Second faith-healing trial raises new questions

OREGON CITY, Ore. (RNS) When a mother and father go on trial this week in the faith-healing death of their son, the case will raise a new wrinkle in Oregon’s debate over religious freedom. At the heart of the case involving Jeff and Marci Beagley, who are charged in the death of their teenage son, […]

OREGON CITY, Ore. (RNS) When a mother and father go on trial this week in the faith-healing death of their son, the case will raise a new wrinkle in Oregon’s debate over religious freedom.

At the heart of the case involving Jeff and Marci Beagley, who are charged in the death of their teenage son, is a crucial question: Can a juvenile’s right to obtain medical treatment absolve parents of responsibility for providing health care?

The Beagleys are charged with criminally negligent homicide for failing to provide adequate medical care for their 16-year-old son, Neil, who died in June 2008 of an untreated urinary tract blockage.


It’s the second faith-healing death case involving the family. The 2008 death of the couple’s infant granddaughter, Ava Worthington, prompted last year’s high-profile trial of Ava’s parents, Raylene and Carl Brent Worthington. Raylene Worthington (the Beagleys’ daughter and Neil’s sister) was acquitted in that case. Her husband, Carl Worthington, was convicted of criminal mistreatment.

Both families belong to Oregon City’s Followers of Christ Church, which shuns medical care in favor of prayer, anointing with oil and laying on of hands.

Oregon law once allowed parents to avoid homicide charges if they relied solely on spiritual treatment when their child died. The law changed in 1999, mainly due to the church’s long history of children dying from untreated medical conditions.

Jury selection was scheduled to start Monday (Jan. 11), and the trial is expected to last three weeks or more.

The Beagley trial will cover some of the same ground as the Worthington case, such as the clash between a parental rights and child-protection laws. But Neil Beagley’s age presents a new challenge for prosecutors.

Under state law, children 15 and older are allowed to obtain medical treatment without parental permission. That fact raises compelling questions for jurors in the Beagley case.


How can teenage children make informed decisions if they’ve never been to a doctor, have no understanding of their condition and have been raised to reject medical treatment? Do children have the right to refuse medical care? How much responsibility do parents have for the health of teenage children?

At a hearing in December, the Beagleys’ attorneys said Neil knew he could go to a doctor at any time but decided to rely on the faith-healing practices endorsed by his family and his church.

The Beagleys’ attorney and the lead prosecutor both declined to comment for this story.

Mark Cogan, who represented Brent Worthington in last year’s trial but is not involved in the Beagley case, offered an analysis from the defense perspective.

“Oregon law gives him (Neil) the authority to have medical care or not,” Cogan said. “It’s not for the government to decide. Neil was old enough to make his own decision, and he very clearly made his own choice.”

Church members offer a circular argument that prosecutors must crack.

Since Followers rarely go to doctors, most have no medical records, which makes it hard to document the progression of an illness. Their lack of medical experience, they argue, also leaves them unaware of symptoms that may indicate a medical emergency.

(BEGIN FIRST OPTIONAL TRIM)

The Worthingtons, for example, said they thought their daughter had a bad cold rather than a life-threatening blood infection. The 15-month-old child also had a growth on her neck that would swell to softball-size lump, but it was never evaluated by a doctor.


(END FIRST OPTIONAL TRIM)

If the Beagleys contend Neil also showed no signs he was nearing death, prosecutors will be challenged to show otherwise.

An autopsy determined Neil had a routine bladder constriction that caused his kidneys to fail, triggering heart failure.

Dr. Cliff Nelson, Oregon deputy state medical examiner, said the condition may have been congenital and the teen had suffered repeated episodes of blockage and pain, probably throughout his life. The condition was treatable, Nelson said, but there was no apparent medical intervention.

Yet no one outside the tight Followers of Christ circle got close enough to assess Neil’s condition during the weeks before he died.

It will be left to the prosecution’s medical experts in pediatric urology and kidney disease to describe the symptoms a reasonable person would have noted as the boy’s condition deteriorated in his final months.

(SECOND OPTIONAL TRIM FOLLOWS)

The Beagleys also are expected to say they relied on statements from an Oregon Department of Human Services worker who met with the family more than two months before Neil died.


The state’s child welfare hotline received two calls about the Beagleys’ children in March 2008. Callers reported the boy’s 14-year-old sister, Kathryn Beagley, had serious health problems including a kidney infection, and that Neil had been ill with a possibly life-threatening condition.

Jeff Lewis, a DHS worker, met with the family twice and determined no intervention was necessary. Neil said he was getting over a cold and did not want to see a doctor, Lewis testified at a recent court hearing.

After talking to Lewis, the Beagleys said they believed they were providing adequate care for their son and not violating the law, the Beagley’s attorneys have said. They said it is unfair to penalize the couple for following the advice of a government employee.

(Steve Mayes writes for The Oregonian in Portland, Ore.)

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!