Religious Healing in the Courts: the Liberties and Liabilities of Patients, Parents, and Healers
| Publication year | 1992 |
I. Introduction
Since the close of the nineteenth century, American courts have struggled with the legal dilemmas presented in religious healing controversies. In particular, judicial opinions reveal the manner in which state and federal governments have attempted to satisfy their twin obligations of promoting public health and preserving religious liberty.(fn1) Likewise, scholars have wrestled with the place of religious healing in our legal and medical systems, proposing a variety of measures to restrict(fn2) or expand(fn3) the legitimate scope of religious healing.
As the end of the twentieth century draws near, however, the increasingly precarious state of healthcare in the United States has intensified the debate over the appropriate scope of religious healing as an alternative to conventional medical care. Specifically, as one government commission reports, "[r]apidly rising medical costs are increasing the numbers of people without health coverage and [are] straining the system's capacity to provide care for those who cannot pay."(fn4) In addition, advanced medical technology has been accompanied by tighter governmental control over healthcare.(fn5) Thus, decreased access to medical treatment combined with increasing healthcare regulation has generated friction over the appropriate regulation of alternatives to conventional medical care.(fn6) The regulation of religious healing, in particular, has recently drawn considerable attention around the nation with the prosecution of parents who chose religious rather than medical care for their seriously ill children.(fn7)
Accordingly, in light of this struggle to balance public health with religious liberty, this Article chronicles the evolving liberties and liabilities of religious patients, parents, and healers over the course of the twentieth century and examines the current state of religious healing law. Throughout, it advocates the greatest possible liberty for religious healing consistent with public and family security, as well as advocating equal protection under the law for all involved in religious treatment, whether they are members of organized religious groups or individual practitioners.
Section II begins with a summary of the extensive history of religious healing in the West and describes how its origins on these shores precede national independence. It then traces the development of religious healing in American culture from the early methods of revivalism, mesmerism, and spiritualism in the nineteenth century, to more recent forms of religious healing employed by the Church of Scientology and the New Age movement. Section II then describes how the increased interest in religious healing in the twentieth century and the simultaneous increase in healthcare regulation has led to significant conflict over the parameters of the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty.
Section III focuses on religious patients, the source of their right to refuse medical treatment, and the various limitations imposed on this right. This section finds that religious patients are limited in their right to refuse medical treatment when there is a clear threat of danger to innocent third parties. Section III then describes the various consequences of a patient's preference for religious treatment over medical care. In particular, a patient's choice of religious treatment over medical care may jeopardize his or her recovery for personal injuries and may cast doubt on his or her competency as a juror or testator. Finally, Section III concludes that the growing recognition of a patient's right to control his or her own form of healthcare supports increased freedom for proponents of religious healing.
Section IV explores religious parents' rights and responsibilities for their children's healthcare. Specifically, this section describes the expanding scope of government involvement in compelling medical treatment for children over their parents' religious objections. This section then details the prosecution of parents who relied exclusively on religious healing for their seriously ill child. Section IV concludes that courts should refrain from interfering with the parent-child relationship absent life-threatening circumstances accompanied by the probability-rather than the possibility-of medical cure. Courts should also be willing to entertain evidence that religious healing is a reasonable form of treatment for a sick child.
Section V examines the tension between a legitimate government interest in protecting individuals from fraud and the public's right to practice and receive unorthodox treatment. It explores various forms of regulation applicable to religious healers and suggests that courts should liberally construe current state statutes to permit religious healers to employ spiritual treatment so long as it is harmless in itself and delivered in a religious context.
A hypothetical will help to illustrate the variety of legal dilemmas regarding religious healing that are dealt with in the following pages:
Parent and Child are driving home one afternoon when another motorist collides with their vehicle. Both Parent and Child sustain internal injuries, but they do not go to the hospital. Parent chooses instead to employ Religious Healer who treats both patients on a number of occasions using prayer and other spiritual means.
When State Officials later learn of the accident, they ask Parent and Child to seek medical care. Parent refuses for himself and on behalf of Child. State Officials bring court actions against Parent and Child to compel them both to receive medical care. State Officials claim that Parent's reliance on religious healing is evidence that Parent lacks the mental competence to make decisions of any kind. State Officials also bring criminal charges against Religious Healer for practicing medicine without a license.
While these proceedings are pending, Child dies. The prosecutors charge Parent and Religious Healer with involuntary manslaughter. Disillusioned with religious healing, Parent sues Religious Healer for negligence and malpractice. In addition, Parent sues the motorist for his own and Child's injuries. Unable to return to his former employment as a result of the accident, Parent also files for disability benefits.
Although a thorough analysis of this fact pattern requires the remainder of this Article, the most likely results of this hypothetical litigation may be summarized here. As detailed in Section III, Parent's rights of religious freedom and privacy will protect him from being compelled against his will to submit to medical treatment unless his condition poses a threat to community health. Parent will not be required to seek medical care to recover government disability benefits, and a doctor who forces medical care upon him will be liable for a personal injury.
In addition, Parent cannot be declared incompetent to conduct his affairs simply on the basis of his preference for religious healing. If Parent loses consciousness altogether, however, without first making it clear that he objects to subsequent medical care, a court might order life-saving treatment for him. And in Parent's action against the motorist who caused the accident, the doctrine of avoidable consequences will bar recovery for any of Parent's complications or suffering that could have been avoided had he chosen medical rather than religious treatment.
The decision to employ only religious treatment for Child has at least two significant legal consequences, as described in Section IV. First, the court would most probably have compelled life-saving treatment for Child, unless Child were deemed mature enough to have made the medical decision independently. Had it not been clear that Child's life was in danger, however, Parent's choice of religious treatment might have prevailed, especially in those jurisdictions which statutorily provide that affording spiritual treatment alone for children does not constitute neglect.
As a second consequence, Parent himself may suffer prosecution when Child dies from injuries sustained in the accident. If it is determined that a physician could have saved Child's life, Parent may be convicted of child neglect, child endangerment, or even some form of homicide. Parent's good faith reliance on religious healing, however, may help to reduce or eliminate a prison sentence if he is convicted.
Religious Healer may be more fortunate. As discussed in Section V, she might escape criminal liability for practicing medicine without a license because of statutory exceptions to most state medical licensing acts. The mere fact that she received compensation for her services will not subject her to liability. So long as Religious Healer confined her healing activities to prayer, she need not fear prosecution. But if she employed other means besides prayer-such as laying-on-hands, anointing with oil, or other verbal or material aids-her immunities may vanish. This outcome is even more likely if she is not closely affiliated with an organized religious group.
Finally, with regard to Parent's tort claim against Religious Healer, she would not be liable for negligence or malpractice...
To continue reading
Request your trial