can we be held liable?

[nodak]

Can this forum, or any other, be held legally liable if someone were to stop taking their med for whatever condition due to advice allowed on here, and die?

I'm think of the mental illness threads in particular as sudden cessation of some of those meds can trigger homocide and suicide. But it would also apply if someone decided to just pray and trust God and stopped a heart med, or insulin, etc.

Can someone clue us in on legal ramifications?

 

[freeatlast]

[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]That sounds like just another excuse for someone already covering their sin to justify their possible future actions and be rewarded. What you are suggesting is should a Christian remain silent on issues that they hold as truth because of possible litigation.
I think this kind of scare tactics is another reason the church is in so much trouble. Men and women have lost their lives to speak the truth and you are concerned about litigation because someone else might choose to take their own life instead of face reality. This is how satan works. He seeks to strike fear in the lives of believers by suggesting mock up scenarios so as to silence the truth and then uses them to promote his agenda even further.
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[Fred's Wife]

[SIZE=+0]
[SIZE=+0]That sounds like just another excuse for someone already covering their sin to justify their possible future actions and be rewarded. What you are suggesting is should a Christian remain silent on issues that they hold as truth because of possible litigation.
I think this kind of scare tactics is why another reason the church is in so much trouble. Men and women have lost their lives to speak the truth and you are concerned about litigation because someone else might choose to take their life instead of face reality. This is how satan works. He seeks to strike fear in the believers lives by suggesting mock up scenarios so as to silence the truth and even uses them to promote his agenda.
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Amen! :thumbs:

Nobody on this forum has been told to stop taking their medications. The only advice given has been to seek God.

No physiological test for mental illness

The fundamental problem is that although we know a lot about the biomedical etiology of neurological disorders, we still fathom embarrassingly little about the biology of the major mental illnesses. And even the burgeoning understanding of genetic and metabolic risk factors has not translated into clinically useful tests or cures. Modern technology has not produced a single blood test or brain scan that can be routinely used to diagnose depression, bipolar disease, schizophrenia or other common mental illnesses.

American Scientist Vol. 90. p. 569

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/no-physiological-test-mental-illness

The entire article is found here

 

[freeatlast]

Amen! :thumbs:

Nobody on this forum has been told to stop taking their medications. The only advice given has been to seek God.
The entire article is found here

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Jerome]

There was a lawsuit against John MacArthur/Grace Community Church for a man who blew his brains out while being 'nouethicly counseled'.

I believe it's known as the Nally case.

The megachurch pastor's team of lawyers successfully argued 'religious liberty' and MacArthur got off scot-free.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Amen! :thumbs:

Nobody on this forum has been told to stop taking their medications. The only advice given has been to seek God.



The entire article is found here

I can write an article stateing anything I want to.....but that doesn't make my statements true.

John

 

[freeatlast]

There was a lawsuit against John MacArthur/Grace Community Church for a man who blew his brains out while being 'nouethicly counseled'.

I believe it's known as the Nally case.

The megachurch pastor's team of lawyers successfully argued 'religious liberty' and MacArthur got off scot-free.

"MacArthur got off scot-free" What a bigoted post! There was no crime! By the way this happened over 30 years ago. I think you might be working for the wrong camp my friend. Thre truth is that the court did not rule on religious liberty. They simply threw the case out with no discussion showing the case had no merits.
You are such a slanderer and need to repent.
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5010847962

 

[freeatlast]

I can write an article stateing anything I want to.....but that doesn't make my statements true.

John

We know, You already do that. :laugh:

 

[agedman]

There was a lawsuit against John MacArthur/Grace Community Church for a man who blew his brains out while being 'nouethicly counseled'.

I believe it's known as the Nally case.

The megachurch pastor's team of lawyers successfully argued 'religious liberty' and MacArthur got off scot-free.

Jerome,

You seem to be taking liberties with the facts.


Here is a brief history of the case using Weitz's book.
CLERGY MALPRACTICE IN AMERICA: NALLY V. GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH OF THE VALLEY by Mark A. Weitz. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2001. 232 pp. Cloth $25.00. ISBN: 0-7006-1125-8. Paper $12.95. ISBN: 0-7006-1126-6.

Weitz's account carefully follows the case through the California judicial system. After the original trial court judge dismissed the case for lack of sufficient evidence, the Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the case to go to trial. In Superior Court, after the conclusion of the plaintiffs' arguments, the judge granted the Church's motion for nonsuit. Again the Court of Appeal reversed. This time, the Church appealed to the California Supreme Court, where former U. S. Solicitor General Rex Lee argued on its behalf. The state high court dismissed the case, ruling that the Church and its pastoral counselors had established no "special relationship" with Ken Nally and thus had no "legal duty" that would render it responsible for his death (p. 169). Briefly, Weitz notes that the Nallys unsuccessfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.​

See the full discussion here: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/weitzcma.htm

 

[seekingthetruth]

Can this forum, or any other, be held legally liable if someone were to stop taking their med for whatever condition due to advice allowed on here, and die?

I'm think of the mental illness threads in particular as sudden cessation of some of those meds can trigger homocide and suicide. But it would also apply if someone decided to just pray and trust God and stopped a heart med, or insulin, etc.

Can someone clue us in on legal ramifications?

Legally liable? Probably not.

But the spiritual liability may have worse consequences than a court could ever impose.

John

 

[Jerome]

Agedman, what specific facts are you taking issue with?

 

[agedman]

The megachurch pastor's team of lawyers successfully argued 'religious liberty' and MacArthur got off scot-free.

Jerome,

You seem to be taking liberties with the facts.


Here is a brief history of the case using Weitz's book.
CLERGY MALPRACTICE IN AMERICA: NALLY V. GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH OF THE VALLEY by Mark A. Weitz. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2001. 232 pp. Cloth $25.00. ISBN: 0-7006-1125-8. Paper $12.95. ISBN: 0-7006-1126-6.

Weitz's account carefully follows the case through the California judicial system. After the original trial court judge dismissed the case for lack of sufficient evidence, the Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the case to go to trial. In Superior Court, after the conclusion of the plaintiffs' arguments, the judge granted the Church's motion for nonsuit. Again the Court of Appeal reversed. This time, the Church appealed to the California Supreme Court, where former U. S. Solicitor General Rex Lee argued on its behalf. The state high court dismissed the case, ruling that the Church and its pastoral counselors had established no "special relationship" with Ken Nally and thus had no "legal duty" that would render it responsible for his death (p. 169). Briefly, Weitz notes that the Nallys unsuccessfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.​

See the full discussion here: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/weitzcma.htm

Seems the facts of the case as you stated them - it was not a matter of "religious liberty" but a matter of "no special relationship" such as would hold a professional to a client.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Can this forum, or any other, be held legally liable if someone were to stop taking their med for whatever condition due to advice allowed on here, and die?

I'm think of the mental illness threads in particular as sudden cessation of some of those meds can trigger homocide and suicide. But it would also apply if someone decided to just pray and trust God and stopped a heart med, or insulin, etc.

Can someone clue us in on legal ramifications?

Your question should rather be about what the Biblical ramifications of "going to law against one another" should be.....Not whether or not some un-godly judge will find in favour one way or the other.

 

[Jerome]

it was not a matter of "religious liberty"

Huh?

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth—John MacArthur recalls the suicide/counseling fiasco and lawsuit:

Grace to You-tube [@ 5:00]

"And so they, put a lawsuit on us, um, and took us to court, uh, in what really was, a first in America. There was no prior case of clergy malpractice, That’s what the case was. Started in 1980. And this was an amazing case because, I knew immediately when they threatened us, this was First Amendment, because the First Amendment gives you the right to practice your religion. That’s what we were doing, we were not licensed counselors, we were just practicing our religion by a Constitutional definition."

 

[freeatlast]

Huh?

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth—John MacArthur recalls the suicide/counseling fiasco and lawsuit:

Grace to You-tube [@ 5:00]

"And so they, put a lawsuit on us, um, and took us to court, uh, in what really was, a first in America. There was no prior case of clergy malpractice, That’s what the case was. Started in 1980. And this was an amazing case because, I knew immediately when they threatened us, this was First Amendment, because the First Amendment gives you the right to practice your religion. That’s what we were doing, we were not licensed counselors, we were just practicing our religion by a Constitutional definition."

Read the courts answer to this case. While it was going to be defended on religious freedoms the court would not even consider the case as it had no merits and they threw it out with no comment. Your veiled accusation about MacArthur was despicable.

 

[righteousdude2]

For Any Person Advising Another to Quit their Rx...

...is locked int the same mind set as those in the Word-of-Faith movement. The name-it-claim-it folks are well-known for telling people to stop taking medication and "just have faith!"

God gave us doctors, pharmacists, and medication manufacturers for a reason. And to shame another for needing medications, for whatever reason, is tantamount to sin.

As for liability, I don't know, but I do know that as a pastor I'd never tell anyone coming to me for prayer and advice to cease taking any medications for whatever reason.

Christians need to adopt the medical code of "Do no harm" when it comes to giving advice.

The reason I wrote "Thorn Daze" was to encourage Christians to stay the course, even though they have a thorn [medical issue, emotional problem, etc.], because like Paul, God will give them the strength to overcome and move forward even though the thorn isn't removed.

I have several chronic medical needs, and I am not embarrassed nor am I weak because I take medicine to cope. I would think that Christians would come out of the dark ages, and accept the strides that medical sciences have laid at our feet. :applause:

 

[agedman]

Christians need to adopt the medical code of "Do no harm" when it comes to giving advice.

The reason I wrote "Thorn Daze" was to encourage Christians to stay the course, even though they have a thorn [medical issue, emotional problem, etc.], because like Paul, god will give them the strength to overcome and move forward even though the thorn isn't removed.

I have several chronic medical needs, and I am not embarrassed nor am I weak because I take medicine to cope. I would think that Christians would come out of the dark ages, and accept the strides that medical sciences have laid at our feet. :applause:

I couldn't agree more with your post!

Thank you!

 

[preachinjesus]

I'm not sure if any of us are lawyers so anything said here is ad hoc speculation.

As for the OP, if anyone takes advice from anybody on this forum seriously they need to get their heads checked.