Final Paper 4: Faith Healing

Case 4: Faith Healing This case covers the instance in which a very religious couple refused medical treatment for their child due to their religious beliefs and instead relied on faith to heal the child of his illness. The couple are members and teachers of the First Century Gospel Church, which cites scripture favoring faith-healing over modern medicine. The couple chose to pray for relief from sickness rather than give their child medication or seek medical treatment when the child started developing symptoms of an illness. Their neglect of treatment resulted in the death of their toddler son. The child, who was only 8 months old, suffered from diarrhea and breathing difficulties for over a week before finally passing away after refusing to eat anything. For this specific religious couple, this is their second loss of a child, the first son passing away 4 years earlier from bacterial pneumonia. The couple’s first son was only 2 years old at the time of his health complications. The parents refused to take him to the doctor, instead praying over their son to heal his ailments. This resulted in the death of their first son. The couple was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years on probation. In the case of the second son, the couple again chose faith and prayer instead of taking their son to get treatment from a doctor. An autopsy will be done on the second child to see if death could have been avoided if the parents had sought proper medical treatment when the child first started developing symptoms. The right of religious freedom is a First Amendment right, however, the issue is that religious freedom does not allow for the right to break other laws or amendments, especially if the religious actions result in the harm or death of others. Aristotle’s concept of justice involves giving people what they are due. In this case, the children had a right to receive medical care, aiding in any issues, to guarantee their best chance of survival. By denying them that care, the parents failed in their roles to provide and care for their children’s wellbeing; a failure in justice. As for balanced judgment, considering both spiritual and physical needs, the parents' reliance solely on prayer, to the exclusion of medical care, represents neglect in weighing between faith and responsibility. By not getting medical care, the parents undermined the survival of their children. Aristotle would see this as a failure to support the children’s ability to lead a healthy life, which is a key aspect of eudaimonia. Kantian ethics is grounded in the idea of duty. Kantian ethics would condemn the parents’ actions as a violation of their moral duty to protect their children’s lives. The principle of duty to others, especially vulnerable dependents, demands that parents provide necessary care. By refusing medical intervention, the parents fail in their categorical duty to act in ways to uphold the inherent worth of their children’s lives. Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their outcomes, focusing on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. The parents’ reliance on faith healing resulted in the death of their child, leading to significant suffering and loss. This action is antithetical to the principles of utilitarian ethics. Their actions could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to more cases of neglect among others who might follow their example, resulting in greater societal harm. The parent’s choices result in severe harm to their child and a negative impact on society, making their actions ethically indefensible. While analyzing the decision and actions of this case, many ethical questions came to light. Should parents have the right to reject medical treatment for their children based on religious beliefs? Should the First Amendment be interpreted to allow parents to be able to do anything with their children based on religious considerations? Should the sentence for the couple have been harsher than ten years on probation? Does religious beliefs and the First Amendment give someone the right to break other laws? The practice of faith healing, deeply rooted in various cultural and religious traditions, raises significant ethical questions in the field of medical ethics. While faith healing may provide comfort and hope to individuals facing severe illness, the lack of empirical evidence supporting its efficacy can lead patients to forgo conventional medical treatments, thereby jeopardizing their health and well-being. This concern is particularly pronounced when patients choose faith healing as their primary form of treatment, potentially allowing their conditions to worsen. Moreover, the influence of faith healers complicates the issue of informed consent, as individuals may not fully grasp the risks associated with neglecting proven medical interventions in favor of spiritual practices. The intersection of personal belief and health care creates an ethical dilemma that necessitates careful consideration. Balancing respect for religious beliefs with the need for evidence-based care is essential, as it allows patients to receive comprehensive treatment while also honoring their personal convictions. Ultimately, fostering open dialogue between healthcare providers and patients regarding the role of faith healing can help ensure that patients make informed decisions that prioritize their health without dismissing their deeply held beliefs. In this case, we found the parents' decision to withhold medical care from their children to be unethical, based on three major ethical frameworks. From a Kantian perspective, the parents violated their moral duty to seek proper medical attention, neglecting their responsibility to protect their children’s health. Aristotle’s virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of responsibility and care, and in this case, the parents failed to demonstrate these virtues, acting irresponsibly and neglecting their children’s needs. Finally, from a Utilitarian standpoint, the parents' actions were unethical because they did not maximize the children's well-being, ultimately causing unnecessary harm by not seeking treatment. Across all three ethical theories, the parents' decision was morally wrong and unjust. As a group, through the ethical views of Kant, Aristotle, and Utilitarianism, we find the parents' decision to avoid medical care for their children unethical. They failed in their duty, neglected their responsibility, and caused harm by not prioritizing the children’s well-being. Throughout the observations made in this case, our group encountered various concerns and questions vital to the overall decision of the case. The couple’s religion discourages the use of modern medicine and therapeutic interventions, favoring prayer and faith to overcome illnesses. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but this does not give citizens the right to break the law based on religion. Since children cannot advocate for themselves, the refusal of the parents to grant their children medical attention is seen as child abuse or neglect. As a group, we view the parents’ actions of withholding medical attention to their children as unethical, despite the parents’ religious beliefs.