Deeply held religious beliefs prompting sick kids to be given 'futile' treatment

Parental hopes of a "miraculous intervention," prompted by deeply held religious beliefs, are leading to very sick children being subjected to futile care and needless suffering, suggests a small study in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

The authors, who comprise children's doctors and a hospital chaplain, emphasise that provide vital support to many parents whose children are seriously ill, as well as to the staff who care for them.

But they have become concerned that deeply held beliefs are increasingly leading parents to insist on the continuation of that ultimately is not in the best interests of the sick child.

It is time to review the current ethics and legality of these cases, they say.

They base their conclusions on a review of 203 cases which involved over a three year period.

In 186 of these cases, agreement was reached between the parents and healthcare professionals about withdrawing aggressive, but ultimately futile, treatment.

But in the remaining 17 cases, extended discussions with the medical team and local support had failed to resolve differences of opinion with the parents over the best way to continue to care for the very sick child in question.

The parents had insisted on continuing full active medical treatment, while doctors had advocated withdrawing or withholding further intensive care on the basis of the overwhelming medical evidence.

The cases in which withdrawal or withholding of intensive care was considered to be in the child's best interests were consistent with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health guidance.

Eleven of these cases (65%) involved directly expressed religious claims that intensive care should not be stopped because of the expectation of and a complete cure, together with the conviction that the opinion of the medical team was overly pessimistic and wrong.

Various different faiths were represented among the parents, including Christian fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism, and Roman Catholicism.

Five of the 11 cases were resolved after meeting with the relevant religious leaders outside the hospital, and intensive care was withdrawn in a further case after a High Court order.

But five cases were not resolved, so intensive care was continued. Four of these children eventually died; one survived with profound neurological disability.

Six of the 17 cases in which religious belief was not a cited factor, were all resolved without further recourse to legal, ethical, or socio-religious support. Intensive care was withdrawn in all these children, five of whom died and one of whom survived, but with profound neurological disability.

The authors emphasise that parental reluctance to allow treatment to be withdrawn is "completely understandable as [they] are defenders of their children's rights, and indeed life."

But they argue that when children are too young to be able to actively subscribe to their parents' religious beliefs, a default position in which parental religion is not the determining factor might be more appropriate.

They cite Article 3 of the Human Rights Act, which aims to ensure that no one is subjected to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.

"Spending a lifetime attached to a mechanical ventilator, having every bodily function supervised and sanitised by a carer or relative, leaving no dignity or privacy to the child and then adult, has been argued as inhumane," they argue.

And they conclude: "We suggest it is time to reconsider current ethical and legal structures and facilitate rapid default access to courts in such situations when the best interests of the child are compromised in expectation of the miraculous."

In an accompanying commentary, the journal's editor, Professor Julian Savulescu, advocates: "Treatment limitation decisions are best made, not in the alleged interests of patients, but on distributive justice grounds."

In a publicly funded system with limited resources, these should be given to those whose lives could be saved rather than to those who are very unlikely to survive, he argues.

"Faced with the choice between providing an intensive care bed to a [severely brain damaged] child and one who has been at school and was hit by a cricket ball and will return to normal life, we should provide the bed to the child hit by the cricket ball," he writes.

In further commentaries, Dr Steve Clarke of the Institute for Science and Ethics maintains that doctors should engage with devout parents on their own terms.

"Devout parents, who are hoping for a miracle, may be able to be persuaded, by the lights of their own personal...religious beliefs, that waiting indefinite periods of time for a miracle to occur while a child is suffering, and while scarce medical equipment is being denied to other children, is not the right thing to do," he writes.

Leading ethicist, Dr Mark Sheehan, argues that these ethical dilemmas are not confined to fervent religious belief, and to polarise the issue as medicine versus religion is unproductive, and something of a "red herring."

Referring to the title of the paper, Charles Foster, of the University of Oxford, suggests that the authors have asked the wrong question. "The legal and ethical orthodoxy is that no beliefs, religious or secular, should be allowed to stonewall the best interests of the child," he writes.

More information: Should religious beliefs be allowed to stonewall a secular approach to withdrawing and withholding treatment in children? Online First doi 10.1136/medethics-2011-100104

Commentaries:

Just dying: the futility of futility Online First doi 10.1136/medethics-2012-100683
When they believe in miracles Online First doi 10.1136/medethics-2012-100677
Religious red herrings Online First doi 10.1136/medethics-2012-100676
If you ask the wrong question, you'll get the wrong answer Online First doi 10.1136/medethics-2012-100682

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Testosterone testing has increased in recent years

Nov 21, 2014

(HealthDay)—There has been a recent increase in the rate of testosterone testing, with more testing seen in men with comorbidities associated with hypogonadism, according to research published online Nov. ...

AMA: Hospital staff should consider impact of CMS rule

Nov 21, 2014

(HealthDay)—Hospital medical staff members need to consider the impact of a final rule issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that revised the conditions of participation for hospitals ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2012
I find it facinating the progressives want so much to take away parental rights. If both parents agree on a course of treatment that they believe is in the best interest of the child, no one else should have the right to change that course of treatment.

Ultimately, what good parents choose for the course of treatment (or lack of treatment) for their child, when done in good faith, does not impact me or my family. Progressives taking away parental right does.
ShotmanMaslo
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2012
I find it facinating the progressives want so much to take away parental rights. If both parents agree on a course of treatment that they believe is in the best interest of the child, no one else should have the right to change that course of treatment.

Ultimately, what good parents choose for the course of treatment (or lack of treatment) for their child, when done in good faith, does not impact me or my family. Progressives taking away parental right does.


Nope. Child is a human being with rights that exist independently of what their parents wish. Parental decisions should be restricted if they are deemed harmful for the child.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2012
Shot, who deems what parents think is harmful for the child? You or me? Funny thing with Progressives, they only consider a child a human being, when they want government to control them.

If I was a progressive and I had the power of the government, I would take your kids away from you if you let them watch MTV or listen to Rap, these are proven to be harmful to children. Bet you wouldn't like that If I had control.

The truth is Progressives SAY they care about children, but the truth is they say they care so that they can take CONTROL of them. Progressives are hypocrits, they have no problem taking away parental rights, when parents do things they disagree with, but fight tooth and nail to keep their stupid parental practices legal.

trapezoid
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2012
I think this comic is appropriate:
xkcd.com/973
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2012
Shot, who deems what parents think is harmful for the child? You or me?


I dont know, society, doctors, psychologists, government, lawmakers, god? Who currently determines what is child abuse and what is not, and what rights belong to the child?

My point is, parental authority should be vast, but not absolute, it never is. And I think parents should have no right to breach the god-given right of children to essential healthcare or not being subjected to needless suffering.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2012
Shot, If a parent has the best intentions, would have or not have the same medical procedures, discipline, etc. and BOTH parents agree, then I will alway be on the parents side. I'm not God and the parents will have to answer to God for what they did or did not do. If I take away your rights to raise your child because I don't like the way you are doing it, what will stop someone else doing the same to me?
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2012
If I take away your rights to raise your child because I don't like the way you are doing it, what will stop someone else doing the same to me?


Slippery slope is not a particularly good argument.

I dont want my parental rights to be taken away. On the other hand, I also wouldnt want to be deprived of necessary healthcare if my parents wished so, or subjected to needless suffering. So, clearly a balance is needed between parental rights and rights of the child.

Dont be an ideologue.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2012
shot,
I don't believe I'm being an ideologue and I believe a slippery slope is a good argument to use. Spanking is a good example.

Under what circumstances would you terminate parental rights? Do so in a manner which does not affect you IF I had power and I disagreed with a decision you wanted to make?

My rule:
If both parents would refuse/or accept the same medical treatment, then it would be ok for them to do so for their child.
If one disagrees, then by all means have experts be the tie breaker.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2012
I think society needs to be more worried about social workers destroying families, than a parent or two who may do what the majority of parents would not in regards to medical treatment.

What is worse, destroying 100 familiys, or save one child from a caring parent (who in general, even with best care or lack of care will die), from doing medical treatements we don't agree with?

http://www.telegr...ild.html

http://www.telegr...ail.html

http://www.dailym...son.html

And if you think I'm just picking on England, Social workers in US destroy families,

http://www.rd.com...d-abuse/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.