Faith Healers Get 16 Months for Son's Death

[TheMACHINE]

WTF! :( Letting kids die...sickening


http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/oregon-faith-healers-jeffrey-and-marci-beagley-sentenced/19389245?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fcrime%2 Farticle%2Foregon-faith-healers-jeffrey-and-marci-beagley-sentenced%2F19389245

OREGON CITY, Ore. (March 8) -- The judge who sentenced an Oregon couple to prison Monday for the death of their son says members of their church must quit relying on faith healing when their children's lives are at stake.

"The fact is, too many children have died unnecessarily - a graveyard full," Judge Steven Maurer said. "This has to stop."

Maurer spoke in a quiet, unemotional voice as he led up to his conclusion: Jeffrey and Marci Beagley each should serve 16 months in prison. Members of the Followers of Christ church who packed the courtroom sobbed.

The Beagleys were earlier convicted of criminally negligent homicide in the June 2008 death of their 16-year-old son, Neil, of complications from a congenital urinary tract blockage. The condition normally is easily treated.

Members of their church avoid most medical care and instead rely on rituals such as anointing sick people with oil and laying hands on them.

In ordering prison terms, Maurer reflected changes made in Oregon law a decade ago stipulating that freedom of religious practices is not an excuse to shun medical treatment for a dangerously ill child. The changes were a result of the deaths of children in Followers of Christ families.

The church's small cemetery near the end of the Oregon Trail includes row after row of headstones marking the graves of children.

Maurer said the community is tolerant of the church, and he emphasized the sentences were not an indictment of it.

"We must keep in mind that this crime was one in which a child died," Maurer said. "This was a situation where the community was counting on his parents to understand the boundaries of their faith."

The Beagleys' attorneys said they would appeal.

"This case is not a referendum on religion," defense attorney Wayne Mackeson said. "To me, it's a battle in a larger war - seeing that justice is done."

Neil Beagley was described as a bright, confident boy who loved his church and fixing cars. He became ill as the blockage trapped toxic waste in his body.

His parents testified they thought he had a cold or the flu. Medical experts say the boy's kidneys were destroyed and his organs shut down.

Just months earlier, the Beagleys' granddaughter, 15-month-old Ava Worthington, died from pneumonia and a blood infection that also could have been treated. Her parents, Raylene and Carl Brent Worthington, were acquitted of manslaughter. Carl Brent Worthington served two months in jail for criminal mistreatment.
They were in the courtroom Monday. Before the sentencing, Marci Beagley dabbed at her eyes as she huddled with Raylene Worthington and several other women.

Defense attorneys sought probation for the Beagleys. Mackeson called on Courtney S. Campbell, a professor of philosophy who specializes in bioethics at Oregon State University, who recommended probation, education and counseling rather than prison.

"There needs to be respect for religious freedom, accompanied by personal accountability and responsibility," Campbell said.

Maurer said the Beagleys and the congregation knew about medical care but refused it.

"These two cases illustrate a crime that was a product of an unwillingness to respect the boundaries on freedom of religious expression," Maurer said. "They've continued to use spiritual treatment practices in exclusion of medical treatment, even when their children were in extreme harm's way."

The defense attorneys asked that the couple remain free pending appeals. Maurer refused.

[benefactor]

These people need to be beaten with 2x4's.

[Imposter]

It's okay, guys. They were simply listening to god.

[DarkReign]

Adults can and should be able to do whatever the hell they want for their own personal health.

But kids under 18 shouldnt have to die because of their parent's beliefs.

[Rack The Trolls!]

It's okay, guys. They were simply listening to god.


Rack the Reset! :smokin

[bigzak25]

pretty damn sad.

[tlongII]

These people are wackos! There have been literally dozens of children who have died over the last 50 years because of this church's beliefs. It makes me very sad.

[symple19]

Another ghastly byproduct of whack-job bible thumpers

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

These people need to be beaten with 2x4's.

I'd go with axe handles - easier to wield - but otherwise, yeah.

[boutons_deux]

16 months for killing a person?

Tyler-TX-area man got 35 years for 4 oz pot.

35 x $30K/year = $1M

Boy, the prosecutor and judge sure showed him who's Da Man.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Seriously, 16 months for practically killing their kid?? What a bunch of bullshit! I don't give a fuck what religion you follow, that is bullshit right there.

[sonic21]

They're getting off easy--a lot easier than their son did, and his only crime was being born into a cult of morons.

[Drachen]

Ok, first let me say that I think that this is despicable. I want to get that out of the way. I think the sentence is ridiculously small.

Now, I have to ask, since I know that there are no caveats in the Constitution, what are the laws regarding the curtailing of freedom of religion? Is it 18+ have freedom of religion and children have to adhere to the curtural norms?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It would seem that this is curtailing the free exercise thereof. To me this is pretty clear and since the Constitution supercedes all other laws, it would seem like this sentence is unconstitutional. I guess a more broad question that I have always wondered this (i.e. how does a set of beliefs get classified as a religion which is able to enjoy this protected status?). It would seem like people could organize to do illegal things under the auspices of a "religion."

Once again, I think these people's actions are ignorant and don't agree with them at all, but isn't this one of those situations similar to the whole "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Just asking for a little clarity from those who may be more well versed in this than I am.

[redzero]

Looks like God was too busy doing nothing to help that teenager.

On the bright side, there won't be any more of these idiots if they die out like this.

[Creepn]

Once again, I think these people's actions are ignorant and don't agree with them at all, but isn't this one of those situations similar to the whole "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


It's not what they said, its what they did. They killed a child.

[Drachen]

It's not what they said, its what they did. They killed a child.

LOL, I knew someone wouldn't get that, I just didn't anticipate it would be the firt person to comment on it. I said "a situation similar to." That statement I quoted was about the Freedome of Speech, I was just relating it to the freedom of religion. I guess if you wanted it spelled out, then the statement would be "I may not like the faith you practice, but I will defend to the death your right to practice it."

[redzero]

It's not what they said, its what they did. They killed a child.

It's okay, bro. Parents have a right to deny their children medical care because of their religion. It's not negligent homicide if God told them to be negligent.

[SAGambler]

Ok, first let me say that I think that this is despicable. I want to get that out of the way. I think the sentence is ridiculously small.

Now, I have to ask, since I know that there are no caveats in the Constitution, what are the laws regarding the curtailing of freedom of religion? Is it 18+ have freedom of religion and children have to adhere to the curtural norms?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It would seem that this is curtailing the free exercise thereof. To me this is pretty clear and since the Constitution supercedes all other laws, it would seem like this sentence is unconstitutional. I guess a more broad question that I have always wondered this (i.e. how does a set of beliefs get classified as a religion which is able to enjoy this protected status?). It would seem like people could organize to do illegal things under the auspices of a "religion."

Once again, I think these people's actions are ignorant and don't agree with them at all, but isn't this one of those situations similar to the whole "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Just asking for a little clarity from those who may be more well versed in this than I am.

I think there is a difference (at least to any sane person) between "freedom of religion" and "freedom to do any damn thing you want".

My only problem is they weren't charged with murder and spending 25 to life in prison.

This would fall along the same line as the religion that believes in polygamy. Just because "they" believe in it, we as a society don't go along with their belief, and prosecute people who practice it. Just because it is part of some religion, if it doesn't pass the smell test, it is deemed against the law.

While we have freedom to "practice" any religion we choose, it doesn't give us the right to take those beliefs to the point of killing or even injuring another person, much less our own children.

This world is full of nut jobs. Most are tied to some "religion" or "cult". At what point do you say "to hell with religion, I'm not sitting here watching my child die while waiting for "GOD" to do his thing?

At some point simple common sense needs to take over.

[tlongII]

What's stupid is that their daughter and stepson just served 3 months for killing their 15 month-old kid. That happened just a few months before this case. This church is in a suburb of Portland and they've been killing kids for decades.

[easjer]

It's a slippery legal slope. Would they similarly prosecute the Amish, who might reject modern medical practices because of their faith? Or Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood products because of their faiths? What if the statement was true that they simply believed him to have a bad flu?

I think the problem is in not knowing where religious faith and the protections afforded by that end and where general concern for the welfare of a child begins. Certainly children that are neglected and abused by their parents (even in the name of religious expression) should be protected by the government, but what about the parent's rights to decide on care for their children?

Religious expressions aside, at what point does the government get the right to decide on care in place of the parents? It's easy to say at the extreme points - child's health is threatened by an easily treatable medical procedure or solution. But what about the less extreme points - say with a NICU baby or PICU child? Where they may be kept alive and possibly saved but only through great medical interference and possibly with side effects? Does the government have the right to step in and determine that child should be treated even when the parent feels otherwise?

Could this then be turned to prosecution of parents who mistake a minor illness for a serious one, and the child dies as a result?

I think what they've done is awful, I see why they want to punish it, but I worry some about the legal precedent this could set.

[tlongII]

It's a slippery legal slope. Would they similarly prosecute the Amish, who might reject modern medical practices because of their faith? Or Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood products because of their faiths? What if the statement was true that they simply believed him to have a bad flu?

I think the problem is in not knowing where religious faith and the protections afforded by that end and where general concern for the welfare of a child begins. Certainly children that are neglected and abused by their parents (even in the name of religious expression) should be protected by the government, but what about the parent's rights to decide on care for their children?

Religious expressions aside, at what point does the government get the right to decide on care in place of the parents? It's easy to say at the extreme points - child's health is threatened by an easily treatable medical procedure or solution. But what about the less extreme points - say with a NICU baby or PICU child? Where they may be kept alive and possibly saved but only through great medical interference and possibly with side effects? Does the government have the right to step in and determine that child should be treated even when the parent feels otherwise?

Could this then be turned to prosecution of parents who mistake a minor illness for a serious one, and the child dies as a result?

I think what they've done is awful, I see why they want to punish it, but I worry some about the legal precedent this could set.

I don't care what the religion is, you should take your kid to a doctor! This kind of crap has to stop! I would say that for Amish or Johovah's Witnesses as well.

[Höfner]

Faith healing is so last millenium.

[Drachen]

I think there is a difference (at least to any sane person) between "freedom of religion" and "freedom to do any damn thing you want".

My only problem is they weren't charged with murder and spending 25 to life in prison.

This would fall along the same line as the religion that believes in polygamy. Just because "they" believe in it, we as a society don't go along with their belief, and prosecute people who practice it. Just because it is part of some religion, if it doesn't pass the smell test, it is deemed against the law.

While we have freedom to "practice" any religion we choose, it doesn't give us the right to take those beliefs to the point of killing or even injuring another person, much less our own children.

This world is full of nut jobs. Most are tied to some "religion" or "cult". At what point do you say "to hell with religion, I'm not sitting here watching my child die while waiting for "GOD" to do his thing?

At some point simple common sense needs to take over.

I agree, but whose common sense? How is that defined? Mutilating the genitalia of one's newborns could be considered barbaric, but it happens every day in this country and is decendent from a religious ritual and could be completely avoided nowadays.
Additionally, there is precedent in the bible for the attempted murder of one's own son.

As far as throwing your hands up in the air and "doing something" instead of waiting for god to do something, that's just it, they believe god is doing something, it just doesn't happen to be healing their child. Who are they to question god's will. It's no different, in principal, than some jackoff telling someone else "God works in mysterious ways" after he lost his house and wife, yet that is accepted, if not annoying.

The constitution guarantees a freedom to practice the religion of your choosing. This one, it seems, has as one of its tenets to abide strictly by gods will whatever it may be, if it means making someone wildly successful, good, if it means making one die, so be it too.

So, my question remains, how does one define, legally, what a religion is, and therefore what is protected. It can't just be left to the subjective whims of a judge can it? The "what any sane person would think" litmus test doesn't work either. I mean, is it number of followers, is it length of existence, etc.

[MoSpur]

I am a big believer in God healing people who are sick or have some sort of disease. I have known and have seen God do some awesome work in peoples lives when it comes to healing.

However, I also believe God gave wisdom to doctors and pharmacists to help His people when it comes to being sick. I will go to the doctor when I feel I have a sinus infection, a broken bone, a stomach problem, or whatever so that he can examine me, prescribe me something that will help me because I believe God intended it to be that way. I would not let my child suffer like that and die.

[easjer]

But what if you didn't believe that? What if you believed - and I mean really, truly, to the depths of your soul knew this to be true - that seeking medical treatment, or certain kinds of medical treatment would result in the eternal damnation of your soul and was in direct contradiction to God's will?

It's a sticky wicket.

Which is not to say that I believe these people to be within the right, and if clear distinctions can be drawn by law, then I agree that they are responsible for the death of their son and should be punished. I just shudder a little when I see the possibilities open.

[Drachen]

I am a big believer in God healing people who are sick or have some sort of disease. I have known and have seen God do some awesome work in peoples lives when it comes to healing.

However, I also believe God gave wisdom to doctors and pharmacists to help His people when it comes to being sick. I will go to the doctor when I feel I have a sinus infection, a broken bone, a stomach problem, or whatever so that he can examine me, prescribe me something that will help me because I believe God intended it to be that way. I would not let my child suffer like that and die.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it seems that their belief system doesn't agree with us, which is why I have asked the question. My persistance in this thread is really less about the situation in the OP, and more about a long standing question I have had about how one defines a religion whose practice is protected by the constitution. The original post is just an example that brought this question back to the forefront.

[boutons_deux]

"big believer in God healing people"

You should switch to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Works just as well. :lol

God made rules about how Nature works, including how placebos work.

I "believe" God ain't gonna screw with the His own rules. It looks to me like the universe is following His Plan.

[Drachen]

"big believer in God healing people"

You should switch to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Works just as well. :lol

God made rules about how Nature works, including how placebos work.

I "believe" God ain't gonna screw with the His own rules. It looks to me like the universe is following His Plan.

Cool, and others don't believe the same way you do.

[xellos88330]

Unbelievable. If you believe so much at least cover your ass by seeking medical attention. Second opinion never hurts.

[Creepn]

Unbelievable. If you believe so much at least cover your ass by seeking medical attention. Second opinion never hurts.

That would be blasphemy against God. Rather go to another lowly human being than seek help from the AWESOMENESS of God's power?? Very insulting.

[sabar]

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it seems that their belief system doesn't agree with us, which is why I have asked the question. My persistance in this thread is really less about the situation in the OP, and more about a long standing question I have had about how one defines a religion whose practice is protected by the constitution. The original post is just an example that brought this question back to the forefront.

Personal liberty trumps religious freedom. The rights of the child preside over the religious rights of the parents who are a 3rd party to the child. The same reason that I can't murder people because my god commands me to do so. This is simple.


But what if you didn't believe that? What if you believed - and I mean really, truly, to the depths of your soul knew this to be true - that seeking medical treatment, or certain kinds of medical treatment would result in the eternal damnation of your soul and was in direct contradiction to God's will?

You are free to not seek medical attention and die. You are also free to kill yourself. You are not free to make these choices for others, especially if it is against their best interests.


It would seem like people could organize to do illegal things under the auspices of a "religion."

Remember the history of the united states. The law is to prevent the state from enacting a state religion and oppressing the people as was done in europe. It was never intended for religion to be some safe haven from all belief. Otherwise every murderer would claim religious freedom and walk away. The context of the constitution is important!

The two basic natural rights are the right to life and the right to liberty. Law that is written, even in the constitution, can't overrule these rights!

[easjer]

But parents are the ones who legally get to decide what is in the best interests of their child.

And the state has a right and duty to protect the children when the parents don't exercise that right correctly.

But my point is that there is a fine line in some of these areas. The obvious cases are obvious for a reason - children being beaten, clear neglect of a medical condition that obviously requires treatment (say a severed appendage or broken limb).

But the less obvious cases - where is the line? The parents claim that they thought their son had the flu. My parents didn't always take me to the doctor when I had the flu. What is the difference? Solely that I didn't die? Should my parents be prosecuted for not taking me to the doctor? Were they being neglectful?

Again - I don't agree with these people. At all. But the ruling makes me uncomfortable, because I'm not sure where the line is being drawn. If it's clear that the parents were lying or that there is no way they could legitimately mistake organ failure with the flu, then that's different. But it seemed like it was less a case of clear neglect under existing laws and more a case of a judge deciding that the situation can't continue.

Which may be the case, but is not for the judiciary to decide - that is for legislators to change.

I am uncomfortable with the possible ramifications of the legal decision. And it's entirely possible that I don't have a good understanding of the case - it's not like I've read anything more than this article.