In the latest round of the debate over Scientology as a religion, or a cult (whatever term you prefer for these special people) they have agreed to
pay for the wrongful death of Lisa McPherson. McPherson was involved in a traffic accident, and then requested psychiatric intervention. The woman
took off all her cloaths in the middle of the street and asked to talk to someone.
Scientologists showed up at the hospital and convinced McPherson to sign herself out AMA. This is where the real stupidity started, as she should have
been committed for observation for at least the 72 hours allowd without a hearing to prevent this cult influence. She obviously was a danger to
herself and others, as she had been involved in a traffic accident.
Now the real fun starts, Scientolgists took the woman to one of their compounds where she was treated with Chloral Hydrate and Mg+ injections. Real
top notch care we have going on here, by a doctor who wasn't allowed to practice in FL anyway. Long story short, the woman stopped eating and died.
The family sued, and Sceintology finally settled the suit for a undisclosed amount.
www.sptimes.com...
When a religion opposes medical treatment, espically if they take an active role in care, such as here, are they liable for the outcome if they do not
use all available resources to help the patient? When a religion opposes psychiatric treatment, should we assume that it is a cult conspiring to
further mind control over their membership? Do they assume liability because they took an active role, because they opposed psychiatric treatment, or
they advised against an accepted medical treatment?
If they assume liability because of opposing a medical treatment, what about Christian Scientists or Johovah's Witnesses?
And in a very specific sense, was this an attemt by Scientology to assert cult like control over a member and prevent someone from leaving the church?
What's up with these guys?