Christian parents attempt faith healing, daughter dies.

[Wilder]

some local news from home:

by Steve Duin, The Oregonian
Saturday July 04, 2009, 10:37 AM

For the life of me, and the life of Ava Worthington, I'm not sure when during Thursday's courtroom testimony I forgot about her parents, trapped in their medieval mindset, and remembered their little girl, who was born fat and happy and didn't die that way.
Maybe it was watching defense attorney John Neidig place the autopsy photos face down in the lectern or question the deputy state medical examiner about the child's "dissection."
Perhaps it was when Dr. Sayonara Mato, a pediatrician at Legacy Emanuel, testified that Ava -- "a big baby to start with" -- spent most of her life falling "off the chart for both weight and height." When the toddler died at 15 months, anointed with oil, she was no bigger than the average 6-month-old.
Or maybe it was when Neidig tried to argue the child died not from neglect but from one of those "virulent" strains of pneumonia so common in these United States, and Dr. Christopher Young responded, "She statistically would be more likely to die from homicide than pneumonia."
Because we are desperate to believe that the familial bonds are sacred and reasonably private, her parents, Raylene and Carl Brent Worthington, are only charged with criminal mistreatment and second-degree manslaughter. They sat quietly through Thursday's testimony, as did the usual ensemble from their church, the Followers of Christ in Oregon City.
In the 25th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, Christ tells his followers that if they are not serving the hungry, the lost, the prisoners and the sick, they are not serving him. They will be told, Jesus says, on Judgment Day, "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
The survivors in the Worthingtons' church apparently believe differently. They contend that trusting in doctors, hospitals and medicine betrays a lack of faith. The rows of graves in the church cemetery haven't changed their minds. Only the living, you see, have the luxury of pondering the mystery of God's random benevolence.
The prosecution is making a convincing case in this Oregon City courtroom that Ava Worthington wasn't felled by a sudden stab of pneumonia. She suffered for months. Because the swelling of the benign cystic hygroma on her neck compressed her airway and esophagus, she struggled to swallow, struggled to breathe, struggled to accept the nourishment she needed.
While Ava's head grew at a normal rate, Mato said, because the body was so desperate to protect her brain, the rest of her body steadily wasted away: "She stopped growing. That is not an overnight event. That takes months ... Her growth reflects there was a chronic problem."
Not a fatal one, however, for your average, God-fearing parent. Just a signal to go see a doctor, and gently place your child in the hands of someone who understands that bacteria and disease aren't tests of faith, but the inconveniences of life in a fallen world.
Unfortunately, the Worthingtons' faith and the Worthingtons' church shun those interventions. "I don't believe in (doctors)," Ava's father told detectives in Clackamas County's child-abuse unit. Medical treatment "is not a question. It's not even thought."
That is not love or faith or humility talking. That is pride.
In "The Prodigal God," Tim Keller revisits the parable of the son who returns home from a life of squalor and is met by the delight of his father and the bitterness of his older brother.
The son who is restored to the right relationship with the father, Keller reminds us, is the child who surrenders to the wiles of this world, not the uncompromising moralist who thinks he can win his reward and his ticket to eternal life by following a rigid set of rules that makes grace irrelevant.
The Worthingtons, and their supporters, are welcome to live by those rules, but their children -- too young to wave a weak hand of protest -- shouldn't have to die by them.

and,

by David Beard, guest opinion
Monday July 27, 2009, 10:38 AM

The greatest legal system in the world doesn't work when 12 jurors ignore the facts and the law and fail to hold defendants responsible for their actions.
The collection of 12 people who served as the jurors in the Worthington faith-healing case are a sad and misguided group who completely failed the citizens of Clackamas County and beyond. Juries are asked to evaluate the evidence and apply the law, no more, no less.
This jury failed miserably. Several of the jurors indicated that they empathized with the Worthingtons. But empathy is not in the job description, nor are the jurors charged with deciding if a defendant is a "good" person. That's irrelevant.
The jury foreperson, Ashlee Santos, revealed that she thought the word "manslaughter" isn't pretty. If she had any integrity she should have disqualified herself before the trial, instead she facilitated a huge miscarriage of justice. Personally, I'm not bothered by the word "manslaughter." What I don't think is "pretty" is a 15-month-old baby with a grapefruit-size cyst on her neck struggle to breathe through thick phlegm while dying a slow death.
The jury also believed that the Worthingtons were certain in their belief that Ava wasn't in trouble, which is also irrelevant. It's also a lie. The Worthingtons have no medical training. And if they didn't think their daughter was pretty sick, I doubt they would have turned their house into a 24-hour-a-day prayer vigil with a revolving door for other church members.
These jurors ensured that a few more children in Oregon City will have to die before some jury has the integrity to uphold the law and say "no" to the Followers of Christ church. The blood of Ava and that of the children in this church who die in the future is on the hands of Santos and her cohorts.
The Worthingtons' defense strategy is called "jury nullification." Their attorneys convinced 12 people to simply overlook the truth and applicable law and let the Worthingtons off. This same strategy worked for O.J. Simpson, who was let free only to commit another crime, escalating to guns the second time. It is unfortunate that these jurors can't be prosecuted for what is nothing less then obstruction of justice, and then made to pay restitution to Clackamas County for what was spent on a rightful and just prosecution.
The jurors failed to see the hypocrisy of the Worthingtons' inability to call a doctor to help Ava, while having no qualms about flying one in to testify on their behalf.
The Worthingtons' belief system is based on whatever will prevent them from being held responsible for their actions. Real believers don't hide behind their religion and twist it to their liking. They stand up for it and accept the consequences.
These jurors also pushed women's rights back 50 years, when they determined that only the husband was responsible for outcome and that Raylene couldn't possibly be expected to dial 911.
Ava didn't choose this religion, and we'll never know if she would have. But I'm confident that if you asked Ava whether she wanted to live or die, she would have chosen life. I'm not sure for whom this was a jury of peers. I pray that a more rational jury pool is available when Raylene's parents go on trial for the death of their child. And it scares me to know that these 12 jurors are actually allowed to walk around town without adult supervision. I guess they were the children who were "left behind."

God damn, this pissed me off. Some evidence, I hope, that politically correct nonsense about the sanctity of "belief" is not a monopoly of the left.

[s.rwitt]

Ridiculous.


I'm referring to the actions of the parents of course.

[bushbush]

in certain cases...the safety of children should override the need to protect some lunatics' beliefs. Just my view.

[Watchman]

Typical.

[Downey]

in certain cases...the safety of children should override the need to protect some lunatics' beliefs. Just my view.

agreed 150%

[Gertrudius]

While this was gross negligence on the part of the parents, I do have a huge problem with the idea of forcing medical treatment on someone. Where there is a clearly defined and treatable illness, especially when there is a child involved that can't make decisions for themselves, I can see the need for some kind of recourse, but with anything else I don't trust doctors to make the best call.

For instance, my baby brother suffers from Dietary Protein Enteropathy, a rare eosinophilic GI disorder. His initial doctor insisted that there was nothing medically wrong with him, and literally insulted my mothers intelligence when she said their was. This of course was when he spent almost the entire night screaming in agony due to the fact that he had ingested nutrients. Obviously my mother was pretty pissed and went on to look for a new physician. His next doctor while not such an ass, was no better and didn't take any of his symptoms into account. To cut a long story short, we sent him to Primary Childrens in Salt Lake city, where they conducted numerous tests and scopes where they found absolutely nothing. That notwithstanding, they recommended several invasive procedures that might help (even though they still had no idea what it was). So after my mom did some extensive research, she was able to determine that the leading physician in the field was located in Cincinnati, and they went there for several slews of appointments where he was finally diagnosed. My point being, that he saw dozens of doctors that didn't have anything useful to say, and even threatened to call social services. His condition means that he can only subsist on an elemental formula, which we didn't know at the time and he was losing tons of weight and was in a serious condition. The Doctors, if they had their way, would have had him taken, at which point they still would not have been able to diagnose or treat him.

I've had a similar problem with my own health, but luckily I'm an adult and can tell my doctor to go himself. The main point being, that the medical profession is ineptly prepared to handle many illnesses that are still being researched, and many are still misunderstood by the general medical establishment. This means that any implementation of a way to force treatment on someone would be one of the worst infringements on human rights possible in this day and age.

Take it easy,

[PrimeChaosVC]

While this was gross negligence on the part of the parents, I do have a huge problem with the idea of forcing medical treatment on someone. Where there is a clearly defined and treatable illness, especially when there is a child involved that can't make decisions for themselves, I can see the need for some kind of recourse, but with anything else I don't trust doctors to make the best call.

For instance, my baby brother suffers from Dietary Protein Enteropathy, a rare eosinophilic GI disorder. His initial doctor insisted that there was nothing medically wrong with him, and literally insulted my mothers intelligence when she said their was. This of course was when he spent almost the entire night screaming in agony due to the fact that he had ingested nutrients. Obviously my mother was pretty pissed and went on to look for a new physician. His next doctor while not such an ass, was no better and didn't take any of his symptoms into account. To cut a long story short, we sent him to Primary Childrens in Salt Lake city, where they conducted numerous tests and scopes where they found absolutely nothing. That notwithstanding, they recommended several invasive procedures that might help (even though they still had no idea what it was). So after my mom did some extensive research, she was able to determine that the leading physician in the field was located in Cincinnati, and they went there for several slews of appointments where he was finally diagnosed. My point being, that he saw dozens of doctors that didn't have anything useful to say, and even threatened to call social services. His condition means that he can only subsist on an elemental formula, which we didn't know at the time and he was losing tons of weight and was in a serious condition. The Doctors, if they had their way, would have had him taken, at which point they still would not have been able to diagnose or treat him.

I've had a similar problem with my own health, but luckily I'm an adult and can tell my doctor to go himself. The main point being, that the medical profession is ineptly prepared to handle many illnesses that are still being researched, and many are still misunderstood by the general medical establishment. This means that any implementation of a way to force treatment on someone would be one of the worst infringements on human rights possible in this day and age.

Take it easy,

True, point taken on force treatment.

But your brother situations is very different from this one, quite irrelevant to be honest.

[Gertrudius]

True, point taken on force treatment.

But your brother situations is very different from this one, quite irrelevant to be honest.

But it's clearly a logical leap to go from saying that the parents in this instance were criminally negligent, to assuming that there needs to be some kind of regulation in place to combat such stupidity. I simply am pointing out the inherent problems with adopting any such regulations, using a personal example, which while different from the OP, accentuates my point. Of course my point may not be particularly relevant to this specific discussion, but that has never stopped me before. Anyhow I'm surprised that social services didn't take the decision out of the hands of the parents.

Take it easy,

[ARCHIEIKE]

While this was gross negligence on the part of the parents, I do have a huge problem with the idea of forcing medical treatment on someone. Where there is a clearly defined and treatable illness, especially when there is a child involved that can't make decisions for themselves, I can see the need for some kind of recourse, but with anything else I don't trust doctors to make the best call.

For instance, my baby brother suffers from Dietary Protein Enteropathy, a rare eosinophilic GI disorder. His initial doctor insisted that there was nothing medically wrong with him, and literally insulted my mothers intelligence when she said their was. This of course was when he spent almost the entire night screaming in agony due to the fact that he had ingested nutrients. Obviously my mother was pretty pissed and went on to look for a new physician. His next doctor while not such an ass, was no better and didn't take any of his symptoms into account. To cut a long story short, we sent him to Primary Childrens in Salt Lake city, where they conducted numerous tests and scopes where they found absolutely nothing. That notwithstanding, they recommended several invasive procedures that might help (even though they still had no idea what it was). So after my mom did some extensive research, she was able to determine that the leading physician in the field was located in Cincinnati, and they went there for several slews of appointments where he was finally diagnosed. My point being, that he saw dozens of doctors that didn't have anything useful to say, and even threatened to call social services. His condition means that he can only subsist on an elemental formula, which we didn't know at the time and he was losing tons of weight and was in a serious condition. The Doctors, if they had their way, would have had him taken, at which point they still would not have been able to diagnose or treat him.

I've had a similar problem with my own health, but luckily I'm an adult and can tell my doctor to go himself. The main point being, that the medical profession is ineptly prepared to handle many illnesses that are still being researched, and many are still misunderstood by the general medical establishment. This means that any implementation of a way to force treatment on someone would be one of the worst infringements on human rights possible in this day and age.

Take it easy,

I see your point on force treatment, but when it is clear what the problem is and that the parents are just refusing to do anything then maybe it should be acceptable, IF the doctors know that what they are doing is the right thing.

Clearly, in this case, giving the child medical treatment is better than letting her die a slow and painful death at home while her, in my opinion, idiotic parents look on safe in the knowledge that God will save her

I'm an agnostic so i'm trying to take a neutral stance but when a baby is neglected and refused medical treatment and left to die, you know something is wrong.

[Gertrudius]

I see your point on force treatment, but when it is clear what the problem is and that the parents are just refusing to do anything then maybe it should be acceptable, IF the doctors know that what they are doing is the right thing.

Clearly, in this case, giving the child medical treatment is better than letting her die a slow and painful death at home while her, in my opinion, idiotic parents look on safe in the knowledge that God will save her

I'm an agnostic so i'm trying to take a neutral stance but when a baby is neglected and refused medical treatment and left to die, you know something is wrong.

I agree with you. I just don't see an efficient means of putting the decision in the hands of the doctor that could not be seriously abused. If It's a clear cut case, the doctor could call social services. While this is not ideal, it divorces direct control from the medical establishment and installs a neutral third party. I just don't understand why the child's doctor didn't do this in the first place considering the utter failure of the parents.

Take it easy,

[MaximiIian]

This is what happens when one relies solely on faith to heal. It is foolish to replace modern medicine with faith healing or alternative medicine.
I don't care if people do those things alongside Western medical tradition. Just don't wholesale replace modern medicine with alternative practices.
It's not healthy.

[Admiral Piett]

This is what happens when one relies solely on faith to heal. It is foolish to replace modern medicine with faith healing or alternative medicine.
I don't care if people do those things alongside Western medical tradition. Just don't wholesale replace modern medicine with alternative practices.
It's not healthy.

The difference between faith healing and Eastern style medicine is that much of Eastern style healing has been scientifically proven to work. Just not when it comes to surgery, etc.

[saglam2000]

Everytime i hear one of these stories i just want to give the parents a good smack in the face.....this is quite unacceptable in our society and it still goes on....THANK YOU GOD!

[Ulyaoth]

Meh. Their kid their right to not see a doctor.

[bushbush]

Meh. Their kid their right to not see a doctor.

just BS. By your logic, their kids their right to beat them. their kids, their right to murder them? Because this is close to murder, probably manslaughter at least.

[Daneboy]

just BS. By your logic, their kids their right to beat them. their kids, their right to murder them? Because this is close to murder, probably manslaughter at least.

I wholeheartedly agree. Ridicoulus logic.

Their A-bomb, their right to use it.

[Wilder]

Meh. Their kid their right to not see a doctor.

So you support abortion then?

Seriously though, no it isn't. If a parent is negligent or abusive, it is well within the rights of the state to take him or her away, the thing is the state does not usually look too hard at white upper middle class people.

I don't know if everyone has gotten all the way through the articles, but they were acquitted, because they "seemed sincere in their faith" thus my comment on politically correct nonsense.

[Watchman]

Ie. the US justice system is full of AIDS and fail.
Typical.

[Каие]

Meh. Their kid their right to not see a doctor.

Children are the property of their parents?

[ShADoW]

Atleast try the Native methods.