Faith Healing Case - Essay Example

1. Facts of the Case

A physician at a local hospital referred a 10-month-old boy with suspected leukemia to a cancer center affiliated to a university hospital for further examination. After additional tests, doctors confirmed that indeed the boy was suffering from leukemia. However, at the moment he was not in mortal danger because the local hospital had given him a blood transfusion prior to transfer to the cancer center to counteract the severe anemia that he had been experiencing. The attending physician recognized that the boy needed to begin specialized therapy as soon as possible. He provided the boy’s parents with information regarding the treatment that is available and then explained to them the procedures that would have to be undertaken. The parents discussed the matter between themselves for two hours and then told the physician that they had reached the decision to take their son to a faith healing service instead of seeking medical intervention. The physician tried to convince them of the futility of this action but to no avail. The parents left with their son after the physician gave them a return appointment, but they did not honor it.

1. Ethical Question to be Answered

Were the parents morally justified to deny their son much-needed medical treatment in favor of faith healing?

III. Proposed Answers to Ethical Questions

It is not morally permissible for the 10-year-old boy’s parents to deny him medical treatment for leukemia, with the sole reason that the treatment will eventually fail to work, and they would have to take their son to a faith healing service after all. As much as medical treatment for the treatment of cancer is not completely effective, it is still the best shot at recovery that a patient could obtain since it has worked in numerous cases. Faith in the ability of God to heal cannot be disputed, but it has failed to provide positive results in many cases. It is morally wrong to deny a minor incapable of making important decisions for himself, a necessary treatment that may save his life. Another matter that needs to be considered is the possibility that the boy might have opted for medical treatment if he were of age. Cancer therapy, including that specialized for leukemia, has proved effective in many cases, and there is evidence in terms of scientific studies and physicians’ reports to prove it. On the other hand, the boy’s parents would be at a loss at providing credible evidence to prove that faith healing is effective at curing cancer.

1. Objections to Proposed Answers and Responses to the Objections

Objection (1): Parents have the authority to opt out of medical treatment for their child who is a minor in favor of other legal options if the medical treatment has not been scientifically verified to be completely effective and reliable. In this case, leukemia therapy has been in use for quite some time now, but some patients have fully recovered while some have not.

Response (1): It is true that the boy’s parents were acting within their parental rights by opting for faith healing instead of medical treatment because it has not been scientifically verified to be completely effective. However, it is not morally permissible for them to deny their son medical intervention which is completely effective at alleviating some of the undesirable symptoms associated with the condition. Hydration would have helped to counteract excessive uric acid and, therefore, alleviated a lot of pain as well as prevented complications.

Objection (2): The attending physician failed to uphold the Principle of Fairness which requires the healthcare practitioner to tell the truth to the patient or not to withhold the truth. The attending physician was morally wrong to fail to inform the patient’s parents that there was no guarantee that their son would recover, as leukemia is a condition that is very hard to cure. He also failed to inform them that the medical treatment has some negative, adverse effects which could pose a serious threat to the patient’s health. Therefore, the parents were not under obligation to accept the treatment since the doctor had not been completely sincere with them.

Response (2): The parents of the boy did not give the doctor time to disclose the entire information regarding the treatment. Since he gave them a second appointment, he might have been planning to disclose this information during that appointment. His first priority, at the moment, was to convince the boy’s parents to abandon religious healing in favor of medical treatment.

1. Conclusion

My conclusion is that it was not morally permissible for the 10-year-old boy’s parents to deny him medical intervention since it is the best proven chance of curing the boy’s condition, despite not being completely effective. Parents have a legal and moral obligation to safeguard the welfare of their underage children if it is within their power. In this case, faith healing was clearly not the best option available to the boy’s parents. Effective cures for numerous diseases and pathological conditions are yet to be discovered. However, this should not be an excuse or reason for people to opt out of the treatments and interventions that are available even if they are not completely effective.  At least they provide a reasonable chance for recovery. The fact that the patient in this case was a just a baby who could not make decisions for himself makes it particularly sensitive. When adults make wrong decisions that result in negative consequences that affect only them, they can only blame it on themselves. However, when adults make these wrong decisions on behalf of minors, then it is quite unfortunate that the minors suffer for their parent’s mistake. Therefore, this medical case has made it clear that people need to critically analyze all options available before making important decisions, especially when the issue is of a moral nature.