Via Hemant Mehta (the Friendly Atheist), here is the sad story of Neal Beagley, a 16-year-old killed by his parents' failure to seek adequate medical care, and their choice to rely on prayer instead.
Their son died, and the Beagleys have been sentenced to 16 months in jail. Yup, nothing fails like prayer.
I have a slightly different take on the case than Hemant does. I don't see any reason to doubt that the parents were sincere in their beliefs that they were doing what was best for their kid. And we don't always criminalize actions (or failure to act) that result in death: look at all the people that die during surgery - or perhaps, in a better parallel, look at all the people that died in the early history of medicine from the mistaken belief that being "bled" would help cure them. I don't see any "mens rea" in the Beagley case. Stupidity isn't a crime, and the parents have already paid a heavy emotional and genetic penalty for their stupidity.
The real criminals in this case are not the Beagleys, who were just doing what they had been told by authority figures would work. The real criminals are the religious leaders who make the bogus claim that "prayer heals", despite the fact that there is no good evidence that this is the case. Reportedly their church, the Followers of Christ, has a long history of letting children die by treating them with prayer instead of modern medicine.
I'll concede that we need laws against what the Beagleys did -- but purely for their deterrent, and not their punitive value. If people who rely on prayer alone to cure serious illnesses in children know that their failure may result in prison time, maybe they'll be less likely to rely on prayer alone. I'd definitely like to see a repeal of all religiously-based exemptions of child abuse charges for faith-healing deaths.
But more importantly, I'd like to see a law that makes it a crime for someone who is not a medical professional to counsel someone to withhold medical care for seriously ill children where there is a well-established and safe remedy known for the condition. Such a law could be very narrowly written and still have a beneficial effect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
"…his parents' failure to seek adequate medical prayer…"
Clever…or typo?
No, just my stupidity, as usual. Fixed now. Thanks.
"Their son died, and the Beagleys have been sentenced to 16 months in jail. Yup, nothing fails like prayer."
You should sell mugs with that slogan.
http://www.cafepress.com/bigdogma/1687363
A more logical statement would be: "Yup, nothing fails like taking no steps toward healing except prayer."
Under the law you suggested, could a Jehovah's Witness priest be guilty of a crime for recommending to a follower that they not receive a blood transfusion? If so, isn't that a 1st Amendment violation?
Miranda, since you employed the word "logical" in your typically vacuous comment, lets be logical...
Assume you can take two measures A and B to bring something about, consider four cases:
1. Doing A and B: success
2. Doing A only: success
3. Doing B only: fail
4. Doing neither: fail.
I would say B fails to bring about the desired outcome when attempted in cases 1. and 3.
You would have B get credit for case 1??
It's sad that so many threads get bogged down in semantic discussions when clear communication and straightforward thinking don't back the commenters' positions.
Anonymous:
IANAL, but I'd guess such a law would survive 1st amendment scrutiny. Free speech is understood to have limits; for example, you can't say "Let's all go to John Smith's house and burn it down!" to a crowd of people and be exempt from punishment when they do. Other recognized exceptions to free speech guarantees include copyright law, bribes, threats, blackmail, etc. To me, counseling someone to withhold medically-necessary treatment for children has a lot in common with the other exceptions.
Your thinking is flawed, anonymous.
B and C should have the words "sometimes" after them.
(Note: I did not intend for the two "sometimes"'s to be equivalent to each other.)
C?
Poor Miranda, still struggling with reading comprehension. Maybe this will help.
I read as well as you write, Jeff.
Thanks for making me wreck another keyboard, Miranda. I should have read who was writing the comments before taking a drink!
Oh, as Jeff said - you failed reading comprehension..... again. As well as logic......
You are the weaker link!
Who the hell are you, Rahn?
He's James T. Kirk. Don't you read history?
Copyright is not a good example of a curb on the Constitutional right to freedom of speech since it is specifically provided for among the powers of Congress in Section 8, 8th paragraph: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;".
Post a Comment