Bioethics

The advancements of modern day medical science and religious beliefs clash; the result is innocent people are dying. Many people let religion guide their everyday lives. In certain cases, one's beliefs prohibit him from accessing medical care in favor of spiritual healing. The decision to refuse medical treatment because of religious beliefs can harm the children of society. Parents have a legal obligation to refrain from actions that may harm their child. These children because of circumstances beyond their control are not given the care they need. This care is the difference between life and death. The refusal of medical treatment by a parent for a child puts not only the child endanger but also the parent. This is demonstrated through the death of Ian Lundman, the 1974 Federal Child Abuse and Treatment Act, and the refusal of blood transfusions by the Jehovah’s Witnesses Church. Adults who are members of Christian Science Church may refuse medical treatment so long as they are capable of making a rational decision about it. The same does not hold true in the case of children. Children are vulnerable. When it comes to the health of children, the government has the obligation for the protection and welfare of those who cannot defend or protect themselves. The example of a boy named Ian Lundman with stomach pains is key to this argument. His biological mother and stepfather were of the Christian Science Church and did not seek medical help to assist Ian with his pains. Ian died a few days later. He died from diabetes which could have been treated with insulin. This exemplifies how the belief of the healing power of prayer cannot compare to proven medical treatments that can heal a person’s illness and prevent death. In 1974, the Federal Child Abuse and Treatment Act was adopted. This act defines abuse and neglect as the physical and mental injury of a child under the age of 18. This act positions the government laws versus the church beliefs. The health and welfare of the children are at stake. Although many states interpret the federal law differently, the law was upheld when Mr. Lundman sued the Christian Science Church for damages with respect to the death of his biological son Ian. Mr. Lundman, a non-Christian Science Church member, gave proof during the trial that his son could have been saved with a simple medical procedure. The Christian Science Church opted for healing through prayer rather than medical treatment. This decision ultimately killed Ian. Parents who refuse treatment do not have the right to martyr their children for their own selfish religious beliefs. Refusal of necessary medical treatment constitutes child abuse and neglect under this act. Some states are more stringent than others in the execution of the act, but the result is the same. Society must protect its most vulnerable members, the children. The Scripture of Jehovah's Witnesses states that they are against the eating or drinking of blood. This is interpreted as the refusal of any blood transfusions with its member. Those who accept transfusions face the loss of eternal life. They are, however, in favor of medical procedures that help their members keep in good health. However, this belief of ‘eating blood’ denies its members of any major medical procedures that may save their lives since most procedures require large amounts of blood movement. It is a hypercritical statement because it allows its members to belief that they will be saved in dire situations through medical procedures. The actual truth is that they will be denied any such procedures because most major medical life saving procedures requires the transfusion of blood to sustain the patient. The children members of the Jehovah’s Witness Church have no opinion with regards to their medical health. The parents victimize the children for the sake of the belief of not eating blood. Forsaking belief in order to save a child is not an option for this church. The ignorance of people and their blind faith are killing the children in our society. There are certain religious groups that don't believe in traditional medical treatments and instead turn to prayer and other means to heal themselves. Some of these people refuse medical treatment for their children. Some of these children die in result of this. The law upholds an adult's right to refuse medical care. It is defended in the constitution with freedom of religion. That person must be mentally capable to make a reasonable decision. Children, however, are defenseless and the law protects them. When it comes to health, it is an overall concern that the state provides protection and welfare of them. Therefore, if a parent refuses medical care and the child dies, the parent may face legal consequences as a result. The state is attempting to encourage parents to provide necessary medical procedures to their children, keep the family in tact and protect the health and welfare of all of society’s numbers.