Foregoing curative medical treatment due to religious beliefs - Research Paper Example

Foregoing curative medical treatment due to religious beliefs Introduction The complexities of religious practices have often significantly affected the operations of medical institutions in relation to the ethics, legal issues, and morals, as well. The practitioners in the health care field have the responsibility of conduction their operations by upholding high level of moral and ethics. Some of the religious practices that advocate for Foregoing curative medical treatment due to religious beliefs have often left more questions than answers. Efforts by professionals and individuals from several quarters have always attempted to build a consensus but it has often proved a hard nut to crack. Little consensus between the medical practitioners and stakeholders in both the medical field and religious bodies has ever been arrived at. The legislative bodies too have found it complex to enact policies that attempt to provide a consistent solution to this particular conflict. Besides, several court rulings on this particular issue in discussion has often been in consistent due to some legal backing from the constitution especially on religious perception and consenting of curative treatment to patients. This paper seeks to provide an insight on ethical, legal and moral perspective of forgoing treatment because of religious beliefs. Ethical, legal, and moral perspective of foregoing treatment due to religious believes Ethics in the medical field are moral principles that incorporated the application of judgment and values in medical practice. Medical ethics entail work on theology, philosophy, and sociology. In the US, General Medical Council highly upholds and respects the religious convictions of patients. However, on some occasions, parents fail to consent for vital care for children. Due to the medical ethics the medical doctors or practitioners comply with the parent’s wishes with the only option available can be through the judicial redress through the court process. It may be quite difficult to the non-believers or those not within the faith to comprehend the depth of these religious beliefs even to the extent of those in faith risking their lives or the lives of their loved ones (Guinn, 2006). However, Bellamy (2014) elaborates that some religions take extreme perception on particular treatments while others don’t. In fact, doctors increasingly becoming accommodative to the religious beliefs of their patients. For example, the Jewish and Muslim faithful highly regard male circumcision. Doctors not conversant to such practices can recommend others who are conversant. In addition, some religious practices to the patients are even allowed in most medical institutions. In some circles religion is not only well established in the medical practices but also common and powerful. Some of the religious practices in medical field are intertwined with spirituality, and healing that emanate from some forces. Despite the fact that this phenomenon being common in the US, the culture of the people of countries such as India has a firmly anchored spirituality and mindset of healing through spiritual means. The indigenous Australians, Native Americans, and Indians, as well still utilize spiritual philosophies, old healing and remedies deemed natural in their medical practices. Some do so even in their medical institutions. Sloane (2008) argues that the science of medicine should be highly embraced and used collaboratively with the religious convictions in the provision of medical curative treatment by the medical practitioners. However, more emphasis should be placed on medical treatment that has been proved scientifically to yield results in providing remedy towards illness or maladies. Hall (2013) supports by illuminating that the role of religion should mainly encompass strengthening of the patient’s mindset since the mindset of a patient are perceived as the epicenter of the healing process. Sloane (2008) asserts that the mindset with the help of religion while taking curative treatment has the potential of hastening the healing process of an ailing individual. One of the major dilemmas that medical practitioners such as nurses encounter while discharging their services is a patient refusing curative treatment. The treatment may entail aspects such as intervention and medication among other. Bellamy argues that healing through religious beliefs has turned into killing as those that advocate for religious healing exempt themselves from accountability (Guinn, 2006). Children to parents whose convictions are lenient towards religious healing as opposed to curative treatment have been the most affected culprits. The US constitution in Due Process Clause grants the parents the right to guide their children upbringing inclusive of issues such as medical care. In addition, they have the rights under the First Amendment to exercise their religious beliefs freely inclusive of the right to provide protection to their children according to the principles of the religion (Bellamy, 2014). These rights should be exercised consistently with selected medical care’s that are adequately reasoned due to support from scientific evidence. For an instant, in cases where the parents are deeply religious, they can opt to forego treatment that had a slim chance of maximizing the life of the child or the side effects of treatment. This is because of the belief that their children are better off while in heaven. It can be argued that the constitution protects their choice (Sloane, 2008). Despite the fact that the religious believers who do not embrace curative treatment in the American population being a minority group, they have and are still influencing public policy in a manner that do not commensurate their actual population. The interest of this group has resulted into death and suffering among their families and children (Hall, 2013). Their actions not only siphon resources in the medical processes but also the legal ones that channeled to appropriate directions of the medical institutions. According to Bellamy (2014), they give false alternatives in reference to medical care and religious magic thus introducing complications in the provision of medical services. Hall (2013) illuminates that Christian denomination such as Pentecostlists, Christian Scientist, the Follows of Christ, and the Church of the First Born among others practice faith healing. The believers that subscribe to these churches often reject medical treatment in favor of anointing with oil, prayers, and exorcism. Moreover, others go to the extreme of denying that they are illness. Some believe and are convicted that diseases or ailments are illusions. Moreover, seeking medical treatment from an ailment implies lack of faith in the supernatural being. Bellamy (2014) calms that when these believers reject curative medical treatment, they should be charged not only for negligence but also for homicide. The laws that shield religion have been quit lenient and protective against them though. Fortunately, the laws are fast changing, as well as the attitude of the public. The duty of the society is therefore in conflict with religious freedom. Legal Issues and consequences of actions In reference to children who their parents have the legal right to protect, according to the constitution of the US parental choices in medical treatment are highly valued and protected. However, Cohen (2006) claims that freedoms of the religion are not absolute inclusive of the parents fundamental right to provide guidance to the upbringing of the child. Huguelet & Koenig (2009) assert that there is no provision in the constitution that protects the right to harm an individual or a child through issues that denying them medical treatment. Hall (2013) adds that the rights of religion and the family in regards to parenthood are not beyond limitations. The rights of free religious practice should not encompass liberty that exposes the community suffering, diseases or death due to ill health. More often, there are always reports from the media concerning litigations in the courts of law over believes and preference in religious healing to curative treatment. It is a common phenomenon in court proceedings for some deeply religious parents to be sewed for negligence by not taking their ailing children to the doctor for treatments due to religious reasons (Guinn, 2006). In such a situation, the state can or should rather press charges of neglect and child abuse. Moreover, the state can order or remove the ailing child from the home or alternatively put the child under the guardianship of a medical practitioner. Religious principles and medical principles in conflict In this particular scenario the conflict in discussion is whether the medical practices should disregard religious issues that threaten or are harmful to the existence of individuals especially if the principles are protected by the constitution of the US. In reference to the bone of contention referred earlier in this paper, the constitution grants the parents the fundamental rights of providing guidance in the upbringing of children (Hall, 2013). This is inclusive of making choices on the kind of medical care a child is to receive in the event that the child is ailing. In addition, individuals have the rights to exercise their religious beliefs freely according to the First Amendment. This amendment also provides the parents with the rights of caring for their kids within or according to the principles of the religion they subscribe to. It implies that foregoing treatment due to religious convictions has a legal backing (Huguelet & Koenig, 2009). Interestingly, the constitution of the US stipulates that all the citizens have the right to better medical services. Thus using religious connotation and principles to hamper medical treatment leads to a situation where principles are conflicting. In addition, medical practices usually have the backing of evidence of ability to improve the conditions of an ailing person if appropriately diagnosed (Bellamy, 2014). Foregoing curative treatment has the potential danger of risking the life of the ailing individual especially those who may be in severe pain. In such a scenario, the motives of the individual advocating for religious healing can be questioned. As much as the principles of practicing principles of religion especially in providing care for children has a constitutional baking, these rights have limitations in the event that the life of a child or an individual is protected. The right to the religious practices, principles and believes is not an extension to the right to put the life of the children in danger (Guinn, 2006). The primary objective that is often instilled or rather inculcated in the health providers is to save life. However, sometimes the treatment alternatives are usually purposed to prolong the life of the patient. In extreme cases, alternatives to curative treatment that is acceptable may not be available. The patient due to religious leanings may opt to stop or cease treatment. The binding nature on moral and ethical rules in the provision of medical services when medical treatment is in conflict with the religious beliefs There are principles of ethical issues in the health care that make it accessible, simple, and culturally neutral. They are based on moral commitments, such as the respect for the autonomy, non-malfeasance, beneficence, and justice inclusive of the various scopes of applications (Hall, 2013). There are no provisions of rules that are ordered in these principles. However, they are crucial in aiding the workers in the health care and doctors in making decision while giving the reflections of the moral issues that surface while discharging their duties. These approaches, irrespective of an individual’s philosophy, moral theory, religion, politics, and stance in life, make it easier for the medical practitioners to incorporate them in their operations (Huguelet & Koenig, 2009). These principles allow the medical practitioners to make decision such as withdrawal or withholding of treatment depending on situations that arise. In relation to some religious beliefs being against curative treatment for patients, the medical practitioner can either withhold or withdraw treatment and seek redress form institutions such as the judiciary especially if the patient involved is a child whose parent’s religion does not encourage some medical treatments (Zaoutis, 2007). However, for a competent adult who is perceived capable of not only making his or her own decisions or protecting themselves from harm, the practitioner may not be compelled by the ethics or moral principles despite the fact of having taken an oath to save life as the primary objective. In some situations that are threatening for the life of the children, some doctors take risk of attending to the ailing child with the presumption that practices that are in contravention with the interest of the public or even harmful to the public may be provided with limitations. However, if the consequences of making such decisions are dire then they may be held account by the parents who did not consent on the medical practices. The autonomy of the patients can be argued to be equally considered beneficence than importance and visa verse. The patients are often granted autonomous control while seeking medical treatment. They have to give consent to the medical practitioners to provide them with treatment services. The practitioners can affect the autonomy of the patients due to their effects on these patients which includes self evaluation, self identity, and capabilities due to autonomy. Respect for autonomy is often considered on situations that require decisions pertaining intervention on health care practices (Guinn, 2006). The respects for autonomy compels and obliges practitioners to inform the patients on health care after which they wait for the patients decisions which they have to bid by. The principle therefore focuses on the value of independence. Zaoutis (2007) extrapolates the importance of this principle in that it not only discourages paternalism perceived to be in appropriate but also protects patients from interventions that are unwarranted. This may be in situations where the available option is perceived to be more of a burden than beneficial to the patient or even the family of the patient. However, focus on autonomy especially on decision making may hamper the recognition of clinical practices of the limit of the autonomy the patients should have. There are situations where the principle may fail due to protect the competent patients due to lack of informed choices, lack of confidence, and conflicting priorities. Therefore, in a situation where religious beliefs of a patient overrides the benefits of medical treatment, then the patient is likely to suffer for a prolonged period of time from an ailment. Conclusion The ethical principles of medical autonomy can justify allowing individuals who are competently adults to reject medical care that are lifesaving for themselves so long as it not extending to the rejection of treatment for children. In compelling circumstances, it is the duty of the society to provide children with protection from harm hence the society can override the wishes of the parents whose religious beliefs discourage medical treatment. Some states in the US still have laws that shield religious principles. For an instant, it is rare for courts to order blood transfusion to children as a lifesaving mechanism against the wishes of parents who are believers in the Jehovah Witness. These laws that shield practices that are harmful to the existence of well being human being should be amended or repealed. The legal perspective of the issues in discussion has always been inconsistent on the conflict between foregoing treatments because of religious beliefs. Besides, the legal issues some of the situations have been aggravated by the binding ethical and moral rules. References: Bellamy, J (2014). When Healing Turns into Killing: Religious and Philosophical exemptions from Parental Accountability. Retrieved on 17th May 2015 from: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/when-healing-turns-into-killing-religious-and-philosophical-exemptions-from-parental-accountability/ Cohen, A, B (2006). Spirituality in Palliative Care. Retrieved on 17th May 2015 from: http://palliativecare.medicine.duke.edu/modules/news/print.php?storyid=1 Guinn, D. E. (2006). Handbook of bioethics and religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, H (2013). Faith Healing: Religious Freedom vs, Child Protection. Retrieved on 17TH May 2015 from: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/faith-healing-religious-freedom-vs-child-protection/ Hamburger, T & Geiger, K (2015). Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments. Retrieved on 17th May 2015 from: http://christianscience.com/what-is-christian-science/a-closer-look-at-health/press-room-blog/healthcare-provision-seeks-to-embrace-prayer-treatments Huguelet, P., & Koenig, H. G. (2009). Religion and spirituality in psychiatry. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sloane, P. D. (2008). Essentials of family medicine. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. Zaoutis, L. B. (2007). Comprehensive pediatric hospital medicine. Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier. Read More