Religious views on medical treatment

Dionysus

Dionysus

Idoit
Admin
We've all heard of Christian sects who refuse medical treatment, instead insisting on prayer and faith in God to heal illness. The faith position being, basically, this: Any illness or injury is the will of God. We will pray for healing and if it doesn't happen then it must be God's will and we will live (or die) with the divine plan.

We also know that, tragically, people (including innocent children who have no say in the matter) have died needlessly from very treatable conditions.

While to many of us this seems profoundly stupid and irresponsible, one thing you can say about these people is that they're willing to stick to their principles of faith, even to the most tragic conclusion.

So my questions are this:

1) If you're a Christian and you believe Jesus' words - ask and you shall receive - what about the scenario described above? In the cases where people died when readily-available, basic treatment almost certainly would have saved their lives, where does God come into play? If they died is it because they didn't pray correctly, or was it a lack of faith, or something else?

2) Is illness the will of God? And if so, aren't you in direct opposition to God's will by receiving treatment to counter the illness?

3) If you're a Christian, are you personally willing to forego medical treatment for yourself or loved ones and instead rely on prayer (and Jesus' promise of answered prayer) to restore your health? If not, why?

4) Those believers who rely on faith in lieu of medical treatment, are they mistaken in their exercise of faith? Seems to me they're more committed to their beliefs than most 'believers' ever will be.

For me common sense, human biology and Occam's Razor easily dispense with these questions, but I'm interested to know the Christian perspective.
 
My alleged hyper-sensitivity is irrelevant.

How is it that we can assume evil is the will of God but that good is not the will of God?
 
Because the "evil" (sickness) is natural, or to particularly religious people, it's "God's will." The "good" (treatment), on the other hand, is man-made, so it can't be God's will.
 
Bluepies you're correct in that the situation can be framed up that way. What I'm more interested in, though, is the faith position of these types of extreme believers.

For example, say I am a Christian and my child becomes ill. As an expression of my faith in God I elect not to take my child to the doctor, and instead choose to pray about it and let God's will be done. Is this not a legitimate exercise of religious belief? Would other believers say that my trust is misplaced?

I don't see how they can. They may not act the same way in the same circumstances, but to suggest that my actions are somehow not a valid demonstration of faith seems to betray a lack of faith. I mean, sure, it's good to trust God and all, but let's not get all crazy with it, right?

Why do you lock your doors at night? If it's God's will that your house is broken into do you think a locked door is going to impede the divine plan? If God intends for you to die in a car crash do you think wearing a seat belt will matter?

What's the limit on your faith? Where do you draw the line between total trust in God and the need for man-made provisions?
 
Coelacanth is very eloquent on the subject and I agree completely with him. I will only add this.

The faith position proposed by the OP makes an assumption so erroneous, that all attempts made to sustain the claim are moot.

If one believes that any illness or injury is the will of God, then they also believe that anything man discovers is also the will of God.

It must have been God's will that penicillin was "discovered" (along with Tylenol, Viagra, etc.). Therefore, it must be God's will that we use them.
 
Who exactly is the "you" that goes and gets a court order so easily?

Should we ignore bible passgasses? Yes! Just as we as a majority of humans ignore most religious texts of most faiths. Just as Christians ignore many of their own Bible's passgasses. Just because someone bothers to write it down and then someone chooses to believe it doesn't make it worth ****. My wife gets psychic readings where the "psychic" allegedy communicates with the dead. She then sends tapes of the "conversations" to the wife and if I were to transcribe them and my wife believes them, does that make it "truth"? Perhaps for her, and perhaps christians will or should believe in whatever bible they have in their hand, but it's really just a matter of belief or faith and christians (who, in this single query are highlighted) conveniently choose which passages to adhere to.

Was it God's will that we discover that penicillin can heal?
Was it God's will that we discover that cyanide can kill?
Then must it be the christian God's will that we then use our knowledge to either subvert God's will or implement it or implement our own free will. How are we to know what his will is? Who is the authorized recipient of the news? The one that gets the court order or the one who gave birth?

Most enduring religions have no way of "proving" their tenets or having their tenets "disproved". There are never any clear answers to religious questions that will ever be proven (and if they are put to a popular vote from all humans, none of them will ever be proven). It's the very essence of religion. You just have to believe.

When religion collides with government you either have to accept the popular will (might be Hinduism or Islam or Santeria or Voodoo or Confuscianism or Christianity or Judaism or Taoism or Atheism or Judaism or ... ... in your country) you either have to accept the popular sentiment, leave the country or create a country where religion is kept out of government. I heard some folks have tried that, but there is a really strong push to finally eradicate that concept.

Well, that hardly solves the problem of the sick child does it? In that case, the really cool country has a really difficult task of respecting religious freedom while governing at the same time (you can't have a religion that is inspired to kill all human beings or something outlandish like that). So you avoid enacting laws out of respect to a particular religion (ANY religion) and enact laws that respect basic rights. Like the right to life and the right to be free and the right to keep a gun to fight off the zombie teabaggers if they take control and try to enforce their religious will.

Still doesn't really solve the sick child's dilemma does it? We could debate this all day long and there will never be an agreement amongst the very tiny handful of posters who read (much less post) on this thread. About all you can do is gain perspective and that is a good thing to do on the way to understanding and then even empathy.
 
I still haven't seen a Christian response to the original problem. I'm not trying to draw a false dichotomy, I'm asking a serious question that speaks directly to the extent to which someone may claim to act according to their faith, and thereby demand social/legal capitulation to their behavior.

If someone takes their claim of faith to the extreme (denying medical treatment), is this not still viewed by other Christians as a valid expression of belief? Most people in our society will of course avail themselves of a doctor's services. That's a rational thing to do. But can you, as a Christian, condemn the believer who takes the extreme position?

If so, on what grounds? If they are sincere in their belief, who's to judge that it's not the most faithful thing to do?

It seems to me that once we pay deference to faith-based behaviors, it becomes a slippery slope towards increasingly irrational (and possibly harmful) acts.
 
Maduro,

I don't think it is as easy as TV shows would imply for an attending to have any standing to get a court order. It is MY impression that it is an extremely hard, cumbersome and slow-moving process. I know that was just a sideline to the discussion, but it's also not an easy solution and even if you can facilitate the legal machinations, you might draw a judge who either has a strong opinion, no opinion or no resolve to face an emotionally-charged issue. An attending can legally wash her/his hands, but that's about all.

Wish I could have added this as a minor footnote. It shouldn't take away from the discussion.
 
TheNewGuy,

One aspect of that story is that the character John, to his way of thinking, apparently needs God’s will to be expressed in a particular way that is centered on John himself. For John, the act of rescue can only be a valid expression of God’s will if it is visibly in opposition to mundane, non-miraculous methods: outstretched hands, passing boats, and helicopters simply will not do.

John’s desire wasn’t really to be rescued; instead, he saw the potential rescue as an opportunity to validate his righteousness in the eyes of other men. At the heart of John’s desire was a selfish sort of spiritual grandstanding. And therefore I contend that what he did was not merely foolish, but that it was against God’s will. And I suspect it is a similar thought-process that drives fringe Christians to refuse medical treatment.

Dionysus asked earlier if we, as Christians, could “condemn the believer who takes [such an] extreme position?” I condemn the position, and certainly I condemn the act of refusing medical attention to a dependent, but I agree with Pogo that it is not our place to “condemn the believer”, or even the non-believer.
 
If you aren't going to renounce them, don't you have to take responsibility for them? Or risk renouncement of your chosen faith?
 
Nick, try to keep up.

But I have a question for you: Is physical death the enemy of life, or is it a natural part of life?
 
"Is physical death the enemy of life, or is it a natural part of life?" I don't care.

The point of my previous post was a lead-in into an analogous discussion where I could then ask if the (I paused for a long time to try to come up with an unoffensive word to lump Coelocant, New Guy and Pogo into a group. I couldn't do it with confidence so I will just state my intention to not offend and just use "faithful". Don't read anything into it.) faithful ones on this thread would think about whether Sunnis and Shiites have a responsibility to their faiths to "temper" their fellow adherents from separate sects. And, failing to do so, do they have to endure being lumped into the terrorist penumbra?

And then how is Dionysus' question really all that different? At what point does the religion have to respond to the marketing department?

Keeping up Coelocanth? That last question WAS meant to be just as offensive as your almost identical one, btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top