CBS: Jeff and Marci Beagley Gave Sick Son Prayer Instead of Medicine, Jury Gives Them Guilty Verdict

[isle-hawg]

I'm kind of torn on this but tend to side with Kilmer and TWA. I understand from reading through the posts that OR passed a law that they broke. I just don't know that I agree with this law being constitutional? Back when the constitution was written if this law was in effect perhaps the kid would of been forced to have his blood lettted?

The parents are nuts and grossly negligent but does locking them up (at our expense) really accomplish anything good?

[twa]

There are limits to which our freedoms extend. Freedom of religion does not excuse acts that endanger children.

Operating in absolutes in regards to our freedoms is as flawed as zero tolerancy policies.

Of course there are limits,but where they are is another matter.

Do society's obligations trump parental rights or individual rights?..most certainly.

Where is the line at limiting risks?

I have no problem with removing a child from someones custody because of legitimate concern for their safety,but criminalizing parents not making the 'correct' choice is too far.

Isn't this second guessing the umpire and criminalizing a bad call?

http://www.oregoncitynewsonline.com/news/story_2nd.php?story_id=126471678830074000

“You’re the mother, Mrs. Beagley.”

“I know that."

“It’s your call.”

Still, Mraci Beagley said she didn’t think Neil's condition was that bad.

“I didn’t believe he was going to die,” she said.

“I know you didn’t believe that, but there was a risk and the thought crossed your mind, didn’t it?” Mygrant asked.

We allow minors in abortion matters to overrule parental judgment,yet in this instance the 16 yr old and the parent were in agreement from all appearances.

Do they not have the right to be wrong in determining their own life and care as long as it harms no one else?

Is Choice a crime against society?:evilg:

added

Dean...the question there was the risk extreme in their judgment.

You cannot both allow personal judgment and criminalize it.

Are we gonna mandate dr checkups or certain treatments?

[DeanCollins]

Of course there are limits,but where they are is another matter.

Do society's obligations trump parental rights or individual rights?..most certainly.

Where is the line at limiting risks?

I have no problem with removing a child from someones custody because of legitimate concern for their safety,but criminalizing parents not making the 'correct' choice is too far.

Isn't this second guessing the umpire and criminalizing a bad call?

http://www.oregoncitynewsonline.com/news/story_2nd.php?story_id=126471678830074000

“You’re the mother, Mrs. Beagley.”

“I know that."

“It’s your call.”

Still, Mraci Beagley said she didn’t think Neil's condition was that bad.

“I didn’t believe he was going to die,” she said.

“I know you didn’t believe that, but there was a risk and the thought crossed your mind, didn’t it?” Mygrant asked.

We allow minors in abortion matters to overrule parental judgment,yet in this instance the 16 yr old and the parent were in agreement from all appearances.

Do they not have the right to be wrong in determining their own life and care as long as it harms no one else?

Is Choice a crime against society?:evilg:

added

Dean...the question there was the risk extreme in their judgment.

You cannot both allow personal judgment and criminalize it.

Are we gonna mandate dr checkups or certain treatments?

So if I decide to drive my car down the street, knowing that my brakes are not working, and I kill your daughter because I couldn't stop at the crosswalk, then the courts shouldn't prosecute me criminally? After all, in my "personal judgment", I thought that I could drive using the emergency brake just up to the store and back for a 6 pack and some smokes.

Many of the Laws concerning judgement contain "a prudent man would do (or not do) this..." Of course if you make an incorrect judgment, you're going to be held accountable for it. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, stupidity isn't either. So your philosophy on this must be "I think therefore I am...not guilty"

[AdamB]

I am torn on the situation -

I am an ex-Witness. My ex-wife is a Witness, as are our two children. I have no problems with this since my issues came about with Christianity in general, not the specific organization. I say this so you know my background.

Witness do not shun medical treatment, only one element of treatment (blood transfusions and some closely related treatments). My kids receive their vaccinations, and get a yearly flu shot. They get anti-biotics when needed, my ex takes her diabetes medication, and so forth. There are in fact only a few situations in which the "no blood" belief comes into play - doctors in western Europe and here in the US have been doing bloodless surgeries (including transplants), trauma care, etc. for years.

However, there are still doctors who claim that blood transfusions are required for many many situations. For example:

Ever since our son was born, my ex has had minor bleeding issues (it was a trouble pregnancy, and ended with an early c-section). On December 29th, she began hemorraging in the middle of the night. She got our daughter up so she could watch our son (15 and 12 years old), called 911, and got to the hospital (Memorial Medical in Las Cruces, which I hate with a passion for many reasons, but that is beside the point).

The doctors insisted she had to have a transfusion or she would die. She said no, and they stuck her in a room and pretty much ignored her for 3 hours. During this time, her family got ahold of the medical liason in their congregation, who in turn got in contact with one of the doctors in Cruces that has experience with treating Witnesses in trauma/life-threatening situations. He got in there, got her into a room, and started medical treatments that did not include blood transfusions despite protests from the staff doctors - medication + blood expanders + massive doses of iron which is what they use with Witnesses who need emergency surgeries, etc. She walked out a week later (she contracted pnumonia while in there) despite being told she would be dead within hours without a transfusion.

My point being that with Witnesses will aggressively pursue medical treatment, just not all treatment, and that there are medical alternatives to those treatments they refuse, and that doctors do not always know best, which is diffferent than the story being discussed. And yes, part of me fully agrees with what most are saying in regards to their behavior.

However, I also agree with TWA and others have said about where will the line be drawn.

If a Witness family are in a car accident, and a child is injured, will a judge be able to demand a blood transfusion despite other treatments being available simply because an ER doc says it has to be done? What if the tranfusion only increases the chance of survival from like 10% to 15%? Is there an age cutoff? My daughter could probably hold her own in a religious discussion with some of the adults on this board like Zguy (not a pick against him at all, more of just commenting on how smart, and religious, my daughter is), yet since she is only 15 is it right for a judge to make that decesion? How about a 17 year old? Does the ramifications mentally to the patient get taken into consideration?

So, again, I am just really torn on the issue. I actually sorta mostly agree with the judge in this particular case, but what does that mean for future cases and where will the line be drawn?

[Riggins77]

Horrible ruling. Does the state now have the right to insist that Jehovas Witnesses violate their beliefs as well?

Can they mandate that the Amish use electricity in the winter to avoid harming kids in the cold?

This ruling is madness.

No it's not, the parents are idiots for thinking they did everything to save their child. Religion is one thing, neglect is another.

[Riggins77]

I dont disagree, but there was ALREADY a system in place to ensure this occurred. THe parents acted within that system, they shouldnt now be punished.

If anything, the State was negligent for not stepping in before the kid died.

Maybe the state didn't know the boys condition.

[twa]

So if I decide to drive my car down the street, knowing that my brakes are not working, and I kill your daughter because I couldn't stop at the crosswalk, then the courts shouldn't prosecute me criminally? After all, in my "personal judgment", I thought that I could drive using the emergency brake just up to the store and back for a 6 pack and some smokes.

Many of the Laws concerning judgement contain "a prudent man would do (or not do) this..." Of course if you make an incorrect judgment, you're going to be held accountable for it. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, stupidity isn't either. So your philosophy on this must be "I think therefore I am...not guilty"

Bad example DC,

1 they did not KNOW he was terminal

2 it was not their action that CAUSED the death

This is more about allowable/acceptable risk,such as allowing people to drive or even walk down the street.

Curious what examples you can give that criminalize judgment (in and of itself) rather than assign liability for action?

Death and disease stalk us all

added

a example

The roads are icy ,you and your family go to the store and are struck by a sliding vehicle killing your child.

Are you criminally liable for putting the child at risk?..You after all put the child at risk.

[Hunter44]

Bad example DC,

1 they did not KNOW he was terminal

2 it was not their action that CAUSED the death

1 That's not accurate, they were told the risks, the doctors also said he could've been saved up to the day that he died.

2 They decided to pray, that's an action, that action CAUSED the death of their son.

[twa]

1 That's not accurate, they were told the risks, the doctors also said he could've been saved up to the day that he died.

2 They decided to pray, that's an action, that action CAUSED the death of their son.

It is accurate according to the prosecutor :saber:

Being aware that you face increased risk of death is not the same as killing as my example shows...though the result is the same.

There was no Dr there at the time and the boy had been ill before w/o dying obviously.

Praying is irrelevant unless you wish to assign guilt to God,just as cooking supper or going to bed is irrelevant to CAUSE of death....it is simply a part of their life.

Their actions did not cause death no matter how foolish they were

Why do ya'll object to nature thinning the herd?

We are certainly free to try to stop it,but requiring we do by criminal charges is going too far.

[Hunter44]

Why do ya'll object to nature thinning the herd?

We are certainly free to try to stop it,but requiring we do by criminal charges is going too far.

Great point, one less kid who'll grow up to be an idiot and two more idiots off the street who won't be breeding anymore. :evilg:

[DeanCollins]

Great point, one less kid who'll grow up to be an idiot and two more idiots off the street who won't be breeding anymore. :evilg:

thankyou, two less breeding bible thumping religious rightwingnuts and the future gene pool is spared . :evilg:

[twa]

thankyou, two less breeding bible thumping religious rightwingnuts and the future gene pool is spared . :evilg:

Since their lifestyle is healthier we obviously need some way of controlling overpopulation.

After all if they refuse to kill their own or participate in recreational toxins,while promoting childbearing, we will soon be overrun.

Ya'll really want to criminalize allowing them to die?

:fortune::shhh:

DADT :slap: