Faith Healing Parents Watch Their Child Die but Won’t Be Getting Jail Time for It

[Dr. Zaus]

Their lawyer says the law is “begging” to be changed. He means that it should be made clear that the regular faithful should be legally allowed to let their children die in agony using their faith as a shield, not just so-called “practitioners.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ild-die-but-wont-be-getting-jail-time-for-it/

Clearly this article is slanted against the idea of letting your child die during fiath-healing, so here's a pro perspective:

improvement in reported energy has been shown in a double-blind study to test the efficacy of spiritual exercise in the chronically ill

"A randomized controlled trial to assess effectiveness of a spiritually-based intervention to help chronically ill adults.". Int J Psychiatry Med.

Over all, I don't think that the risk of death is worth improved energy. Instead, I think faith and science should do what they do best and stay out of one-another's business.

 

[Ns1]

faith healing. lol.

 

[ahenkel]

I believe Oregon has had a few cases like recently too. Completely disgusting

 

[BudAshes]

Really fucked up, but should these people really be breading anyway?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

"A group at Johns Hopkins published a study in 2011 reporting no significant effects on pain, mood, health perceptions, illness intrusiveness, or self-efficacy, but a small improvement in reported energy in a double-blind study to test the efficacy of spiritual exercise in chronically ill adults"

I like how you butcher a Wikipedia quote to make it sound better for you and don't bother including info like

"Reliance on faith healing to the exclusion of other forms of treatment can have a public health impact when it reduces or eliminates access to modern medical techniques.[55][56][57] This is evident in both higher mortality rates for children[58] and in reduced life expectancy for adults.[59] Critics have also made note of serious injury that has resulted from falsely labelled "healings", where patients erroneously consider themselves cured and cease or withdraw from treatment.[60][61] For example, at least six people have died after faith healing by their church and being told they had been healed of HIV and could stop taking their medications.[62] It is the stated position of the AMA that "prayer as therapy should not delay access to traditional medical care"

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Religious people should have the right to refuse treatment for themselves. But they shouldn't be legally allowed to refuse treatment for a minor. The state has a more vested interest in protecting the health of the minor than it does in protecting the freedom of religion for the parents.

 

[coldmeat]

Who cares? The kid is in heaven now, right?

 

[SlitheryDee]

God must have been calling him home.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

"A group at Johns Hopkins published a study in 2011 reporting no significant effects on pain, mood, health perceptions, illness intrusiveness, or self-efficacy, but a small improvement in reported energy in a double-blind study to test the efficacy of spiritual exercise in chronically ill adults"

I like how you butcher a Wikipedia quote to make it sound better for you and don't bother including info like

"Reliance on faith healing to the exclusion of other forms of treatment can have a public health impact when it reduces or eliminates access to modern medical techniques.[55][56][57] This is evident in both higher mortality rates for children[58] and in reduced life expectancy for adults.[59] Critics have also made note of serious injury that has resulted from falsely labelled "healings", where patients erroneously consider themselves cured and cease or withdraw from treatment.[60][61] For example, at least six people have died after faith healing by their church and being told they had been healed of HIV and could stop taking their medications.[62] It is the stated position of the AMA that "prayer as therapy should not delay access to traditional medical care"

I felt the first link was rather negative and wanted to present both sides of the issue... This was incredibly hard to do and I thank you for your appreciation.

Religious people should have the right to refuse treatment for themselves. But they shouldn't be legally allowed to refuse treatment for a minor. The state has a more vested interest in protecting the health of the minor than it does in protecting the freedom of religion for the parents

So the right to life is >> the right to liberty?

 

[PowerEngineer]

Over all, I don't think that the risk of death is worth improved energy. Instead, I think faith and science should do what they do best and stay out of one-another's business.

A sadly perfect example of what can happen when blind faith trumps reason.

It's worth noting that so-called "pro prospective" reports an "improvement in reported energy". I take this to mean that the patients told their caregivers that they had more energy, and that there was no objective measure made. It seems to me that the placebo effect easily accounts for this. If a patient believes he/she is getting treatment, then he/she is likely to expect to feel better and therefore looks for positive signs to confirm it.

Yes, Oregon has had a few incidents like this one over the last few years.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So the right to life is >> the right to liberty?

Not quite. Someone else's right to life trumps your right to religious freedom. You can feel free, as a grown adult, to say, "Hey, my religion doesn't allow me to get this life-saving procedure, so I choose to die." That's not infringing on anyone's rights. But you shouldn't have the same right to make that determination for your child.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I take this to mean that the patients told their caregivers that they had more energy, and that there was no objective measure made. It seems to me that the placebo effect easily accounts for this.

It seems to me that when it comes to perceived quality of life (and it turns out quality of life is nothing but perception) then placebo effects are essentially the same thing as real effects.

Someone else's right to life trumps your right to religious freedom. You can feel free, as a grown adult, to say, "Hey, my religion doesn't allow me to get this life-saving procedure, so I choose to die." That's not infringing on anyone's rights. But you shouldn't have the same right to make that determination for your child.

Is religious freedom different from other kinds of freedom? It seems we limit right to free speech in favor of life (fire in a theater) as well... but we have gone to to war and kill others for the right to maintain our freedom to elect officials... assuming this is represents our principles: what's the underlying principle for putting 'kinds' of freedom into baskets that are >> or << life?

 

[SMOGZINN]

People have a problem thinking that only people that believe like us should be free to express their religion. If we are to allow them to practice their religion, then we need to do so, and not just to the extent that it does not offend our own.

 

[lxskllr]

Not quite. Someone else's right to life trumps your right to religious freedom. You can feel free, as a grown adult, to say, "Hey, my religion doesn't allow me to get this life-saving procedure, so I choose to die." That's not infringing on anyone's rights. But you shouldn't have the same right to make that determination for your child.

His point was regarding abortion, and I agree with his conclusion. The state shouldn't interfere the religious beliefs of the people.

 

[SlitheryDee]

A sadly perfect example of what can happen when blind faith trumps reason.

It's worth noting that so-called "pro prospective" reports an "improvement in reported energy". I take this to mean that the patients told their caregivers that they had more energy, and that there was no objective measure made. It seems to me that the placebo effect easily accounts for this. If a patient believes he/she is getting treatment, then he/she is likely to expect to feel better and therefore looks for positive signs to confirm it.

Yes, Oregon has had a few incidents like this one over the last few years.

Well, it was a double blind, so the patients couldn't know that they were being prayed for. There are other studies where the patients knew they were being prayed for and they did measurably worse than the control group. The researchers chalked it up to performance anxiety if I recall correctly.

 

[Ns1]

Well, it was a double blind, so the patients couldn't know that they were being prayed for. There are other studies where the patients knew they were being prayed for and they did measurably worse than the control group. The researchers chalked it up to performance anxiety if I recall correctly.

hmmm...

OBJECTIVE:

Creative, cost-effective ways are needed to help older adults deal effectively with chronic diseases. Spiritual beliefs and practices are often used to deal with health problems. We evaluated whether a minimal intervention, consisting of a video and workbook encouraging use of patient spiritual coping, would be inoffensive and improve perceived health status.
METHODS:

A randomized clinical trial of 100 older, chronically ill adults were assigned to a Spiritual (SPIRIT) or Educational (EDUC--standard cardiac risk reduction) intervention. Individuals in each group were shown a 28-minute video and given a workbook to complete over 4 weeks. Selected psychosocial and health outcome measures were administered at baseline and 6 weeks later.
RESULTS:

Participants were mostly female (62%), with a mean age of 65.8 +/- 9.6 years and had an average of three chronic illnesses. More than 90% were Christian. At baseline, frequent daily spiritual experiences (DSE) were associated with being African American (p < .05) and increased pain (p < .01) and co-morbidities (p < or = .01). Energy increased significantly (p < .05) in the SPIRIT group and decreased in the EDUC group. Improvements in pain, mood, health perceptions, illness intrusiveness, and self-efficacy were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS:

A minimal intervention encouraging spiritual coping was inoffensive to patients, associated with increased energy, and required no additional clinician time.

lol what the fuck is this double blind study.

So basically faith healing doesn't heal shit, it just makes you feel a little bit better about your impending doom. it's a COPING MECHANISM.

 

[Retro Rob]

Religious people should have the right to refuse treatment for themselves. But they shouldn't be legally allowed to refuse treatment for a minor. The state has a more vested interest in protecting the health of the minor than it does in protecting the freedom of religion for the parents.

See, what they did really had not validity Biblically, since they are religious.

So, they should have tried to save him as long as what they did wasn't in violation of scripture.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I felt the first link was rather negative and wanted to present both sides of the issue... This was incredibly hard to do and I thank you for your appreciation.

So the right to life is >> the right to liberty?

So you wanted to represent the sides by butchering the truth? Got it...

And to the bottom part... For a minor that can't make their own determination does that even need to be a fucking question?

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Hey I got cancer I'll pray to the flying spaghetti monster to save me.

Yea no I'll take the drugs like the doctor says, If you want fish oil then take all you want. Just don't try to be stupid and force your stupid on the kid.

 

[pelov]

So, they should have tried to save him as long as what they did wasn't in violation of scripture.

Did it happen on Sunday? Would've sucked if it happened on Sunday. Can you imagine your kid dying then not being able to buy booze on the way home?

Fucking Government!

 

[SlitheryDee]

hmmm...



lol what the fuck is this double blind study.

So basically faith healing doesn't heal shit, it just makes you feel a little bit better about your impending doom. it's a COPING MECHANISM.

Yeah, it doesn't look like they were even testing for benefits on the level purported by true faith healing. It's really a bad study to cite as a parallel to the case in the OP. Then again, where else are you going to find a real test that says anything positive at all about faith-based healing?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So you wanted to represent the sides by butchering the truth? Got it...

And to the bottom part... For a minor that can't make their own determination does that even need to be a fucking question?

I did not "butcher" the truth. I simply did not represent the biasing narrative surrounding your perceptions of the world; not giving intellectual assent to how you may see the world at every turn does not mean I butchered the truth: only that I butchered your truth.

For a minor that can't make their own determination does that even need to be a fucking question?

It is the right to liberty of the parent to decide upon the proper course of action for their child unless the state is defending a right that trumps their right, such as a right to life.

Hey I got cancer I'll pray to the flying spaghetti monster to save me.

If it makes you feel better I say go for it... But I suggest the chemotherapy as-well.

It's really a bad study to cite as a parallel to the case in the OP. Then again, where else are you going to find a real test that says anything positive at all about faith-based healing?

It's anything and I want to present the best side I can for both parts of any argument.

 

[pelov]

What about this one?

Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.

And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.

Because it is the most scientifically rigorous investigation of whether prayer can heal illness, the study, begun almost a decade ago and involving more than 1,800 patients, has for years been the subject of speculation.

In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for &#8212; 59 percent &#8212; suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain. The authors left open the possibility that this was a chance finding. But they said that being aware of the strangers' prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all

I can't find the actual study but I remember reading it/about it when it first came out.

So if I ever go under the knife, I'm going to beat the living crap out of whoever says they're going to pray for me. Praying is a God damn death sentence!

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I did not "butcher" the truth. I simply did not represent the biasing narrative surrounding your perceptions of the world; not giving intellectual assent to how you may see the world at every turn does not mean I butchered the truth: only that I butchered your truth.
.

You're being a complete hack. Cutting out half of a quote to distort the truth so one side has barely half a leg to stand on is not avoiding bias. It's CREATING BIAS. When you need to do that to not even start to look good you probably shouldn't bother to begin with. It's being a complete and utter dipshit. You have no leg to stand on here and your attempts to do so have been laughable.

 

[Newbian]

As much as I disagree with the people that do this it does fall under their freedom of religion and if you force people to stop this then it will cause a lot of other freedoms they have to be looked at and easier to revoke.