SP Times 14-May-99: Prosecutor defends Scientology charges
Mark Brehob writes:
The hospital felt she was mentally capable when they
released her. I believe that that part of the argument
may well hold up. HOWEVER the part that should not hold
up is the lack of medical help for her physical condition.
As I understand Scientology belief they believe they can
cure physical problems but they have no prohibition
against medical care. If she denined medical care it
went beyond what she would have expected to have consented
to. LRH was so worried about the FDA that he made it
VERY clear that the CoS should have people in good
physical shape before most services. The IR may be an
execption to that, but I don't believe it is explicate.
Further I read the IR logs as indicating her desire to leave. Enough
said.
Any ex-CoS members care to comment?
DeoMorto replies:
Well I will take a swing at this..
First of all there is no doubt that competent professional medical help
should have been sought for Lisa. There is no excuse at all for what happened.
There isn't even any excuse in Scientology literature AFAIK (or at least as far
as I remember). There is no prohibition that I am aware of that would have
stopped someone calling 911 even on that last fateful night.
So how could such a catastrophe occur?
I think it is a combination of arrogance and cowardice.
The arrogance stems from the writings of Hubbard. First of all scientologists
believe that ONLY Hubbard knew how to resolve mental illness - ONLY Hubbard (my
emphasis). Part of that belief is that any difficulty has a very simple,
magical, solution that if found, instantly (and I mean instantly) resolves. To
put this into perspective - everyone who was involved with Lisa was expecting
that at any minute they would hit the "right item" and everything would
suddenly be solved.
For someone to have picked up the phone and dialled 911 would have meant that
they were publicly announcing that the 'tech" had not worked. They would have
been crucified (excuse the religious metaphor) for doing it. First of all they
would have been guilty of the High Crime (Suppressive Act) of Pronouncing a
Scientologist guilty of the standard practice of scientology. What would also
have happened is that whoever would have called in the paramedics or whatever
- assuming Lisa would have survived if they had been called in in time - would
also have been nailed because they had not applied the right "tech" - this is
of course, self fulfilling, how do you know the right tech was applied - the
person got better - if they got worse the correct tech was not applied ergo
scientology always works...
The sad part for me personally - and probably for a lot of other ex-SO and
ex-Scientologists is that not one person in that whole group of people,
supposedly the most ethical people on the planet - had the courage to defy
their surroundings and their peers and actually do something to save the life
of another. All of them kept their heads in the sand and hoped that someting,
anything, would work right up until it was too late.
There are two things in this whole thing that I personally find reprehensible
beyond belief (as an ex scientologist)
a) That someone, anyone, would lack the courage to stand up for the rights of a
helpless individual because they were afraid of the consequences.
b) the sheer lying and PR that Rinder and Abelson indulged in after it all
became public.
The prosecution is right to target the organization because it is the
organization, its policies, its insistence that people toe the line, shut up
and conform that enabled this situation to end as it did.
It strikes me that the CofS is in a cleft stick of its own making here
a) If Lisa was incapable then they are guilty of neglect for not ensuring that
she received competent medical help
b) if she was capable (as Rinder and Abelson claimed in the intial press
interviews) then she was being held against her expressed will.
I dunno but it seems to me that this is nothing to do with "religious
freedom" - its about cowardice and arrogance.
DeoMorto - the truly censored.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
deomorto@aol.com (DeoMorto)
May 1999 01:47:13
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.