Whose harm? Which metaphysic?
Douglas Diekema has argued that it is not the best interest standard, but the harm principle that serves as the moral basis for ethicists, clinicians, and the courts to trigger state intervention to limit parental authority in the clinic. Diekema claims the harm principle is especially effective in justifying state intervention in cases of religiously motivated medical neglect in pediatrics involving Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists. I argue that Diekema has not articulated a harm principle that is capable of justifying state intervention in these cases. Where disagreements over appropriate care are tethered to metaphysical disagreements (as they are for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists), it is moral-metaphysical standards, rather than merely moral standards, that are needed to provide substantive guidance. I provide a discussion of Diekema’s harm principle to the broader end of highlighting an inconsistency between the theory and practice of secular bioethics when overriding religiously based medical decisions. In a secular state, ethicists, clinicians, and the courts are purportedly neutral with respect to moral-metaphysical positions, especially regarding those claims considered to be religious. However, the practice of overriding religiously based parental requests requires doffing the mantle of neutrality. In the search for a meaningful standard by which to override religiously based parental requests in pediatrics, bioethicists cannot avoid some minimal metaphysical commitments. To resolve this inconsistency, bioethicists must either begin permitting religiously based requests, even at the cost of children’s lives, or admit that at least some moral-metaphysical disputes can be rationally adjudicated.
KeywordsHarm principle Medical neglect Parental refusals Children Best interests Metaphysics Religious belief
I would like to thank Jeffrey Bishop, Erica Salter, Stephanie Cargill, and Harold Braswell for their guidance in the preparation of this manuscript, as well as the reviewers and editorial staff at Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics for their help refining and clarifying my arguments.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare to have no conflicts of interest.
- 2.Lo, Bernard. 2009. Resolving ethical dilemmas: A guide for clinicians. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- 5.Buchanan, Allen E., and Dan W. Brock. 1989. Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 8.Diekema, Douglas S. 2011. Revisiting the best interest standard: Uses and misuses. Journal of Clinical Ethics 22: 128–133.Google Scholar
- 12.Elliston, Sarah. 2007. The best interests of the child in healthcare. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 16.Lowe, E.J. 2002. A survey of metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 17.Timmons, Mark. 2013. Moral theory: An introduction. 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- 18.Moreno, Jonathan D. 1995. Deciding together: Bioethics and moral consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 19.Mill, John Stuart. 1993. Utilitarianism. In On liberty and utilitarianism, 153–236. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
- 20.Feinberg, Joel. 1984. The moral limits of the criminal law, Vol. 1: Harm to others. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 21.Lantos, John D. 1997. Do we still need doctors? A physician’s personal account of practicing medicine today. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 22.Ross, Lainie Friedman. 1998. Children, families, and health care decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 23.Dworkin, Gerald. 1982. Consent, representation, and proxy consent. In Who speaks for the child: The problems of proxy consent, ed. Willard Gaylin and Ruth Macklin, 191–208. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
- 28.Feldman, Richard, and Ted A. Warfield (eds.). 2010. Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 29.Bock, Gregory L. 2012. Making martyrs of our children: Religiously based requests in pediatrics. Ethics and Medicine 28: 89–98.Google Scholar
- 30.NeJaime, Douglas, and Reva B. Siegel. 2015. Conscience wars: Complicity-based conscience claims in religion and politics. Yale Law Journal 124: 2516–2591.Google Scholar
- 34.Engelhardt, H. Tristram, Jr. 1996. The foundations of bioethics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 36.Lipka, Michael. 2016. A closer look at Jehovah’s Witnesses living in the U.S. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. http://pewrsr.ch/1T2yaLH. Accessed October 5, 2018.
- 37.Black, Cherie. 2007. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 28. https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Boy-dies-of-leukemia-after-refusing-treatment-for-1257094.php.
- 38.Roberts, Laura. 2010. Teenage Jehovah’s Witness refuses blood transfusion and dies. Daily Telegraph, May 18. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7734480/Teenage-Jehovahs-Witness-refuses-blood-transfusion-and-dies.html.
- 39.Vaillant, Daniel. 2000. The prosecution of Christian Scientists: A needed protection for children or insult added to injury. Cleveland State Law Review 48: 479–502.Google Scholar
- 41.Offit, Paul A. 2015. Bad faith: When religious belief undermines modern medicine. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- 45.Feinberg, Joel. 2007. The child’s right to an open future. In Philosophy of education: An anthology, ed. Randall R. Curren, 112–123. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- 47.Sulmasy, Daniel P. 2002. Informed consent without autonomy. Fordham Urban Law Journal 30: 207–220.Google Scholar
- 50.MacIntyre, Alasdair C. 1984. After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
- 51.MacIntyre, Alasdair C. 1988. Whose justice? Which rationality?. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
- 52.Mackie, J.L. 1990. Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
- 53.Zaner, Richard M. 1988. Ethics and the clinical encounter. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- 54.Arras, John. 2016. Theory and bioethics. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 2016 ed, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University Metaphysics Research Lab. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/theory-bioethics.
- 56.Engelhardt, H. Tristram, Jr. 2009. Credentialing strategically ambiguous and heterogeneous social skills: The emperor without clothes. HEC Forum 21: 298–306.Google Scholar
- 59.Engelhardt, H. Tristram, Jr. 1991. Bioethics and secular humanism: The search for a common morality. Eugene: Wipf and Stock.Google Scholar
- 61.Albert, Hans. 1968. Traktat über kritische Vernunft. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
- 62.Engelhardt, H. Tristram, Jr. (ed.). 2011. Bioethics critically reconsidered: Having second thoughts. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- 63.American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. 2011. Core competencies for healthcare ethics consultation. 2nd ed. Glenview: American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.Google Scholar
- 64.Rasmussen, Lisa M. 2011. Clinical ethics consultation’s dilemma, and a solution. Journal of Clinical Ethics 22: 380–392.Google Scholar
- 65.Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar