Parental Decision on Medical Treatment for their Children - Dissertation Example

Sen (2005; 2008) and Nussbaum (2011) both argue health is one of the fundamental conditions necessary to pursue the good life and live a humane life with dignity and integrity. From this perspective, it can be inferred health is valued both for its intrinsic value and for utilitarian applications (Kottow, 2003). In this regard, the quest for health has become a crucial concern both for the person and for society in the contemporary period (Sen, 2008; Nussbaum, 2011).

However, the quest for health is not without concerns. As rapid development in medical technologies and shift to ‘patient-centered’ medicine from ‘physician–centered’ medicine has become the norm in health care, there are observed several cases where patients refuse certain medical treatments due to their religious beliefs (Curlin et al., 2007; Gilmour et al., 2011; Muaramoto, 1998; Umeche and Okoli, 2012). This situation has created a dilemma not only among health care providers (doctors, nurses, and other allied health care workers), but it has also affected other sectors of society involving public health, religion, and legal issues. In effect, the refusal of patients to receive certain medical treatments due to their religious beliefs requires a more in-depth look as it posits ethical, moral, and legal issues to all stakeholders of health.

Four important ethical principles are recognized as crucial in-patient–centered health care system. These are autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence (Beuchamp and Childress, 2009). Of primary significance is the autonomy of the patient. Autonomy entails the right of the patient to decide what is deemed as the best and most appropriate medical treatment that they may require to get the necessary health care service that they may need to gain back health or keep healthy. The necessity of proper information is crucial in arriving at the most appropriate medical decision and response for the patient’s health condition. In effect, autonomy is the fundamental principle that acts as a buttress for patients’ rights, and the principle of autonomy is highly espoused. In fact, in a doctor-patient relationship, the autonomy of the patient is the primordial factor.

Actually, in cases where patients refuse medical treatments due to personal or religious beliefs, the Courts assert that when the patient is adult, mentally capable of making medical decisions, and have been given all the necessary information in making the appropriate decisions, then, the patient’s refusal must be accepted (Wong, 2012). In Re: T (Adult Refusal of Treatment), Justice Butler-Sloss said, “A man or woman of full age and sound understanding may choose to reject medical advice and medical or surgical treatment either partially or in its entirety. A decision to refuse medical treatment by a patient capable of making the decision does not have to be sensible, rational, or well-considered. Whether the patient comes to a sensible decision is thus outside the remit of the doctor's consideration. Religious beliefs that lead a person to refuse some or all medical treatment, therefore, would not affect his or her capacity, however irrational that might be.” Thus, re-affirming the fundamental significance of autonomy.

However, the conflict appears when cases involve people who are incapacitated in making medical decisions about their health condition and included under this category are children. When parents act as the surrogate decision-maker for their child, the refusal of parents for their child’s medical treatment is sometimes challenged by the state. In the case of Ms. K, an African woman aged 23, from the Congo gave birth at the Coombe women's hospital in Dublin on SEP-21. The baby is doing fine, but the mother started to hemorrhage. She allegedly lost 80% of her blood. She is a Jehovah's Witness and refused a blood translation. The hospital applied to the High Court of Ireland on an emergency basis. The court ordered that a transfusion be given. Justice Henry Abbott ruled, “that doctors must intervene in the interests of the child. The judge said he accepted Ms. K was compos mentis [of sound mind] and if brought to court on a stretcher she would oppose the application. However, he told the court he felt it necessary to override her religious beliefs because her baby boy had no other relatives, or guardians, that were known of in the state. Mr. Justice Abbott said the interests of the child were paramount and that he must err on the side of preserving life. Arguments over whether the transfusion should be given could be heard at a later date, he added" (www.religioustolerance.com. Thus, the hospital ordered the blood transfusion to Ms. K who is a member of the Jehovah’s Witness (Ireland.com).