Ava Worthington died on March 2nd, 2008 as a result of bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection. Normally, such a case would be routine work -- give her a prescription of antibiotics, case closed. However, the complications come when her parents, fundamentalists from The Followers of Christ Church, refused to seek treatment for her, relying instead on prayer. This case is just one of at least 38 in which young children died of easily curable diseases as a result of parents who insist on prayer rather than conventional medicine.
The issue here is whether parents, who are normally granted proxy consent over their child, have a right to decide the treatment course of their child -- including prayer. Any mentally capable adult is able to decide for themselves their own treatment option, including none, if they so wish. Jehovah’s witnesses routinely refuse blood transfusions, for example. But should this autonomy extend to their children also? Or would this constitute an intrusion on their individual rights and religious beliefs? In this particular case, the Worthingtons were charged with manslaughter and criminal mistreatment – a charge Arthur Caplan approves of. According to Caplan, parents must place the value of their child’s life above that of their religion – “child neglect is still neglect, even when performed under the cover of religious faith.”
Here, I agree with Caplan’s opinion. It is true that modern medicine must be careful that we are not infringing too much on the rights of the people we are trying to protect – the issue of mandatory vaccinations which was brought up in a few earlier posts is a good example of this debate. However, I believe that this case is clear-cut – when the life of a human being is at stake, parents have a responsibility to get their children the assistance they require. To provide an extreme example, Madeline Neumann, another ‘prayer child’, suffered a month of nausea, excessive thirst, vomiting, and loss of mobility before she finally died from a treatable form of diabetes.
Article: http://www.dailynewstribune.com/opinion/x808351426
4 comments:
I would agree that the parents ought to have given their child medicine, but would strongly disagree with both Mike and Arthur Caplan on their reasons why. My reason is that the parents have confused matters of ethics due to a reliance on false premises, the specifics of which I will not discuss in this post due to its lengthy nature. However, I do not think that the statement, "parents must place the value of their child's life above that of their religion" is one I could agree with.
To understand why, one must first understand the role religon plays. To truly religious people (those who live the teachings of the religion, not just call themselves a follower of it), religion is the lens through which they live. It is the framework within which life, the universe, and everything functions. It is the comprehensive structure that gives meaning to existence. Most importantly, however, it defines what is objective and absolute truth and morality.
Therefore, to argue that a child's life must be placed above religion is to say that everything previously described ought to be discarded in favor of the child's life. It is to say that the child's life is the ultimate good. This cannot be true, for death in and of itself is not an absolute evil.
Mike's post is loaded with ethical questions. Other possible issues like the fairness of the legal punishment, the role the law should play when interfering with religion, and the extent to which one can extrapolate individual rights are all included within this ethical examination. Nevertheless, solely regarding the issue of the parents' decision to reject the use of antibiotics, most would agree that the parents were in the wrong - however, it is because of their reasoning, not their religion, that they can be blamed for.
Alex --
Upon further thought, I would have to concede that point. It is one that Caplan believes very strongly in -- he says "When it comes to children, faith must have limits."
In that case though, what is your basis for saying the parents are wrong then? Sorry if I missed it in your post, but it doesn't seem like you elaborate on their confused matters of ethics.
I believe that Alex brings up a very good point: why should the parents have to sacrifice their religious beliefs in order to care for their child? That being said, I still believe that the parents' beliefs should not have prevented their child from receiving care. My reasons lie in religion's place in the medical field and the child's autonomy.
Religion is certainly an important part of this family's lives, but is it entirely appropriate in immediate life or death situations? Long term illnesses may be approached with various treatments, including natural healing. However, in cases of extreme bacterial infections (like this case) that quickly invade the healthy cells of the body, no viable "natural healing" option exists. Should religious decisions come into play when a fast decision needs to be made and it is biologically impossible that natural methods will work? To this question, I would argue no. There is a difference between pursuing alternative treatments and pursuing what essentially is a death sentence.
Also, what about the rights of the child? The parents may have these religious beliefs but should these beliefs be pressed onto their child? Is it not the child's right to live and continue on a happy life? I think it would be a different situation if the child was older, say in her teens, also followed these religious beliefs, and stated to her parents that she did not wish to take antibiotics. However, in this case the child was too young to give such permission. It is the duty of her parents and medical professionals to protect her life since she cannot advocate for herself.
Whether the parents should or should not be charged in a court of law is questionable. I believe that this case could help set a precedent for other situations, but I do not necessarily believe that the parents should be charged with murder. Instead, patients' rights and religious involvement in medicine guidelines should be reformed.
Mike:
You are quite right. I purposely did not elaborate on how exactly the parents' ethics were confused, and I did this for two reasons. First of all, I would need to examine their reasoning first, before deconstructing it and explaining why it is not reasonable. Two, even if their reasons were laid out in the open, it would be quite an endeavor to explain the problem with their ethics within the context of a blog. Nevertheless, I'll insert a small generalization here of my reasons for disagreeing with the parents' motives. Assuming that the Followers of Christ Church base their religion of Christianity (whether or not they are a cult does not matter), I would have to say that Christ never forbid the use of science to heal, explicitly or implicitly. As a matter of fact, He goes out of His way quite often to heal others. Other arguments include the value of human life and the line between enhancement and therapy, but without the context of the religious beliefs of the Followers of Christ Church, those arguments are rendered null.
Alana:
I definitely agree with you in your first paragraph (though it did make me sound rather callous, but no offense taken), but would have to refer to my original comment as a response to your remaining paragraphs. Perhaps I should explain what I meant a little more through an example.
Religion being the framework through which all moral actions are judged deserves considerable respect. One particular aspect is death. According to the Christian faith, death is not a bad thing by nature - as a matter of fact, it is sometimes seen as a good thing (though this requires some explanation - Christians are not, in fact, suicidal). Therefore, the parents in a specific and certainly possible scenario would be viewing the lack of scientific treatment and imminent death as not such an evil thing as society makes it out to be, but rather an adherence to the moral code.
As a concession to you and Mike, however, I would say that what you are discussing would probably be strictly in regards to the role of the federal government in this issue, which I would then have to agree with both of you. The government does not have much of a choice except to adhere to the commonly accepted code of human rights as established by the majority. Of course, sanction by the majority does not make something right, which points to the difficulty in discussing what role the government ought to have in the first place.
Post a Comment