Faith Healing and Public Policies

[ThinkingSapien]

In the USA when making public policy there is generally some goal to not inhibit one’s first amendment rights (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”). However, it is inevitable that at some point public policy and one’s religion will overlap and conflict.

I was listening tom some incidents that occurred in faith healing communities in which children died what seemed to be painful deaths for problems that could have been addressed by simple surgical procedures that typically have high success rates. The parents chose not to get medical attention because they were followers of a form of faith healing.

If you were a public policy maker would you be in favour of making a policy for taking children to get medical treatment knowing that it would conflict with some religious dispositions? Or would you be in favour of letting that be a decision made by individual families knowing that some children will end up experiencing unpleasant deaths?

 

[DeepBlueSea]

Wouldn’t the rights entitle the child the freedom to receive medical treatment? Then, parents and legal guardians are mandated to made medical treatment available to the child. Faith healing is not something parents or legal guardian should be able to impose on the child. I think faith healing can only be a valid choice for people who have reached the age of reason. Although I am doubtful that faith healing in itself is reasonable at all.

What is the percentage of population that subscribes to faith healing not as the last resort?

 

[AndrewAugustine]

I don’t know much about the legal foundations of the USA, but in a traditional Catholic realm it is a good thing to force people away from evil practices, like heresy, suicide, etc.

In my country there’s a lot of jurisprudence about Jehova Witnesses who don’t want blood transfusions: as long as they’re adults their will is respected, but the transfusion is forced upon children.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Its a really difficult one, one of the best arguments I have heard on this issue is medicine is itself quite fallible, so say if you were going to punish a faith healer for essentially letting a child die shouldn’t you punish a doctor that does the same?

I think the charge is something like “criminal neglect.” I need to go back and check. But a medical person attempting to save some one couldn’t really be said to be neglecting some one (now if he or she makes an egregious oversight then that may be moving into malpractice territory). This also implies that in these cases the state sees the actions of the faith healer at least being worthy of being considered neglectful with further examination to be done in court.

 

[jschutzm]

1. Parents have the legal right to make decisions about their child’s health.
2. Parents who opt for “faith healing” verses ‘modern medicine’ are not totally neglecting their child’s health, at least not in a black n white legal definition. They ARE taking action and seeking help, so we can not exactly charge them with neglect.
3. Modern Medicine, though based on Science, is not 100% guaranteed, nor without risk. Doctors are also protected (as they should be) from certain liability if the treatment fails. Same with ‘faith healing’ in a lot of ways.
4. We undermine both the separation of church and state as well as the central family unit when we mandate that parents to seek medical help.
5. Similar to the HHS Mandate, we are essentially requiring people to violate their conscience.

While I PERSONALLY believe we should do BOTH, pray for help and put the ultimate outcome in God’s hands, in addition to seeking the help of professionals and trusting that God can work through others.
I find it HARD to condemn all believers who are weary of modern medicine and prefer to leave things entirely up to God and nature.

While I wish these communities would change their fundamentalist views… I don’t like the implications of forcing them to do so against their conscience and beliefs.