Refusal of medical treatment based on faith

[MagnusIV]

What is your opinion on the concept of someone refusing medical treatment based on their faith. For instance should the parent of a Jehovah's witness be able to not allow their kids to get a blood transfusion even if it could save their lives? Granted that's an extreme one another lighter one would be should a hindu parent be allowed to not let their kids take insulin since most insulin comes from bovine origin?

[bluethread]

What of the parent that puts faith in medical treatment over the physical well being of their child? Is the physical well being of the child who dies immediately "under the knife" physically better than the physical well being of the child who lives for weeks without such treatment. Even more to the point, is the well being of the child who lives with moderate discomfort for several weeks before dying worse than that of the child who is either in great pain or is doped up for a year before dying? Can the state require a child to live in agony for years? Can that same state mandate infanticide, for the "well being of the child"?

What about 'a 10 day course of antibiotics can save the child's life, but the child died instead'?

Or 'getting some iv solution to get rid of the strong dehydration caused by diarrhea instead of having the child die'?

I am not arguing for absolutes either way. I am just trying to point out that all healing is faith healing. The 10 day course of antibiotics is an act of faith. If that child is allergic to the antibiotics, that faith is misplaced. This is not a simple matter of choosing between faith(bad) and medicine(good). It is a sociological question. What is the proper relationship between the family and the various levels of government? When the philosophical position of a family and that of a government, or even those of a community and a government, are at odds, how does one decide? If one says, "Slam dunk, it's the doctor who decides.", that person is elevating the profession of physician to that of priest.

[Goat]

What of the parent that puts faith in medical treatment over the physical well being of their child? Is the physical well being of the child who dies immediately "under the knife" physically better than the physical well being of the child who lives for weeks without such treatment. Even more to the point, is the well being of the child who lives with moderate discomfort for several weeks before dying worse than that of the child who is either in great pain or is doped up for a year before dying? Can the state require a child to live in agony for years? Can that same state mandate infanticide, for the "well being of the child"?

What about 'a 10 day course of antibiotics can save the child's life, but the child died instead'?

Or 'getting some iv solution to get rid of the strong dehydration caused by diarrhea instead of having the child die'?

I am not arguing for absolutes either way. I am just trying to point out that all healing is faith healing. The 10 day course of antibiotics is an act of faith. If that child is allergic to the antibiotics, that faith is misplaced. This is not a simple matter of choosing between faith(bad) and medicine(good). It is a sociological question. What is the proper relationship between the family and the various levels of government? When the philosophical position of a family and that of a government, or even those of a community and a government, are at odds, how does one decide? If one says, "Slam dunk, it's the doctor who decides.", that person is elevating the profession of physician to that of priest.

That is an equivocation of the term 'faith'. One is faith based on trust of experience, and antibiotics have testable and repeatable results

Prayer.. not so much.

[Furrowed Brow]

A parent who puts their faith before the physical well being of their child stands for a way of life I have to admit to makes me angry. There is another school of parenting that says you don't get that luxury. Fortunately I think there are very few people who are so blindly committed that they would put faith before the life of their child. Other than that folk should be allowed to accept or reject medical treatment for themselves as they see fit.

What of the parent that puts faith in medical treatment over the physical well being of their child?

If there is real evidence that a particular treatment is dangerous or useless or a particular surgeon ought to be struck off then the parent's role is to be an advocate for their child. But....and there is a but.....if the parent goes that route they have a moral prerogative to make sure they are reality based. A parent who wants to pull their kid out of say chemotherapy or some life saving treatment in favour of a strict vegan diet or homeopathy or some such are appalling. Sure if the parent is worried about a treatment get a second, third, fourth opinion... to help them make a well informed decision.

(On a personal note I am well aware of how unscientific doctors can sometimes be and just how much guesswork goes on, and a lot depends on the competence of the doctors you end up dealing with. Both cases involved my son and both times we got lucky....but in both cases it could have easily gone the other way and the difference was the opinion of one doctor over another).

Is the physical well being of the child who dies immediately "under the knife" physically better than the physical well being of the child who lives for weeks without such treatment.

Some circumstances are difficult and fraught with uncertainties. Sure if the chances are finely balanced then there is a tough medical and ethical problem to be worked out.

Even more to the point, is the well being of the child who lives with moderate discomfort for several weeks before dying worse than that of the child who is either in great pain or is doped up for a year before dying? Can the state require a child to live in agony for years? Can that same state mandate infanticide, for the "well being of the child"?

Yes some problems are difficult.

[Suzy]

Sometimes it takes a real experience of this to ‘clear our minds’ and see the issue clearly so I thought you might like to hear this story.

A few years ago I was at the Winchester hospital in the U.K. watching a little boy that needed a blood transfusion or he would die.
The parents [Jehovah’s Witnesses] were beside themselves with worry but would not agree to a blood transfusion.

The outcome? The law stepped in and he got the blood transfusion.

Now he is a lovely healthy teenager.