Group 2: Case Study 4

Faith Healing By: Ceniya, Gabby, Claire, Stefano, Jacob, and Caroline PHI 421 INTRODUCTION Faith-Healing vs. Medical Treatment Introduction: ● ● ● This case covers the instance in which parents from First Century Gospel Church refuses to seek medical treatment for their 8-month-old toddler, resulting in his death The couple chose to practice ‘faith healing’ and prayer over seeking medical treatment ○ This church that cites scripture favoring faith-healing over modern medicine ○ Similar groups have similar doctrines: ■ Followers of Christ Church ■ Christian Scientists ■ Scientology For this specific religious couple, this choice has resulted in the death of 2 children Introduction: ● ● For this specific religious couple, this is their second loss of a child ○ 1st: 2-year-old son passing away 4 years ago from bacterial pneumonia. ■ Parents refused to take son to doctor to treat illness ■ The couple was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years on probation. ○ 2nd: 8-month-old son, recently passing away from severe GI complications and difficulty breathing ■ Autopsy will be performed to see if death could have been avoided if sought medical treatment appropriately The couple chose to pray for relief of sickness rather than seek medical treatment when their child started developing symptoms. It is argued their neglect of treatment resulted in the death of their sons Introduction: ● Something to consider when examining this case: ○ ○ ○ The right of religious freedom is a 1st amendment right in the United States 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. One must also consider the responsibility of parents in a situation where a child cannot properly care for or seek treatment on their own Ethical Positions Aristotle’s Ethics The parents’ choice to rely solely on faith healing, it’s a failure in practical wisdom and justice. Their decision neglects the virtues of compassion and responsibility, compromising their duty to promote their children’s well-being. By denying care, they undermine their children’s flourishing, which is essential for virtuous living. Kantian Ethics These 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 the parents provide necessary care. By refusing medical intervention, the parents fail in their categorical imperative to act in ways to uphold the inherent worth of their children’s lives. Utilitarianism The parents’ reliance on faith healing, especially after losing a previous child under similar circumstances- is ethically indefensible, as it resulted in repeated preventable harm. This stresses actions that should maximize well-being and minimize suffering, yet their choice led to death of another child, showing a disregard for lessons from past outcomes. Key Questions ● ● ● ● Should parents have the right to reject medical treatment for their child based on religious beliefs? Should the First Amendment be interpreted to allow parents to be able to do anything with their child 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? Ethical Considerations Autonomy vs. Protection of the Child Parental Responsibility and Duty of Care The Role of Faith and Religious Doctrine Community Pressure and Coercion Final Thoughts on Decision-Making Kant’s ethics Aristotle Utilitarianism Using the ethical position of Kant, we declared it was unethical and morally wrong for the parents to not seek modern medical attention for their two children that passed. Using Aristotle’s position, we concluded that because of the neglect for medical attention by the parents for their two children, the parents are committing unethical acts because of negligence and lack of responsibility. Using the Utilitarian position we declared that the parent's actions were unethical and unjust to the children because they failed to maximize the health of the children which is a key point in utilitarianism. Final Judgement 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. Counter Arguments The couple’s religion discourages the use of modern medicine and therapeutic interventions, instead 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 on the basis of 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. RESOURCES Case Study Dockterman, Eliana. “Faith-Healing Couple Sent Jailed after Child Dies without Medical Care.” Time, Time, 19 Feb. 2014, time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death/.