowed to sort things out without fear of “Big Brother.”



So if a cult practices infant sex/rape - and the infant dies - those folks should be allowed to sort things out without fear of "Big Brother."?



Sideways -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/23/2008 10:50:56 AM)

quote:


ORIGINAL: psende
quote:

Just because this boy might've died at 75, doesn't make his death at 16 in any way acceptable. Otherwise we might just all kill ourselves now and get it over with.

There was no attempt to force death. The boy died. It is as tragic as if he had died in a car accident or of incurable cancer. And I imagine the family’s grief is the same as if either of those had occurred.


It is not the same thing by a long shot. The examples you gave are not preventable forms of death; this boy's death was preventable under the medical care that God gave us.


quote:


quote:

His parents murdered him with their false teaching. Under the law they cannot be prosecuted, but the law should be changed.

Murder??

If a minor dies because he was taught truth, should those parents also be prosecuted?

Suppose a devout, Christian, 16 year-old girl is raped, becomes pregnant, and dies in childbirth. Should her parents be imprisoned for murder because a routine procedure called “abortion,” could have saved her?


Only if they knew ahead of time that the pregnancy could've resulted in death, like a tubal pregnancy or something. Otherwise, it is just as like your car accident example, tragic yes, but not something that could've been know ahead of time.

Childbirth carries with it a small amount of risk, but not enough that we should all get abortions upon hearing the positive test results.

Your arguments are weak, and not really applicable to this case.



psende -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/23/2008 2:31:37 PM)

quote:

It is not the same thing by a long shot. The examples you gave are not preventable forms of death; this boy's death was preventable under the medical care that God gave us.

Unless they took the boy to a doctor, how would they know how sick he was? Because we accept medical care as God's provision, doesn't mean they must.

He had evidently sufferred from the same thng before and recovered; Why would they believe that this time was different? If any thing, recoveries reinforce the belief that doctors are unnecessary. And as I said, until death came, the hope of God's intervening hand existed.

If these folks believe that death is to be preferred over disobedience to what they perceive as God's will, this death was as unpreventable, for them, as any other. And the grief sufferred, just as acute, if not more so.

But I am certainly giving these folks the benefit of the doubt by taking for granted that their actions are a result of perceived piety and not of meanness.

quote:

Only if they knew ahead of time that the pregnancy could've resulted in death, like a tubal pregnancy or something. Otherwise, it is just as like your car accident example, tragic yes, but not something that could've been know ahead of time.

Childbirth carries with it a small amount of risk, but not enough that we should all get abortions upon hearing the positive test results.

Your arguments are weak, and not really applicable to this case.


Isn't that one of the early arguments for abortion; "if the mother's life/health is in danger?" or, "Only to save the life of the mother?"
Although the argument may be lacking, I don't doubt that, in 21st century America, there are people who would hold such a girl's parents responsible for her death.

Ultimately, until death occurs, the possibility of recovery exists. And, as long as life exists, the possibility of death is ever "just around the corner." As weak as my arguments may be, I think it wrong to play the blame game with well-meaning folks, however misguided they may be. To do so only serves to drive them more tightly in their circle and reinforces their beliefs.

Is my slight libertarian bent showing?



psende -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/23/2008 2:54:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: psende

I think the law should allow folks to believe what they believe. If, in the sincere practice of their faith, negative things happen, those folks should be allowed to sort things out without fear of “Big Brother.”



So if a cult practices infant sex/rape - and the infant dies - those folks should be allowed to sort things out without fear of "Big Brother."?


Earthless,

C'mon.



earthless -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/23/2008 3:28:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: psende

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: psende

I think the law should allow folks to believe what they believe. If, in the sincere practice of their faith, negative things happen, those folks should be allowed to sort things out without fear of “Big Brother.”



So if a cult practices infant sex/rape - and the infant dies - those folks should be allowed to sort things out without fear of "Big Brother."?


Earthless,

C'mon.


Seriously, your argument extends to that when it is argued the way you did.

So what and or who draws the line?



Sideways -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/23/2008 3:44:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: psende
quote:

Only if they knew ahead of time that the pregnancy could've resulted in death, like a tubal pregnancy or something. Otherwise, it is just as like your car accident example, tragic yes, but not something that could've been know ahead of time.

Childbirth carries with it a small amount of risk, but not enough that we should all get abortions upon hearing the positive test results.

Your arguments are weak, and not really applicable to this case.


Isn't that one of the early arguments for abortion; "if the mother's life/health is in danger?" or, "Only to save the life of the mother?"
Although the argument may be lacking, I don't doubt that, in 21st century America, there are people who would hold such a girl's parents responsible for her death.


I certainly would. If a underage girl had a tubal pregnancy, which has no chance of resulting in a live baby and every chance of killing the mother, then termination will save the mother. Anyone who thinks that abortion is never needed to save a mother's life is kidding themselves, although it is extremely rare, and the only justifiable case for abortion, IMO.

So yes, if a teenager was faced with that scenario, and her parents put extreme (like you're going to hell if you do) pressure on her not to terminate, then I would hold them responsible for the girl's death.



cow451 -> RE: Are These Parents Morally Responsible? (6/23/2008 3:54:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: psende

In answer to the OP; no, I don't think people should be held legally responsible in these situations. They were treating the illness in the way they thought was proper, leaving the outcome in God's hands (and until the person dies, there remains the hope that God may heal.)

We have come to rely on the medical profession to the point which we seek them first. Then, after no hope remains, we seek God's hand, pretty sure that Our Soveriegn Lord isn't going to do much to change the situation.

It hasn't always been this way.
quote:

And in the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa became diseased in his feet. His disease was severe, yet even in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but the physicians. (II Chronicles 16:12)

Suppose someone chose, because of this verse, to seek God instead of a doctor. Shouldn't they be allowed to do so? My opinion is "Yes."

Now, I think doctors and modern medical "miracles" are good things, but I also think that no one should be compelled to take advantage of their services or held accountable when they don't. The person who refuses treatment will have to live (or die) with his decision.

As sad as these situations are, there remains the fact that the death rate among humans is 100%, so it is just a matter of time anyway. Nature will eventually take its course, no matter how many times it is deflected.

We're not talking about medicine as it existed 2000 years ago! These are parents that have a responsibility. Sure they cannot be accused of first degree murder because they are so stupid, but they were negligent, and that negligence led to the death of someone in their care. "Not meaning to" doesn't give someone a free pass.[sm=fireanger.gif]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI