Notice: Fredric Rice may have removed segments of the replies given to questions if they contained copyrighted materials. After a very short while, Scientology "experts" refused to answer questions and started cut-and-pasting copyrighted cult propaganda. Additionally I removed URLs in some of the replies, and left them in others. And it's also important to note that eventually the unfortunate "Greg Churilov" cultist was ejected from askme.com for his typical Scientological behavior.

FredricRice asked this question on 5/9/2000:

I also find in the Auditor's code item number 27 which reads, "I promise to refuse any being to be physically injured, violently damaged, operated on or killed in the name of 'mental treatment.'"

In light of the Lisa McPherson homicide, does anyone know if _this_ one has been repealed as well? And if not, what the Condition of Ethics would be?

formerscientologist gave this response on 5/9/2000:

No. The Auditor's code will remain unchanged. It doesn't say that a life can't be saved by a psychiatrist.

It looks to me like the Scientologists unwittingly broke the Auditor's Code. The Code was referring to psychiatrists, but wasn't the Introspection Rundown some sort of mental treatment?

The CoS is just as anti-psyche as ever. Look at the postings on ARS.

There is no way of knowing which Ethics condition would be assigned to the individuals involved. Usually, although not always, when an individual is assigned an ethics condition, he has to agree to that condition. That person may decide he was in danger, or anywhere on the way down to confusion. There were a number of individuals watching over Lisa, and each person may examine their own actions and intentions or failures, and decide for him/herself.

If the case supervisor recommended that Lisa should get medical treatment (I'm writing this because I think I saw some mention of it on ARS, but I'm not sure), and this was not delivered, than the case supervisor failed to handle a danger condition. When a danger condition is not handled, that usually means that non-existance will follow. The case supervisor may have been in non-existence when Lisa died. It seems to me the C/S should have taken Lisa to the hospital before she died. That would have properly handled the danger condition.

If someone saw Lisa's condition, but disregarded the C/S's recommendation, that person was probably in treason.

This is an over simplification. There is a chain of command in Sea-Org, and I don't know who has authority over whom. Nor do I know all the circumstances surrounding Lisa's death.

It is possible that someone can misapply ethics and send all the people involved to RPF. I don't know what happened in this situation.

The average rating for this answer is 5.

You rated this answer a 5.

I'm left wondering whether the Auditor's Code is believed in and followed by Auditors only but that the rest of the organization don't follow it at all.

Further facts about this criminal empire may be found at Operation Clambake and FACTNet.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.