Kidney Transplant and Faith

Faith and medicine often work in parallel. They do not cross each other. While in grave medical situations, people may pray and have faith their loved ones will recover, often there is no intersection between both areas. When there is an intersection, that is when questions arise of whether a person should choose medicine over faith or vice versa. In the "Healing and Autonomy" case study, faith and medicine place a couple in a difficult situation of whether to choose faith or medicine or perhaps create a middle ground where both can seemingly exist.

The most issues facing Mike and Joanne in "Healing and Autonomy" are several. The first issue is treatment refusal. The couple refused their son James' kidney dialysis. Mike believed faith healing would be able to give James the ability to heal without any medical intervention. This led to complications for James and the eventual need for a kidney transplant. Mike continued believing faith would heal him and wanted to postpone James receiving a kidney from James, his twin.

The other issue seen in the case study is patient autonomy. With patient autonomy, patients have the right to make decisions concerning their medical care without the influence of their medical provider. Patient education can be permitted in patient autonomy, but the health care provider cannot make the decision for the patient. The doctor recommended James get a dialysis due to complications from acute glomerulonephritis. He tried to explain to Mike the need for a dialysis. He educated him on his options concerning a possible kidney donation from Samuel, but could not decide for Mike and Joanne the outcome. In these situations, as much as doctors may want to interfere and make the decisions for the person deciding treatment, they cannot and are merely presented with the responsibility of informing the patient and going with whatever decision the patient or in this case, the patient's parents make.

The last issue is organ donation. Some under the Christian faith see organ donation as mutilation. They use as an example, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 as a means of defending the notions that organs must not be taken/harvest from someone's body. Mike may believe this as may not want his other son, Samuel to be mutilated to give his other son, James, a kidney. While James needs a kidney, Mike feels that his faith in God may help bring forth a miracle that may help James without having to sacrifice his other son's body.

In relation to the physician allowing Mike to keep making decisions regarding James' treatment, he must continue to follow the rules of patient autonomy. In no way is the physician allowed to make the decisions for James because Mike and Joanne are the parents of James. This is because James is not old enough to make decisions for himself. It may be hard for the physician to see Mike make such irrational and harmful choices, especially the denial of early dialysis that led to further kidney complications and a need for a kidney transplant, but there is really nothing else the physician could do.

The most the physician could do is educate a patient or the parent of a patient on the options available. Patient education is the best option for a physician when faced with this kind of situation. There were instances where patients and the parents of patients refused life-saving treatment. Sometimes it ended in the patient's death, other times it did not. In certain states parents, may be tried and booked for medical neglect, however other states (Idaho) allow such behavior and thus nothing can truly be done to help these patients.

Had they been in neighboring Oregon, her parents could have been booked for medical neglect. In Mariah's case, as in scores of others of instances of preventable death among children in Idaho since the 1970s, laws exempt dogmatic faith healers from prosecution, and she and her sister recently took part in a panel discussion with lawmakers at the state capitol about the issue (Wilson, 2016).

Examining it from a Christian Ethics perspective, Christians have the moral right to deny treatment "in the form of medication or surgery or lifesupport systems, that promises nothing more than a prolongation of the dying process" (Crooks, 2015, p. 125). While parents may be seen as negligent should they refuse a lifesaving treatment for their child in certain states, in general it is part of the laws of the United States to allow a person to refuse any kind of medical treatment, even in a life or death situation. Mike and Joanne have strong faith in their religion and want to adhere to the rules established in their Church and in their faith. By refusing the first dialysis, they were trying to perform things in a way they believed were right with God.

In terms of patient autonomy, going back to the rights of the patient, patients can make their own decisions without interference from a health care provider. Mike was influenced by his faith in terms of his decision-making. The only way the physician could influence Mike decision is by educating Mike on the available options and what might happen should James not receive treatment. By giving Mike an informed option, this may help steer Mike towards making the best decision for his son, James.

Organ donation as earlier mentioned, is a form of mutilation to some in the Christian faith. Furthermore, Mike does not know if Samuel's kidney donation will alleviate James' condition and Samuel might develop complication from having lost a kidney. There are many possibilities to consider for Mike and Joanne in terms of allowing Samuel's kidney to go to James. Not only would they be mutilating their healthy son Samuel, but may also not truly help James in his recovery. This is perhaps why Mike is so hesitant to go along with the possible donation.

Christians have their way of viewing the world. Christianity is a diverse faith with many different sects and traditions. Christians should view sickness and health as they would a plant. For the plant to grow, it need water and sunlight. Sometimes, people need medicine to grow and be healthy, sometimes they do not. But having that option available can help someone potentially overcome difficult obstacles in life like a chronic illness or acute disease. In a way, people should understand that medicine is not there to hurt or maim people, but rather to provide options to achieve good health and longevity.