Abstract

The recent deaths of two children from parental decisions to rely on faith healing rather than medical treatment raises fundamental questions about the extent and limits of religious liberty in a liberal democratic society. This essay seeks to identify and critically examine three central issues internal to the ethics of religious communities that engage in faith healing regarding children: (1) the various forms of religious and nonreligious justification for faith healing; (2) the moral, institutional, or metaphysical wrong of medical practice from the perspectives of faith-healing communities; (3) the explanation or "theodicy" articulated by the religious community when faith healing does not occur and a child dies. The essay finds that the holding in Prince v. Massachusetts that parents with religious convictions cannot enforce martyrdom on their children presents a guiding principle for medicine and public policy.