Oregon approves bill - Faith healing no longer legally protected

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/bill_ending_faith_healing_exce.html

 

What a fucking idiot.

 

Why is he an idiot? Can he not pray for his child?

 

I do not think that this is a violation of church and state. I believe that there is absolutely a connection between prayer/good thoughts/whatever you want to call them and improved health, but I also think that it would be criminal negligence to deny your children medical care while they are ill, especially if it's life threatening. It's the duty of every parent to do whatever is necessary to keep your children healthy.

 

Perfectly stated.

 

I agree completely. If an adult wants to count on faith healing then fantastic, knock yourself out.

But to let a child die for your beliefs is just plain wrong.

 

He can and the bill doesn't say he can't. It says he can't choose prayer instead of medical care for his child, which is not what he did. So no, he's not going to jail.

For him to ask that question, he either doesn't understand a bill in his own legislative body or he's grandstanding. I think it's probably the second.

 

The bolded is why I called him an idiot. He has every right to pray for his son.

 

if he is taking time away from when he could be driving his kid to the hospital...

 

So, if a "Faither" or whatever they're called brings their kid to the doctor when they ordinarily would not, and the kid dies, does the "Faither" then have a legitimate lawsuit for religious discrimination against the state, as well as a wrongful death suit?

 

What if the kid gets a staph infection at the hospital and dies, when all they were doing was going to the ER for stitches?

 

What's all this about "Tort Reform" that conservatives keep talking about? Is that just when someone else dies due to a doctor's mistake?

 

Huh? I'm not a "Faither". I'm just asking a question under the current tort rules. Plus, I didn't talk about suing doctors, just the state in my post. Although I assume the doctor/hospital would be sued as well, society as it is.

Please try to stay on topic. You're not making any sense.

 

So let's be clear, you're opposed to this legislation?

 

I'm ambivalent toward it. Selfishly, I'm concerned about the potential cost to me as a taxpayer. Kids die in hospitals, too.

 

No, because medicine is viewed as a necessity for health while faith healing is not. Just as you cannot refuse to provide a child you are responsible for food, clothing or shelter, you cannot refuse to provide traditional medicine.

If there were some nutcase who felt that prayers would feed their child, and essentially let their child starve to death, they would have been criminally negligent. Same should be the case for standard medical care in relation to prayer. If someone wishes to provide prayer in addition to all the material things deemed necessary for survival, that's a parent's choice.

 

I agree, but that really doesn't answer the question, does it?

 

It does. This law in no way opens up a "I wanted to faith heal but the government forced me to medically heal" lawsuit. Because not enough people believe in, and therefore no laws exist for the sake of, protecting faith healing as a legitimate need for a child.

We currently require parents to feed their children food. Can someone sue the state because they wanted to feed their child prayers instead of food but were forced to use food? I don't think such a lawsuit even has a chance of being heard, let alone won. Likewise for your hypothesized lawsuit against the state for faith healing, IMO.

 

I think it may, at least in terms of the US Constitution. I'm not really considering your opinion as an answer, but I do respect it.

 

I think it does in so far as the government forcing people to feed their children food opens the state up to lawsuits. I agree that anyone who answers your hypothetical-based query will be rendering an opinion, not an "answer." Only the courts will answer this as the torrent of faith healer lawsuits unfold.