Snake-Handling Preacher in West Virginia Dies from Rattlesnake Bite

[Robert]

This man had recovered from several bites previously, so was he trying to prove his faith to himself, or to others? Anyway, he proved one thing : just because you've read the scriptures, doesn't mean that the snake has.

[Archaic]

QuoteOriginally Posted by Archaic ) I talked about this case today with my friend who's a cop, and she thought the reporter should have called 911 anyway. My friend said if the victim still didn't want medical help once the ambulance arrived, he would then have the right to refuse it. But at least help would be there to give him that option. I agree with my friend; that's what I would have done. My own conscience would have demanded that I at least try to save the injured person.

(Quote Ally): Isn't that basically saying "you know better" and "my opinion is worth more than yours"? I mean, if a "rational person" (I put that in quotes because let's face it, no deeply religious person is rational) decides they want to die for their faith, who are you to tell them no? Unless of course we want to just go ahead and admit that the religious are insane and therefore do not have the right to make decisions for themselves.

(Quote Archaic):They belong to a small close-knit group, and even if one of them has internal doubts and wants to call an ambulance, are they going to dare to "question their faith" out loud in front of their peers, who are also their friends, family & neighbors? In a situation like that, it's not surprising that no one would want to go first. I'm sure there were onlookers who desperately wanted to call 911 but feared it would make them look like traitors or unbelievers to the others, so they held back. As a result, the man died.

(Quote Ally):No the man died because he was a moron. I do not believe that we are obligated to save others from their own stupidity, nor do I believe we are obligated to force people to live if they have chosen to die.

Your life is the one thing you should have absolute say in how it goes and if you want to kill yourself for something stupid, that's absolutely your right.

If someone wants to die because they believe "that's gods plan" well alright then. Let them die happy. Who are we to decide they are wrong? It is their life to do with or not do with as they choose.
-------------------------

Hi Ally.

No, I'm not saying that "I know better" than the injured person. But my own conscience, moral beliefs, and responsibility as a citizen would require to me to at least try to help the victim. Under the laws of the United States every adult is deemed competent to decide to whether or not to seek medical treatment. (The exceptions are of course those who have been deemed not competent by reason of illness, disability, etc., but we are talking about competent adults.) As a citizen, I have both a right and a responsibility to call 911 when I witness a terrible injury or accident. Once they arrive, the victim has the right to refuse treatment if he so wishes, and his choice must be respected.

I don't agree with the attitude, "He's a moron, so let him die". I care about the welfare of my fellow human beings. I certainly don't want the man to suffer and die and grieve his loved ones just because I don't agree with his particular religious beliefs. However, if medical aid is there and he chooses to refuse it, that's his right. I will have done what I believe is right, and he is free to do what he believes is right.

But my original point was that in a case like this, where members of a small close-knit sect are watching another member slowly die from a snake-bite, and all their beliefs seem to be on the line, I can see how no one would want to be the one to go first when it came to calling for medical assistance.

However, if an 'outsider' called an ambulance, it would let all the sect members "off the hook" so to speak, and I suspect that as the case looked so dire they would have actually accepted aid. Please note that they did seek medical help later, but by then it was too late. If someone had called an ambulance earlier his life could have been saved.
(Who knows, maybe be saved via medical aid would have led him to question the whole 'snake-handling' thing, and he'd have given it up, influencing others to give it up. I would see that as a very good thing.)

Even if I don't agree with his religious beliefs, his life still has value, he has friends and family who love him. I would never say "I don't agree with his religious beliefs, therefore he's a moron and deserves to die."

I come from a long line of firefighters, people who repeatedly risked their lives to help save strangers. Firefighters don't ask for a run-down of your religious beliefs, politics, or the content of your bank account before going into a burning building to help you, or before offering medical aid at the scene of an accident.

And face it, many accidents are the result of "stupidity" as you call it- speeding, tailgating, passing recklessly, driving under the influence, etc. Should firemen and paramedics not try to save the victim because the victims own actions and "stupidity" caused the accident? -Imagine the death toll if that was their attitude! We probably all have friends and family who would be dead now if that were the policy.

As for tji's remark about the ambulance waiting around, no, they wouldn't. If they were needed elsewhere they would leave. Every emergency service has policies which they follow in such cases. They would just ask for a signature at the scene as legal proof that aid was offered and refused. The precinct commanders would decide whether to have the aid unit wait for a given amount of time at the scene or return to the station, and the decision would be based upon the precinct's emergency services resources and the needs of the community.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Ally]

No, I'm not saying that "I know better" than the injured person.

I don't agree with the attitude, "He's a moron, so let him die". I care about the welfare of my fellow human beings. I certainly don't want the man to suffer and die and grieve his loved ones just because I don't agree with his particular religious beliefs.

But you are in fact saying you know better. He made his wishes plain, do not call the ambulance. He knows medical help is available if he wants it, he refused it. by calling the ambulance, you are saying that you do know better than him. He expressly said don't. As I pointed out in another thread, what happens if he's unconscious when the ambulance arrives and can't refuse treatment. Just because YOU don't want his loved ones to suffer doesn't mean you get to make that call.

However, if medical aid is there and he chooses to refuse it, that's his right. I will have done what I believe is right, and he is free to do what he believes is right.

Ah I see. It's his right to refuse it, once you've gone against his express wishes and summoned them?It's not his right to refuse it outright, but it's his right to refuse it, after you've called and wasted resources and of course, again, hopefully he's still conscious enough to send them away.

But my original point was that in a case like this, where members of a small close-knit sect are watching another member slowly die from a snake-bite, and all their beliefs seem to be on the line, I can see how no one would want to be the one to go first when it came to calling for medical assistance.
However, if an 'outsider' called an ambulance, it would let all the sect members "off the hook" so to speak, and I suspect that as the case looked so dire they would have actually accepted aid

And that is their choice. And by saying that they don't REALLY believe, they just don't want to break ranks, you are again making the judgment that your choices are superior to theirs, and the only thing preventing them from calling is fear, not real faith. So you are not only claiming to know better, but you are basically saying they don't believe what they profess to believe.

Please note that they did seek medical help later, but by then it was too late. If someone had called an ambulance earlier his life could have been saved.

And here of course is the inherent contradiction. First you state maybe the only thing preventing them from calling was fear of breaking ranks, and yet clearly that's not the case. They did call for the ambulance so your point is invalid. The fact that by the time they called it was too late is largely irrelevant. The man made his decision and he died by it. Which is his right.

(Who knows, maybe be saved via medical aid would have led him to question the whole 'snake-handling' thing, and he'd have given it up, influencing others to give it up. I would see that as a very good thing.)

Or maybe it would have caused him to question the entire validity of his life and his entire faith, led to a complete crisis of conscious and faith and he would have shot himself over the sudden realization that he'd wasted his life.

Even if I don't agree with his religious beliefs, his life still has value, he has friends and family who love him. I would never say "I don't agree with his religious beliefs, therefore he's a moron and deserves to die."

there's a difference between deserving to die and having the right to die. You seem to believe that because you don't agree with his relgious beliefs, he must be forced to live so that your own beliefs are validated. Which means once again, you are substituting what YOU believe is right over everyone else's right to live as they choose.

And face it, many accidents are the result of "stupidity" as you call it- speeding, tailgating, passing recklessly, driving under the influence, etc. Should firemen and paramedics not try to save the victim because the victims own actions and "stupidity" caused the accident? -Imagine the death toll if that was their attitude! We probably all have friends and family who would be dead now if that were the policy.

There's a difference between inattentive stupidity and making a deliberately stupid choice. If I forget to look left when stepping out into traffic, that was an instant of stupidity which everyone does at one point or another. If I decide to deliberately jump in front of cars to see how many I can dodge, I deserve to die for being a total dumbass. However, as for people who drive drunk, yes I firmly believe they should be left to die in agony if their deliberate stupidity causes a wreck. Speeding is not stupid, speed limits are arbitrary and completely made up, therefore speeding alone is not "unsafe". Driving drunk always is.

[Errata]

You have a moral obligation to save the life of someone who doesn't want to be saved? So if your neighbor was suffering from some dread disease and you walked in after they'd taken poison or something, and they told you to leave and let them die, your moral obligation to save their life outweighs their right to live and die as they choose?

No it doesn't outweigh their right to die as they see fit. In fact the decision doesn't even account for what they want in the slightest. It accounts for what I want, which is to not see someone die. If I watched someone die and did nothing to help them whether they wanted it or not, I would feel bad. Possibly even suicidally bad. I have as much a right to avoid feeling bad as some guy has to die of a self inflicted rattler bite. His needs don't outweigh mine. Conversely if I try to off myself and someone tries to stop me, their right to not feel bad doesn't outweigh my right to die. No one's emotional needs outweigh anyone elses. They are all equally valid, or sometimes equally invalid.

I'm saying we don't make these decisions based on what others want, deserve, or even have a right to. We base them on what we want. It's self soothing behavior. If it was about the dying guy, we would feel fine about not calling for help. But it isn't. It's about us. If it were truly altruistic behavior, of course it would be about what others want or need. But there's no such thing. Even people who choose to die for others don't do it out of altruism. They do it out of a psychological need to be a hero.

In other words, it isn't about right and wrong, it's about what makes us feel better. And frankly, if you want to win a battle of competing moral imperatives, you should probably stay conscious.

[Ally]

No it doesn't outweigh their right to die as they see fit. In fact the decision doesn't even account for what they want in the slightest. It accounts for what I want, which is to not see someone die. If I watched someone die and did nothing to help them whether they wanted it or not, I would feel bad. Possibly even suicidally bad. I have as much a right to avoid feeling bad as some guy has to die of a self inflicted rattler bite. His needs don't outweigh mine.

Ah I see. So your desire "not to feel bad" outweighs another person's right to do what they want to do with their own life. Someone else is required to go on living in agony, so you don't have to feel bad. That's a very interesting philosophy when you put your wanting to feel "good" over the rights of others. You do realize you can simply leave the room, if you don't want to watch someone die, right? You aren't required to stay there and be a witness.

In other words, it isn't about right and wrong, it's about what makes us feel better. And frankly, if you want to win a battle of competing moral imperatives, you should probably stay conscious.

Interesting philosophy. Really. I personally would never presume to think that my wants outweighs another person's right to do what they wish with their own life. It is frankly not a stance I can even vaguely begin to comprehend.

And somewhat scary I suppose when taken to the extreme. I imagine this concept that "my feelings outweigh your rights" is pretty indicative of a lot of the things I find completely wrong with the world.

[ChrisGeorge]

It's a sad state of affairs that this is not news to me. In fact it happens all the bloody time around here. Not that I live in some snake handling mecca, I just surrounded on all side by snake handling meccas.

God will not heal you from a rattler bite. He gave them rattles for a reason. That's his version of a "do not operate hair dryer in shower" warning label. His obligation is over.

Good point. It's akin in some ways to people who keep exotic pets, and the recurrent episodes where somebody gets mauled or bitten by such an animal. In fact, often the animal is the victim of mistreatment or has been goaded into acting the way they do.

[Errata]

Interesting philosophy. Really. I personally would never presume to think that my wants outweighs another person's right to do what they wish with their own life. It is frankly not a stance I can even vaguely begin to comprehend.

And somewhat scary I suppose when taken to the extreme. I imagine this concept that "my feelings outweigh your rights" is pretty indicative of a lot of the things I find completely wrong with the world.

Probably. I'm not defending the behavior. Merely explaining it. Humans go through all sorts of mental and rational contortions in order to avoid distress. Even recognizing the behavior doesn't prevent us from doing it. And we all do it. You might not in cases like this, but you probably do in other areas.

One of the ones that just drives me insane is confessing to cheating. If my fiance has a one night stand, and he truly loves me, then he will do everything within his power to make sure I go to my grave without finding out about that incident. I mean, if he has an affair then he needs to end our relationship. But a one time deal? I don't need to know. We can fix whatever the problem might be without my knowing that. But most people feel terrible about it, so they tell their partner. Not because they think anything will be resolved or someone fixed by the confession, but because it makes them feel better. "I feel awful, but I am willing to make my partner feel awful so I can feel better". Doesn't fly for me. To me it means that they screwed up, so now I have to feel like a piece of trash. That's not love to me.

The one I am personally trying to rid myself of is finishing an argument. When I argue with people, I need for it to come to some resolution before I stop. Consequently I will follow my fiance into another room to continue arguing with him after he has said "I'm too tired to do this anymore". It makes me extremely uncomfortable to have an unresolved argument just hanging in the air. I don't even have to win. I just need it resolved. Well, that's not only rude, it might be a little psychotic. So I'm working on it. He appreciates it. And he tries to meet my need of knowing that I have been heard, even if it isn't resolved.

Which in the grander scheme things is not nearly as momentous as respecting someone's right to die, but more important to me at the moment. I've watched more than my share of people die. Some voluntarily, some not. After the last one I decided to remove myself from people prone to death so I don't have to do that anymore. So it's probably a moot point for me. I mean, it's intellectually interesting, especially since I've been reading a biography of Robert E. Lee, who suffered from the same problem but in a really different way.

[Ally]

After the last one I decided to remove myself from people prone to death so I don't have to do that anymore.

Okay I was formulating a reply and this line stopped me cold. Who precisely are the people who are NOT prone to death? How'd they work that and can you please introduce them to me? Immortality sounds so interesting.

[Errata]

Okay I was formulating a reply and this line stopped me cold. Who precisely are the people who are NOT prone to death? How'd they work that and can you please introduce them to me? Immortality sounds so interesting.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "more prone to death". I used to hang out with a lot of drug addicted mentally ill types, and the number of funerals I've been to for a peer is kind of appalling. I decided that I still liked these people, I was just tired of watching them die and sometimes taking out others. So in the end those friendships were not worth yet another funeral of someone my age who wouldn't have died if they had just gotten over the freudian stage of having to put anything pretty or shiny in their mouths.

So now I just surround myself with people who do not have a higher than normal chance of getting hit by a bus. It's nice. I haven't been to a funeral in 2 years.

[Robert]

I've decided not to go to mine.

[Abby Normal]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...-virginia?lite

c.d.

I am not the typical knee-jerk religion hater but this is where "religion" (or an aspect of it) is wrong IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Chris.

That was a very well-thought out and well-written article...more of an essay really. You have to feel sorry for them, and for the journalist.

I'm not going to knock those people for following their faith, strange as their particular faith may seem to me.

But when a man is bitten by a rattlesnake and they watch him gradually losing his life, yet his friends and family refuse to call an ambulance because "it's up to God whether he lives or dies," it calls to mind that other Bible verse, spoken by Jesus, "Thou Shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test." The Bible quite explicitly states that you are not to deliberately place yourself in a deadly situation (such as throwing yourself off a mountain) with the intention of "testing God" by expecting him to perform a miracle and save you.

It seems to me that what's lacking from the snake-handler's type of faith is an understanding and a belief in the God-given free will and intelligence of human beings.

Best regards,
Archaic

well said.

It seems to me that what's lacking from the snake-handler's type of faith is an understanding and a belief in the God-given free will and intelligence of human beings.

And the wisdom to read some parts of the Bible figuratively.

[tji]

I've decided not to go to mine.

that will have a few people scratching their heads.

[Robert]

Tracy, I'll simply be too ill to go.

[tji]

Lol just leave an 'attempted' message in the coffin?