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...

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…