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has been repealed as well?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.
Subject: Oh: And the Auditor's Code - Item number 27
Answered by: formerscientologist
Asked By: FredricRice
This web page (and The Skeptic Tank) is in no way connected with
nor part of the Scientology crime syndicate. To review the crime syndicate's
absurdly idiotic web pages, check out www.scientology.org or any one of the
many secret front groups the cult attempts to hide behind.
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.