The issue between religion and medicine has always been prevalent in society and really there’s not much changing about it. The issue here is that religious views get in the way of life saving medical procedures that have the proven capabilities to save a life. Usually a person or family of religious belief that interferes with medical procedure come into a hospital due to an emergent situation either for them or a loved one and then refuse the advised medical advice. This also happens when private hospitals that can create their own procedures, such as the catholic hospitals who don’t practice birth control procedure or physician assisted suicide. Another main problem with families of these extreme religious beliefs is when their children are the ones needing the medical care, but the parent’s religious beliefs don’t condone the medical practice offered by the doctor and the child wither suffers or dies from the possible treatable condition. People and/or organizations that have specific religious affiliations that restrict them from routine medical procedures, which have a higher chance to save a life, rather than prayer or inaction, will face certain consequences including the possibility of death when there is no real reason for avoiding medical help in the first place. 

“Herbert and Catherine Schaible prayed and prayed, but their 2-year-old son Kent died of pneumonia in Philadelphia 2009. It was bacterial pneumonia, and antibiotics could have saved him. They were convicted of child endangerment and involuntary manslaughter and placed on probation but horribly, the same thing happened again just four years later. In 2013, their 8-month old son Brandon died, again of bacterial pneumonia” (Offit). The point of healthcare is to heal the people of the world no matter the circumstances, nor religious affiliation. Issues arise when those people in the world refuse medical assistance on the basis of prayer or worship. If a patient isn’t willing to help themselves, then how can a physician begin to help them? Many people die every year due to neglect of medical advice. This is especially prevalent in dealing with kids and their parents who choose to withhold medical intervention as their child’s life hangs in the balance. In an interview with Dr. Paul Offit this matter was discussed further supported by real cases. “‘It doesn’t happen in England. It doesn’t happen in Canada. You will go to jail and you will lose your children,’ he said. He points to Oregon’s 2011 law that eliminates religious exemptions to criminal charges after 83 children of people belonging to the Followers of Christ Church had died, some of them from documented treatable conditions such as diabetes and one from an agonizing hernia” (Interviewer to Offit). Offit emphasizes the crucial need for change not only for these children affected but for society’s moral standards as well. His call to action comes from his desire to help all people those children affected. Because of the United States’ vast majority of multiple religions, it’s hard for every hospital to become acclimated to their unique ways in handling medical care. 

The other half of the problem is that people simply do not enough information to make informed decisions for their healthcare. “Researchers found patients most often refuse medical recommendations for religious reasons in situations when the medical situation is unclear and the proposed treatment offers moderate possibilities of benefit or in situations in which treatment is intended to decrease risks in the future” (Warner). Due to the influence of their church leaders and clergy member, along with their ignorance of their medical issues, these people rely on what makes sense to them told by their churches and society. When people don’t trust in medicine when that medicine is proven to help, but the rest of society doesn’t believe it, then problems arise. For example, the vaccination debacle recently had mothers across the country anxious to get their child vaccinated decided against it basing the decision on religious reasons. This is a sound decision: Vaccinations are safe and essential for the health of our society. (Coyne). The proof is in science and medical fact not in false news or unaccredited personnel as directly relates to those who trust in church leaders rather than doctors. “‘The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death’ and ‘Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves’” (Weise). “A 1998 medical study analyzed cases of child mortality due to faith-based medical neglect and found that of the 172 deceased, 140 had conditions that would have been curable with a probability of greater than 90 percent, while another 18 would have been cured with a probability between 50 and 90 percent. All but three of the children would have been helped by real medical care” (Coyne). “Neither philosophy nor religion should allow parents the right to substitute prayer or ritual for science-based medicine” (Coyne). The statistics show that the problems are there and that action must be taken if conditions improve. “In cases in which treatment is likely to prevent death or serious disability or relieve severe pain, children’s health and future autonomy should be protected” (Weise). These children legally have no voice in matters like this which is unfortunate because it’s their health that hangs in the balance. That is why informed consent, from “seemingly” responsible parents, is crucial to the process of healing in a healthy environment. Time and time again it is proven that medical intervention helps dire situations more that prayer, but this is not shown in these extremely religious cultures. If intentional neglect of the doctor’s recommendation from the parents is shown then legal action is taken.

When trying to address these unfortunate situations in the legal terms it can get messy having to see both sides of the argument. However even in the legal world on this topic of religion vs. medicine doctors and lawyers have to fight extremely hard to get convictions due to the fact that these patients claim religious freedom rights. “If your faith mandates spiritual healing and your child dies because you offer prayer instead of insulin or antibiotics, your chances of being charged with a crime are slim” (Coyne). Are the parents really acting in the best interest of their loved one or should they be convicted of involuntary manslaughter? This exact situation is shown in the one mentioned earlier in this paper that Dr. Paul Offit writes about and sadly that example is just one of many that happens. Going against medical advice also opens up the floor to many other legal issues. For example, “In 2003, 36-year-old Angela Shipperley died after complications following the premature birth of her second child, Joel, by emergency caesarian. An investigation by the Healthcare Commission found that the hospital, Northwick Park in north-west London, had failed in its care towards her. Although seriously ill, she had been moved to a ward where she could not be monitored as closely as she should have been and there was confusion over which drugs she had been given. However, her care had been made more difficult by her refusal to accept a blood transfusion. (Saner). The result of this case was in favor of the hospital. The patient couldn’t sue due to her choice to not receive the blood transfusion thereby compromising her entire case against the hospital. The risk one takes in deciding to go against medical advice isn’t just as easy as it seems because any procedure from there on out is totally on the patients. Each state has different laws pertaining to each situation that may arise. “The California state Senate, for instance, just overruled a long-standing law that permitted parents with religious and philosophical reservations to send their children to public and private schools without their shots” (Coyne). In dealing with that previously mentioned topic of the vaccinations, individual states take their own actions according to its people’s wishes. “Some states allow religious exemptions from required testing of newborns for metabolic disorders, such as the inability to break down fats or amino acids, that can kill an untreated child but are perfectly treatable if caught early. Some states allow exemptions from giving newborns hearing tests or prophylactic eye drops that can prevent blindness in infants infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea. Seven states allow religious exemptions from testing children for lead levels in their blood, and six even allow religious exemptions to students learning about disease in school. In perhaps the most bizarre and potentially dangerous law, public school teachers in California can legally refuse to be tested for tuberculosis on religious grounds” (Conye). The line is very blurry when it comes to these types of rights. One has to take into consideration whether the patients are actually withholding medical care because they truly believe in prayer or do they have a mental disorder. Implications must be put into place for if certain situations were to take place. “In emergencies, providers may be ethically justified in administering treatment immediately necessary to preserve life, prevent serious disability, or treat severe pain” (Weise). In dealing with the rights of the people themselves, there are also issues regarding the actions of private hospitals such as the catholic ones that mandate their own policies according to the church.

The other side to this focus on religious affiliation colliding with medical intervention is how the hospital themselves can have the religious belief and policy and restrict non-religious individuals from getting the care they need best suited for them. Catholic hospitals are allowed to mandate their own policies on certain elective procedures they will do in their hospitals. The policies that they mandate usually gave to deal with contraceptive methods and procedure and also end of life care policies. “Catholic hospitals, operate under the purview of privately funded religious organizations. There is some debate as to whether these institutions have the right to refuse to treat illnesses in certain ways or refuse to write or fill prescriptions for religiously objectionable drugs. The debate centers on whether the religious freedom to which such institutions are entitled trumps a patient’s right to complete care, also extending to related liability issues” (Mason). If for instance there is a medical emergency requiring the use of these restricted procedures to be performed in order to save a life, many of these hospitals will not bend the rules due to the doctor’s own moral standings with God. “Catholic hospitals say it’s a matter of protecting their conscience to allow them to refuse to provide contraceptive sterilization because Catholic doctrine considers it nearly as big a sin as abortion” (Miller). “The general public and health care consumers are often unaware of these restrictions until confronted with a problem” (Stone). People don’t have a choice of where they are taken to when entered into an ambulance because it’s an emergent situation. “Nearly one-third of all Catholic hospitals are located in rural areas. In many cases, the Catholic health system becomes the sole provider of care in a county or entire region. This particularly impacts rural patients, who may be unable to seek health care in larger metropolitan areas, hours away. Depending on the nature of the medical problem, the weather and road conditions, the state of public transportation, and lack of money/support, it is often not practical or feasible for a patient to seek healthcare elsewhere” (Stone). “Today one in six patients in the U.S. is cared for in a Catholic hospital. And thanks to a series of mergers, the number of Catholic hospitals increased 16 percent between 2001 and 2011. And women don’t always have a choice of what hospital they go to” (Miller). “In rural areas, there is often only one hospital. That means more and more women are at risk of having what medical care they get—and their reproductive futures—decided by bishops, not by their doctors. (Miller). Not only do these hospitals cause problems for their patients and communities, but also their policies require their physicians, no matter their own religion, abide by the Catholic church’s policies on what procedure to do and how to interact with their patients. “Catholic-affiliated institutions require that any physician requesting privileges agree, in writing, to abide by the Ethical and Religious Directives as a condition of practice; s/he will not be granted privileges, or may have those privileges revoked if s/he violates the ERDs, even in the interest of saving a patient's life. (Stone). This could present issues as doctors with the moral sense to help those in need that require restricted procedures, act on those situations, they compromise the hospitals’ policy. 

The Catholics also believe that people at the end of life must pass naturally when its God’s time for them to pass on. That means there can be no human intervention in assisted suicide to that patient. Any means necessary must be taken to sustain that life no matter the circumstances. In March 2004, Pope John Paul stated it is “morally obligatory to continue use of artificial nutrition and hydration in patients in persistent vegetative state.” (Stone). If a doctor puts you on a life saving device even when there is no hope at revival, that doctor cannot “pull the plug” so to speak on that patient. “In 2003, the Association of Catholic Women started selling ID cards (so far, it has sold nearly 29,000) that, in effect, ask doctors not to withdraw treatment if the patient is deemed to have a ‘poor quality of life’. Catholics hold life sacred and would want to be kept alive for as long as possible. The simple blue card reads: ‘In case of my admission to hospital, please contact a Roman Catholic priest. I would like my nursing care to include fluids - however administered.’” (Saner).  These procedures taken are very serious to the Catholic people, but the needs of other patients have to be taken into consideration as they need those lifesaving tools as well because unlike the other who are too far gone, these more emergent people can actually live from the utilization of these devices. Doctors have to make decisions like that all of the time. It’s especially stressful when they have to take into consideration hospital policy. Doctors play the mediator role in the collision between religious belief and medicine. 

Through all of the religious extremists, legal issues, and religious oriented hospitals, doctors are the real mediators between patients and their rash decisions. Many studies have been done to specifically note how these doctors handle the various types of ethical religious situations. “‘Our findings suggest that physicians always navigate a balance between respect for patient autonomy (remaining open-minded and flexible) and concern for the patient’s good (persuading the patient to adhere to recommendations),’ write Curlin and colleagues. ‘Rather than striving for illusory neutrality, physicians should practice an ethic of candid, respectful dialogue in which they negotiate accommodations that allow them to respectfully work together with patients, despite their different ways of understanding the world.’” (Warner). Physicians are trained to handle the stressful situations noted in this paper. Their purpose is to try to pursue and exhaust the possibilities of getting the religious people to choose medicine over prayer. They try to educate them on how and why the procedure works so that the patient has all the information to make informed decisions and give consent. “Researchers found that when religion and medicine conflict, most doctors appear able to navigate the tension while keeping the patient’s well-being in mind” (Warner). Sometimes these physicians run into common problem with the religious people according to a study on these doctors. “The study showed that doctors were aggravated by patients who had no moral objection to a particular therapy but simply chose faith over medicine. Several doctors recalled cases in which there was an effective treatment but the patient chose to wait and rely on prayer instead” (Warner). These doctors understand where these patients are coming from, but in order to do that they have to process their side of the information, process it, and then uses their knowledge to inform them of the consequences that could happen. “Studies showed that doctors were aggravated by patients who had no moral objection to a particular therapy but simply chose faith over medicine. Several doctors recalled cases in which there was an effective treatment but the patient chose to wait and rely on prayer instead” (Warner). Doctors also have the say in determining if the patients cross the line with the care of their children. “In this country, the General Medical Council places great importance on respecting the religious beliefs of patients, but in cases where parents refuse consent for a child's essential care, doctors can and do go to the courts” (Saner). “Clinicians should afford parents and guardians significant discretion in their interpretation of these interests and collaborate with them to develop treatment plans that promote their children’s health” (Weise). These doctors also have choices in what they can practice and not practice in medicine. For example, “With circumcision for male babies in the Jewish and Muslim faiths, doctors who oppose the practice do not have to carry it out, but should make it clear that there are other doctors who will. (Similarly, doctors are not required to carry out abortions, and pharmacists are not required by law to dispense emergency contraception if it is in conflict with their religious beliefs.)” (Saner). It all trickles down to the doctors and how medicine is not the only challenge they have to face, it is the ethical dilemmas and the patient-doctor interaction that is the hard challenge. 

Although the patients are struggling with understanding the harmful effects of their religion on themselves and their kids, they have reasons for their stances. These people are so devoted to their religions that when the average person analyzes this situation they have to see where the patients are coming from. Religious belief is a powerful thing and if people believe in something so much then they believe in every aspect of that religion including putting their lives in the hands of God. Each religion has its own beliefs and sometimes those beliefs collide with medicine, but it’s for a reason. For example, “Christian Scientists maintain that seeking medical attention is a personal decision and that the First Amendment protects their right to believe that ‘God's infinite goodness, realized in prayer and action, heals,’ as noted on the website of the Church of Christ, Scientist” (Guzder). Even though these people have restrictions some religions have alternative methods to medical manipulation procedures. For instance, “Jehovah's Witness church groups also raise money to buy machines that recycle a patient's own blood” (Saner). “Christian Scientists may use dentists and physicians for ‘mechanical’ procedures, such as setting bones or childbirth, but consider most illnesses to be the result of the individual’s mental attitude and seek healing through spiritual means, such as prayer” (Weise). Respect for people’s religious belief is essential to understanding how they think. It is from this respect doctors learn how to handle the certain situations.

In conclusion, it is a valid argument to call for the saving of lives by medical intervention rather than prayer to prevent deaths that don’t have to occur in the first place. Many families and individuals are ignorant to the fact that medical intervention is statistically way more effective over the act of prayer. If it is proven that families refuse medical advice that would save a patient from death, but still refuse that care, they can and will be tried in law; however, they may get off clean on the basis of religious freedom and the 1st amendment. It’s not only the people with the religious affiliation, it can be the hospital itself. Catholic hospitals create their own policies that could prevent woman to get the proper care in dealing with their health. This information is crucial to be aware of because all of these events are real and can happen to anyone who goes to these hospitals. Doctors of these hospitals learn to adjust to their policy with still staying true to their moral values. Doctors deal everyday with these ethical dilemmas, but address the problem in a calm and subtle way with also trying to convince the patient of the mistakes they are making. In all things said and done in dealing with the issue of religion vs. medicine, respect is key in having a civilized conversation about how in the end medical care is to be taken, no matter the religious policy. Religious freedom is stopped at the line where patients start to die for illegitimate reasons. Although people have the right to practice their own religions, there comes a place where moral reasoning comes into play and people realize that medical intervention, when the medicine is proven to work, is the best possible route to take over doing nothing and praying.
