Case study 1

docx

School

Lord Fairfax Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

227

Subject

Medicine

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MasterJellyfish775

Case study 1: Faith Healing Parents Arrested for Death of Second Child A religious couple already on probation for choosing prayer over medicine in the death of their toddler son may be facing similar charges in the death of their newest child. "They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia." That boy, a two-year-old named Kent, died after the Schaibles refused to take him to the doctor when he became sick, relying instead on faith and prayer. The couple was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years on probation. In the latest tragedy, they told police that they prayed for God to heal Brandon instead of taking him to a doctor when he fell ill. Officials said that an autopsy would be performed on the child, and the parents may be charged with a crime depending on those results. The couple attends and has taught at Philadelphia's First Century Gospel Church, which cites Biblical scripture favoring prayer and faith over modern medicine. Other religions, including Followers of Christ Church, Christian Scientists, and Scientology, have doctrines that prohibit or discourage modern medicine and therapeutic interventions. (Vaughn, 2020) Many ethical issues are involved in this case, from the parents and medical system to the courts. Some ethical problems include autonomy and paternalism, as well as the moral principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. The Schaibles lost the autonomy to practice their religion. The courts enacted strong paternalism after their first court case in 2011, as noted here on the judgment of sentence appeal in 2014:

The Honorable Carolyn Engle Temin sentenced both defendants to 10 years' probation and directed that, as a condition of their probation, the defendants provide each of their other children with routine medical check-ups at least once a year and seek medical attention for their children should they become ill. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Catherine Schaible, 1003 EDA (2014) This ruling shows that the Schaibles lost their ability to make medical decisions for their children after the first case. Some moral principles were in question in this case as well. Nonmaleficence comes up for both sides, obviously against the parents. They did cause harm by not seeking medical treatment for Brandon, but the state also caused harm to the parents by not allowing their freedom of religion. Beneficence is lost to the family because they are forced to act in direct opposition to their faith. Their faith says it is a sin to use modern medicine rather than prayer. Then there is justice. The state seeks retributive justice in response to Brandon's death. After the first case following their son Kent's death, the Schaibles were given a sentence of probation for ten years. Part of the probation stipulated that they must take all their children to the doctor at least once a year for a checkup and seek medical attention if any children get sick. From the outside, it seems like it is a lenient sentence, but it was not lenient for the Schaibles because it took away the autonomy to practice their religion. It also endangered their eternal souls according to their beliefs. All of that, on top of the grief of knowing their son Kent died. The sentence could have been harsher only if jail time was included, but that would have destroyed the family. One could argue that an innocent life would not have been lost if they had been in jail because Brandon would not have been conceived. However, that would have caused more harm to more people. The Schaibles would have lost custody of their other children, who would have had to go into the state system. It is doubtful that the courts would have granted

custody to another family member if they practiced the same religion, which would have been the harshest of any possible punishment for the entire family. Not only would the parents be punished, but so would the rest of their children. That would not be justice. That would be punishment for the sake of punishment which is wrong. Our country was founded with the right of freedom of religion and the freedom to practice religion. Like so many other similar cases, this case has taken that right away "because it is what is best for the child." Many religions shy away or entirely refuse to use modern medicine, and for the sake of autonomy, it is ok as long as an adult refuses their own care. However, they are forced to go against their religious beliefs if they choose to deny care for their children. Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood or blood products for themselves but could be forced to use them for their child. At what age does paternalism stop for an individual and autonomy begin; a parent is practicing paternalism for their child in every medical decision they make. Understandably, the medical field and courts want to protect children since the child can not make an informed decision about medical treatment, but that is the parents' job. They are making a decision based on the child's spiritual and physical well-being. It can have detrimental effects on the child, but those in the medical field should make more of a concerted effort to work with those religious leaders to find an acceptable solution. Until a parent's religious decision is acceptable for their child, as it is for themselves, there will always be a moral issue with beneficence. Because a choice that is being forced that is opposite of the person's set of beliefs causes spiritual harm. The laws that have been written are full of paradoxes when it comes to the protection of children. An excellent example of this would be forcing the Schaibles to bring their children to the doctor because they are ill and modern medicine can heal them. However, it allows a mother to

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

have an abortion and kill a viable fetus because she does not want to be pregnant. So the law gives the woman the right to make that decision but will not allow a mother to decide based on their religion to refuse care for their child. The other side of this is, at what point do religious beliefs become too harmful? Should someone be allowed to do whatever they want because it is part of their religion? These are hard ethical and moral questions to answer because everyone has different morals. Obviously, something like child sacrifice in the name of religion should never be acceptable, but disdaining modern medicine can be acceptable. There are a few procedures that should not get a religious pass, emergency life-saving surgery, or any type of emergency treatment, for example, a child who is suffering multiple seizures and needs medicine to prevent brain damage. These types of instances require immediate action, whereas less immediate conditions give time to work with the parents to devise a treatment solution that considers their religious beliefs. Of course, this is only possible if the child is brought to the doctor or hospital. For those religions that altogether avoid any type of medical services, it is moot, and there will continue to be cases such as the Schaibles. Modern medicine has made many advancements to help get around religious restrictions. Recently a surgery took place in which a Jehovah's Witness had an aortic tear repaired without any transfusion of blood. Medical professionals have a duty to heal. This can still be accomplished in most cases, even if a parent initially refuses care, but it takes work and compromise. It can include talking to the religious leader to find out how they can help the parent choose a treatment without fully compromising their beliefs or if there are exceptions within the religious beliefs to save that child's life. Alternatively, possibly combining prayer and or faith healing with the minimal necessary medical treatment.

References Elliott, F. (2015). Commonwealth of Pennsylvania V. Schaible, C. (memorandum) . Justia Law. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior- court/2015/1003-eda-2014.html Vaughn, L. (2020). Bioethics principles, issues, and cases . Oxford University Press.