Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T09:17:25.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minority Minors and Moral Research Medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2009

Frederick O. Bonkovsky
Frederick O. Bonkovsky
Affiliation:
Acting Chief of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Treatment of sick children of Jehovah's Witness and Christian Scientist families at times presents significant dilemmas to American medicine and ethics, for modern healthcare professionals rely heavily on active treatment, and withholding of some treatments is a central religious tenet for Witnesses and Scientists. In important instances, physicians, nurses, ethicists, and courts may wish to set aside traditional religious beliefs and values when medical values support treatment to which adherents of these sects at times object.

Type
Special Section: The Unborn and the Newly Born: Seeking Ethical Standards
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Winter 1997 , pp. 39 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Singelenberg, R. The blood transfusion taboo of Jehovah's Witnesses: origin, development, and function of a controversial doctrine. Social Sci & Med 1990;31(4):51–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Wreen, MJ. Autonomy, religious values, and refusal of lifesaving medical treatment. Journal Medical Ethics 1991;17(3):124–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Luban, NL, Leikin, SL. Jehovah's Witnesses and transfusion: the pediatric perspective. Transfusion Medicine Review 1991;5(4):253–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Sacks, DA, Koppes, RH. Caring for the female Jehovah's Witness: balancing medicine, ethics, and the First Amendment. American Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;170(2):452–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. J.V. v. State of Florida. 516 So. 2nd 1133, Fla. App. 1 Dist., 1987.

6. Hadley, RA. State v. McKown. Issues in Law & Medicine 1992;8(3):377–80.Google Scholar

7. Skolnick, AA. Christian Science Church loses first civil suit on wrongful death of a child. JAMA 1993;270:1781–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. See note 7.

9. Religious News Service. Christian Science penalty overturned. Christian Century 1995 05 3:3–4.Google Scholar

10. Washington Post 1993 Nov. 20.

11. See note 2. Wreen, 1991.Google Scholar

12. The Public Law 103–141 continues.

SEC.3.FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

(a) IN GENERAL.–Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) EXCEPTION–Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) JUDICIAL RELIEF.–A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

13. Various studies reveal that “informed consent” for research is often less complete and thorough than scientists, ethicists, and subjects believe or wish it to be.