In the course of this paper, I will try to argue about a case which opens a thoughtful debate in the field of bioethics. The case about Christian Scientist couple who were judged about their son’s death puts forward various arguments about the nexus of religious beliefs, legislation and bioethics. I will try to present my own views about the court’s decision with the help of some philosophical moral principles, and through the end of the paper I will claim my suggestion based on one of these principles.
The Christian Scientist couple who believed that their 2-year-old son can heal with the help of praying rather than medical treatment were absolved by court’s decision claiming that it would be a miscarriage of justice to find the couple guilty. In order to discuss court’s decision and claim about it, it would be helpful to examine the problem starting the conflict in the case. Here we see a couple who act in accordance with their religious beliefs and in case of an illness their beliefs say them what to do. On the other hand, when they are judged in terms of legal laws their behavior is examined as involuntary manslaughter, because legislation has to concern a human being’s right to live. When reasons of both side are strong enough to claim, how can an act be judged fairly? What is right or wrong to do? Is there any criteria to know the ultimate answer of these kind of questions? According to the couple, right act is what their religion says. This view coincides with Divine Command Theory which claims that actions are morally right because God commands them. On the contrary, it would not be true to compare legislation with the couple in terms of the moral principles they take into account, because legislation first of all is not a rational agent, it is just a system of regulations. Besides, there is not a commonly accepted ethical principle which legislation is based on. Hence, when the court is arguing about such a case it concerns some basic ethical principles but we cannot say that one principle is better than the other to apply.
In my opinion, court’s decision about the couple is not reasonable but how can I conclude that if one principle does not overcome the other one and when the couple have liberty to behave according to their beliefs? Also, the couple as being parents have a right for paternalism which defends overriding of a person’s actions or decision-making for her own good.[1]In order to say that I do not agree with court’s decision I have two reasons. One of them is about construal of Christian Science and the liberty of religious beliefs. As we can reach the information from the news, the basis of the doctrine that couple adhere puts forward alienation from God or fear as reasons of all human illnesses.[2]Because of their sinful attitude, when they get ill they have to return the way of God in order to be healed. A religious person in such a case can really believe that the only way for him to be good again is coming through praying and he can reject the medical treatment. The religious liberty of him cannot be restricted since it is his choice made by his autonomy. However, Robyn who was a 2-year-old boy had a fever and ended up with death. Can we say that there is an autonomy of Robyn to reject any treatment because of his religious liberty? It is not the case for him, but he has parents and parents have religious liberty and right for paternalism over their son. If the parents let him to be cured by medical treatment, they commit a sin in regard to their beliefs and it is the last thing they would want. But here they give preference to their own religious liberty instead of Robyn’s right to live. Hence, even if we accept that one’s right to advocate religious liberty, I think its priority to one’s right to live cannot be acceptable.
Second claim I would like to point out about my disagreement with court’s decision is the unsatisfactory assertion of the court to reverse conviction against the couple. In the view of the court, if couple would have any conduct which is “wanton or reckless”, then the judgment would be against the couple. However, it is beyond doubt that we call it as murder if the couple would have a wanton or reckless conduct . Here the whole debate takes place, because parents’ good will about their children is being taken for granted. Thus, defending an involuntary manslaughter case by saying that there was no voluntarily killing is just describing the situation again or begging the question in a sense.
Since I am so dissatisfied with the judgement of the court, I may be asked to suggest something on how court would argue about the case. First of all, there could be a misinterpretation when it is articulated as parents have right to do anything with their children. Since parents are not the owner of the child, they cannot do anything with their children as long as the actions are based on religious grounds or on something else. But, generally they are obliged to be sure about the well being of their children. There is also no conflict between legal law and religious law on the basis of giving priority to life, but some cases like this should have to have extra regulations. Maybe when a child’s life is at the stake and there is a risk to die, law can restrict anybody’s interference. There could be a regulation weakening parents’ right for paternalism about their children who have pointless suffer even if there is a cure and chance to be healed. Until the age that children can take their autonomy about their health, laws can interfere under certain conditions. It can be seen as a suggestion which destroys religious liberty, however there is no justification of parents when they let their kids to die.
As I have mentioned above, Divine Command Theory claims that moral things are not intrinsically valuable, they have their value by the virtue of God. On the other hand, I would prefer to assert that there are some things which are intrinsically valuable such as life. As opposed to Divine Command Theory, if we think that a thing can be valuable for its own sake, then we claim that an act which is morally right can be right because there is something intrinsically good in it. Thus, giving priority to life over every other thing can be seen as a valuable act. There is also Natural Law Theory which is related to that view and it can support my judgement because I claim that flourishing life is intrinsically good.[3]I think paternalism is also based on this idea basically, otherwise for instance how can a physician justify to override a patient’s rights about his/her good?
REFERENCES
Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Margolick, David. “In Child Deaths, a Test for Christian Science.” New York Times, August 6, 1990.
kuşlar uçuyor 