Religious Freedom in the Medical Context
For my topic, I wanted to look more in depth into religious beliefs that impact medical treatment, including the choice to abstain from certain aspects of care, as well as the ability to file a religious exemption for life-saving medical procedures.
First, I looked into why Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions, as this was something briefly mentioned in class. According to their website, Jehovah’s Witnesses abstain from blood transfusions because the Bible directly states to do so in four places. They also “avoid taking blood not only in obedience to God but also out of respect for him as the Giver of Life”. Many differences between sects come from varying interpretations of religious texts. Here, they are taking a literal interpretation of passages such as Genesis 9:4, “Only flesh with its life – its blood – you must not eat”. Most JWs refuse whole blood and its components, as it is seen as a sin, but they do take infusions derived from blood, such as albumin. I also wanted to investigate the methods by which these individuals can still receive lifesaving care, while respecting their religious beliefs.
There are available alternatives to blood transfusion, such as tranexamic acid (helps stop clot breakdown), erythropoietin (helps the body produce more erythrocytes), rFVIIa (replaces clotting factors), and intraoperative cell salvage, where blood lost during an operation is transfused back into the patient. Many JWs point out that these techniques, which arise partially from transfusion refusals, can help the greater population when there is a lack of available blood or the risk of bloodborne pathogens. Many JWs carry an advance directive so they are not infused while they are unable to consent and so that doctors do not face legal penalties for not infusing. Issues arise, however, when parents refuse blood transfusions for their children when they are medically necessary, bringing into question the rights of religious freedom vs medical negligence. Importantly, JWs will not be disciplined by their church if they (or their children) receive a blood transfusion against their will, as it is no longer considered a sin.
Another group I wanted to read more about was Christian Scientists. They believe that disease and illness is a “mental error” rather than a physical issue, and so they turn to prayer rather than medical professionals. A “Christian Science Practitioner” is called to provide a “treatment” (healing prayers) to individuals when they become ill. Beyond dental procedures, broken bones, and childbirth, Christian Scientists are heavily discouraged from seeking modern medical care, and they will become ineligible to receive Christian Science “treatments” if they do. Many high-profile cases bring into question whether it is within a parent’s right to withhold medical treatment from their child, and whether the US government should uphold that specific right. Currently, it is on a state-by-state basis whether or not Christian Science parents are exempt from child neglect and abuse laws.
As we discussed in class, this is a very difficult topic ethics-wise, especially when it comes to parental consent. I can recognize that some religious individuals may face harassment and be ostracized by their community should they choose not to follow the doctrine, consequences which can complicate the decision to accept care. However, when those beliefs cause severe bodily harm to oneself or one’s child, medical professionals should be able to override that decision. The Minnesota courts in 1993 said it best when they rejected an appeal for a case where a child died under the care of his Christian Scientist mother, “Although one is free to believe what one will, religious freedom ends when one’s conduct offends the law by, for example, endangering a child’s life”.
Sources:
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovahs-witnesses-why-no-blood-transfusions/
https://www.stgeorges.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CLH_ABT.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment