Full Version: Faith Healing
Here in eastern Tennesee, a faith healer who had previously been convicted of fraud and served prison time is back on the road. He is, of course, drawing large crowds. (This was very recently reported in the Chattanooga newspaper, but I am unable to find a link to the story.) In my opinion, these professional faith healers are almost all charlatans, and an insult to persons of true faith everywhere. The few who are not out-and-out con artists are, in my view, deluded about their abilities. I certainly do not deny the psychological effect of prayer and meditation on illnesses, but I believe that this is strictly a placebo effect. (We should keep in mind that the placebo effect can be extremely important.)
DEBATE TOPIC NUMBER ONE: Should professional faith healers be regulated in any way? Should their claims be judged by some sort of authority before they are allowed to make them? Or does this infringe on freedom of religion?
In sharp contrast to the hypocrisy of these professional faith healers are the sincere beliefs of those who refuse medical treatment for religious reasons. I do not deny the right of an adult to refuse any form of medical treatment for any reason. However, many of these adults also refuse such treatment for their dependent children. This sometimes leads to tragedy, as children die from ailments which could be cured with relative ease. To my way of thinking, this is a form of child abuse, no matter how loving and kind the parents may be.
DEBATE TOPIC NUMBER TWO: Should parents have the legal right to refuse vital medical treatment for their dependent children, based on religious beliefs? Or should the state have the power to provide such treatment without the consent of the parents? (For discussion purposes, assume we are talking about serious, potentially life-threatening illnesses for which medical treatments exist.)
DEBATE TOPIC NUMBER ONE: Should professional faith healers be regulated in any way? Should their claims be judged by some sort of authority before they are allowed to make them? Or does this infringe on freedom of religion?
In sharp contrast to the hypocrisy of these professional faith healers are the sincere beliefs of those who refuse medical treatment for religious reasons. I do not deny the right of an adult to refuse any form of medical treatment for any reason. However, many of these adults also refuse such treatment for their dependent children. This sometimes leads to tragedy, as children die from ailments which could be cured with relative ease. To my way of thinking, this is a form of child abuse, no matter how loving and kind the parents may be.
DEBATE TOPIC NUMBER TWO: Should parents have the legal right to refuse vital medical treatment for their dependent children, based on religious beliefs? Or should the state have the power to provide such treatment without the consent of the parents? (For discussion purposes, assume we are talking about serious, potentially life-threatening illnesses for which medical treatments exist.)
Aritcle on Homeopathy
Homeopathy isn't exactly the same thing as faith healing, but I think the two are related. They both fly in the face of true medical practice and seem to rely almost solely on the placebo effect.
To address faith healing in particular...
Quakery: Faith healing
I'm inclined to agree with these recommendations.
The article details that many people (79%) believe that faith healings work. It also says that non-believers largely don't see faith healings as being that serious a danger, or there being a necessity to intervene. To cite an example of the "quackery" behind faith healing, and to point out the immediate dangers of this practice...
Homeopathy isn't exactly the same thing as faith healing, but I think the two are related. They both fly in the face of true medical practice and seem to rely almost solely on the placebo effect.
To address faith healing in particular...
Quakery: Faith healing
QUOTE
Can anything be done about faith healing? Believers don't see it as a problem, while most nonbelievers don't see it as a priority issue and have little sympathy for its victims. But a few things might help lower faith healing's toll on our society:
Laws to protect children from medical neglect in the
name of healing should be passed and enforced. In
states that allow religious exemptions from medical
neglect, these exemptions should be revoked. Maybe
the practice of faith healing on minors should be
illegal.
Faith healing should no longer be deductible as a
medical expense.
Reporters should be encouraged to do follow-up
studies of people acclaimed to have been "healed."
"Healers" who use trickery to raise large sums of
money should be prosecuted for grand larceny.
Laws to protect children from medical neglect in the
name of healing should be passed and enforced. In
states that allow religious exemptions from medical
neglect, these exemptions should be revoked. Maybe
the practice of faith healing on minors should be
illegal.
Faith healing should no longer be deductible as a
medical expense.
Reporters should be encouraged to do follow-up
studies of people acclaimed to have been "healed."
"Healers" who use trickery to raise large sums of
money should be prosecuted for grand larceny.
I'm inclined to agree with these recommendations.
The article details that many people (79%) believe that faith healings work. It also says that non-believers largely don't see faith healings as being that serious a danger, or there being a necessity to intervene. To cite an example of the "quackery" behind faith healing, and to point out the immediate dangers of this practice...
QUOTE
During the early 1970s, Minnesota surgeon William Nolen, M.D., attended a service conducted by Katherine Kuhlman, the leading evangelical healer of that period. After noting the names of 25 people who had been "miraculously healed," he was able to perform follow-up interviews and examinations. Among other things, he discovered that one woman who had been announced as cured of "lung cancer" actually had Hodgkin's disease -- which was unaffected by the experience. Another woman with cancer of the spine had discarded her brace and followed Ms. Kuhlman's enthusiastic command to run across the stage. The following day her backbone collapsed, and four months later she died. Overall, not one person with organic disease had been helped. Dr. Nolen reported his findings, which included observations of several other healers, in Healing: A Doctor in Search of a Miracle , a book that I heartily recommend [2].
QUOTE
Homeopathy isn't exactly the same thing as faith healing, but I think the two are related. They both fly in the face of true medical practice and seem to rely almost solely on the placebo effect.
I think it depends upon which philosophy of homeopathic medicine you adhere to, Abs. It's not really a good comparison to faith healing, because generally homeopathic docs look at the body holistically, and respond accordingly. That includes referring patients on to a standard physician when necessary.
QUOTE
Should professional faith healers be regulated in any way? Should their claims be judged by some sort of authority before they are allowed to make them? Or does this infringe on freedom of religion?
I'm inclined to say that I don't believe that Faith Healers should be regulated...at least not by the government. In a sense, licensing them and/or regulating them would add validity to their claims. If a person wants to receive treatment from an unlicensed individual, it should be at their own risk.
I do agree with the list that Abs provided, though, particularly the bit about reporters.
QUOTE
Should parents have the legal right to refuse vital medical treatment for their dependent children, based on religious beliefs? Or should the state have the power to provide such treatment without the consent of the parents? (For discussion purposes, assume we are talking about serious, potentially life-threatening illnesses for which medical treatments exist.)
No, parents should not have the right to refuse treatment. Freedom of religon can't infringe on someone else's right, and since the child is too young to make that decision, I think that it's appropriate for the state to step-in and provide medical care.
Edited to fix my quotes.
I agree that faith healers should not be regulated, but then again if they are not regulated and a child dies of an illness that could have been prevented, Should the faith healer be held accountable?
I think the parents should be held accountable for taking their children to an unlicensed practitioner.
I agree with you cyan, parents SHOULD be held accountable for with -holding medical remedies. When I was a child, my father hated doctors, But am not sure if it was from his religion or from personal experience. Whatever the reason was we werent allowed to be seen by anybody in the medical profession, Illness and injuries were attended to by a friend of my father that was "good" at that kind of stuff. I was six years old when that friend that was "good" at that kind of stuff told my father that my fever was from a virus going around and not to worry about it, Aspirin and water would knock it out. It wasnt till later when we found out i had had what was known as Rubella that cost me my hearing. My fathers response? "It was Gods will". It took me 20 years to realize that God wasnt a jerk, My father was.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.