Supreme Court of the United States: Healing and Autonomy

Healing and Autonomy
Student Name
Professor Name
Course Title
Date
The tendency of parents relying on spiritual healing rather than convectional medical treatment to care for treatable diseases has resulted to deaths of more than 200 children over the past three decades in the US. Healthcare professionals are faced with the dilemma of deciding between protecting the welfare of children and upholding respect for the rights of parents to practice the religion of their preference and to make imperative resolutions for their children. The paper seeks to focus on Mike and Joanne case study (Ortiz, 2012).
Mike and Joanne are required to make an imperative decision concerning their son James and his care. They want to make sure their son health improves, but want to place their faith in God by taking James to a faith healing service instead of undergoing a dialysis. Therefore, Mike chooses to suspend James treatment and hope James condition will improve after placing their faith in God. However, James’s condition worsens that prompts Mike to place James on dialysis as he struggles to discern if God is testing his faith or if God is punishing him. The case presents the issue of the principle of beneficence that states, the doctor has the right to offer to parents all the alternatives and illustrate the risks and benefits. Failure for the doctor to do this would be construed as going against their duty as a doctor. Moreover, as the doctor advises the parents of what needs to be done they also need to be aware that James’s parents have autonomy and a say in treatment of their son. Under the Christian narrative, autonomy is a principle that needs respect for the decision-making abilities of independent individuals. In this case, James’s parents would be endowed with this right because James is not old enough to make decisions. Hence, based on the right James parents are placing their faith in God to heal and eventually make James better. This might be the right choice for them; however, it might not be helpful to James and put him in more harm. Another imperative issue in the case is the ethical dilemma connected with taking the kidney from one child and give to another. The child is not old enough to give consent of donating his kidney to his brother to allow him to survive. Hence, it results to an ethical concern of helping James to survive and facing the possibility of risking Samuel’s life (Barger, 2016).
The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the right of parents to make decisions for their children based on religious reasons. To declare a given medical treatment decision unsuitable, the state is required to provide valid evidence because of the great value bestowed to autonomous parental decision-making. The court ought to evaluate the right of a parent besides the interests of the child. A significant factor in this process is the anticipated outcome of the illness. Courts are expected to mediate and rule against parental decision if the proposed medical treatment has a higher probability of success and the forecasted outcome without treatment is death. Nonetheless, if the proposed medical treatment does not have a high possibility of su...