Imagine a little girl only 5 years old happy as can be, and then suddenly she falls ill. Her parents will not let her receive treatment that the doctor is recommending that will save her life, but still she will not receive it and doesn’t know why. This little girl dies, not knowing what her life will be like in the future. Situations like this happen too many times in life today. The saddest part is that these things don’t need to happen in today’s society, but far too often they do because of one thing, ignorance. Ignorance of the fact that humans are incredible creatures created to help one another in all things. People today have tools and the knowledge to cure a great number of illnesses in the world, but no help can be given to those who refuse it. These people of extreme religious beliefs refuse medical intervention and recommendation on the basis that firth will save them from any physical harm. People have rights to an extent, but when illness is easily treatable and the person refuses that advice and risk their own life, it’s not fair to their loved ones and is especially not fair to those who have no say, like children. A big part of this problem in the conversation between religion and medicine is a parent’s say in the health of their child.  Families of these extreme religious beliefs come in conflict with these doctors ,most often and that situation is the most popular so to speak on the topic of religion and medicine. A child cannot legally make their own medical decisions until they are 18, so the parents have to make it. When these parents choose to not act in the child’s favor is when this ethical dilemma becomes a serious problem to society. Medical intervention is better than relying on faith to improve the poor health of a patient, because medical procedure is tested and proven to save lives in treatable, yet serious, illnesses.

“Herbert and Catherine Schaible prayed and prayed, but their 2-year-old son Kent died of pneumonia in Philadelphia 2009” **

 (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? People die every year due to neglect of medical advice (Offit). 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,” (Offit). Offit emphasizes the crucial need for change not only for these children affected but for society’s moral standards as well. In America, there are more religions that do not condone medical practice, but those religions also preach to their members only what they want them to hear without letting them make their own choices. These misguided people need to realize that medicine is a proven and tested science that has solid knowledge on how to cure treatable illness.

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. These patients need to realize that through their faith God sends help in all forms, and those forms are all medical practices and healing procedures. Faith is not guaranteed, but medicine is when dealing with proven to be cured illnesses. The fact is no one knows what lies beyond the world as it is today, but while one is on this earth they have the ability to do anything and everything they can to live their longest life. This is why medical intervention is needed to treat any and all people who need to be treated. Keep the faith, but trust in medicine.

The problem is clear, people simply do not enough information to make informed decisions for their healthcare, and that has effected a vast majority of this religious population, which is why this issue has become so prevalent. “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 such as severe illness beyond curability or death. For example, is recent times, the vaccination debacle recently had mothers across the country anxious to get their child vaccinated decided against it basing the decision on religious reasons, but in reality, just claiming religious reasoning because they are afraid that these vaccinations cause illness. Medical professionals deny these claims that vaccinations are harmful and have run tests that disprove these wrong theories. Doctors say, “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 it directly relates to those who trust in church leaders rather than doctors. Again, this issue arises in children and how they cannot express their right to elective procedure.

“‘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).

Everyone has a right to live and that right should never be suppressed by anyone. Parents do not realize the affects they have on their child because at a young age, the child does not understand complicated situations. They understand right vs. wrong and reflect what parents needs to emphasize in their own decisions. “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). 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, are 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 because the medicine is tried and proven to work, but this is not shown in these extremely religious cultures. Religious culture mask outside knowledge that is not congruent with their own doctrine. 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? Mentioned earlier in this paper by Dr. Paul Offit, any and all actions that can be taken by medical intervention should be taken over “faith healing”, if a family is so sure to not take medical care of themselves or their loved ones, then they should be ready to answer in court. 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. There are more and more laws put in place to ensure that people’s right to choose is protected, but still keeping the population safe and well-kept in any situation regarding medical care. “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. One has to take into consideration whether the patients are actually withholding medical care because they truly believe in prayer or something else. 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). When in an emergency situation, the natural human responses will take over and the person helping will be driven to aid the patient by any means necessary. By this conclusion, one can say that medical care must be implemented into all healthcare because it is instinctive of a person to help others by any means necessary.

Another interesting side to this focus on religious affiliation colliding with medical intervention is how the hospital themselves can have the religious belief and policy that 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 deal with contraceptive methods, 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 emergency 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 a person 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 emergency 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). These doctors are indeed trained to handle these kind of ethical situations, but are also internally driven to make these religious people see that God gave doctors a job to do on the earth to and that job is to help other humans like them live their fullest life. 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. Again with procedure involving children, doctors have the say in determining if the patients cross the line with the care of their kids. “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). All is all, physicians will do everything to ensure the good health of all patients no matter the cost which factors into why the procedures they carry out are so much pushed upon the patients. These physicians work tirelessly to test and learn and perfect the cures to disease so all people can live their best life. Medicine isn’t meant to be seen as impure to these religious people. The physicians want them to see how anything is possible when it comes to saving a life. 

It is really simple when you look at the main problem at hand, medicine saves lives in the cases of curable disease. The solution lies with the people’s decisions whether or not to utilize proven facts of life saving measures, or to rely of the gamble of faith. Only by this can these religious minded people be healed. The proof is out there, whether these people utilize that knowledge to receive help is up to them.  Families and individuals are ignorant to the fact that medical intervention is statistically way more effective over the act of prayer. Over 90% of cases in the last 15 years dealing with cases where children died because of inaction were preventable. (Coyne). 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.
