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In light of the Lisa McPherson homicide, does anyone know if _this_ one has been repealed as well?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?

Phobos1 gave this response on 5/10/2000:

No, to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been repealed.

The Church itself seems to be saying that Lisa MacPherson's death was an unfortunate accident, and since standard tech is 100% effective, obviously it wasn't followed. (One wonders about the true workability of a 100% effective technology which is only correctly applied less than 30% of the time.) As well, they don't believe they were giving her 'mental treatment'; on the contrary, they think they were saving her from such.

As for the Condition of Ethics, that will probably depend on whether or not the Church itself is convicted or loses the civil suit. Scientology ethics is radically consequentialist and egoist; things are good or bad only insofar as they affect Scientology. Personally, I can't tell much difference between that sort of ethic and no ethic 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.