Christian Scientists in LDR/PP

[pirap]

i am not posting this to question any other members religious beliefs but i am extremely curious...

recently a co-worker of mine took care of a patient that was a "christian scientist." she labored and labored..got an epidural and with no more progression ended up with a c/s. during her pregnancy she had a few ultrasounds, went through with the gtt and had the afp test as well. she was tested for gbs and had bloodwork for the various prental tests.

anyway when she came up to the floor she had a morphine pca and after it was d/c'd she took percocet for pain. meanwhile, the nurses in the nursery heard a murmur on the baby and just by chance one of the neonatologists was in there and he listened to it. the father of baby was there and he refused to let anyone hook the baby up to get an oxygen sat-baby didn't look right-refused to let any other doctor be consulted, refused an ultrasound and said the baby was not to get oxygen even if needed. both parents still refused even after all the risks/benefits were explained.

my question..why is it that the mom received all sorts of medical intervention for herself and refused to give her son the most basic necessity atleast--oxygen??? the parents said if you allow one thing it leads to something else which makes for more medical intervention...isnt that what you did when you got all those tests while pregnant!!!!!!??????

this is what i found, so it sounds so hypocritical what the parents did:

christian scientists do not believe in medical intervention and are likely to be in hospital only for childbirth, for the setting of broken bones or involuntarily as the result of an accident. the christian science church does not try to control the actions of its members, and the level of treatment accepted in hospital is up to each individual, but the acceptance of medication is viewed as tragically wrong. because a christian scientist patient might be influenced by their family, it would be wise to ask them to make decisions about their care when they are alone{my coworker did this}

blood products, blood transfusions, organ donation, life support

generally, drugs, blood products, blood transfusions, organ donation and life support are not acceptable within the teachings of christian science. however, although all healthcare decisions are up to the individual, some parents may agree to their children receiving life-saving medical intervention.

dental care

christian scientists may accept dental care but it must be performed without any pain relief.

food and medicines

christian scientists are opposed to the use of all medication, including pain relief.

not questioning anyones personal beliefs, but why do some religious principals apply only when its convenient??

[happybunny1970]

Sounds like Dad was making choices for Baby, but if consulted alone Mom may have had other ideas (as she did for herself -- bet you dollars to doughnuts Dad didn't know about some of her decisions).

I had a patient a couple weeks ago who was all torn up because he was raised in this faith (though not currently actively practicing) and really needed to receive blood (HGB 8.2). He had such a hard time with it. Finally decided to accept the blood, because he wanted to be around to spend Thanksgiving with his kids, but said he would 'loathe' himself because of his decision (kidney failure post cancer -- no way he was going to make up the RBCs on his own). We talked at length before he made his decision, and I was very careful in what I said so as not to pressure him, but his argument just made no sense to me -- something about God had said man was not to eat the blood of pigs, it was not to be in their body, and if that blood was bad how could blood from another human be good?

As with any tenets of faith, I suppose these ideas make sense to those who believe in them, so I'm always careful not to appear judgmental and to provide only scientific facts that they request (I offer to tell them what I know if they want to hear it, don't force the information on them).

Do I think this parent was nuts? Yeah, but as long as the laws of this nation say he can practice his faith and it's not illegal for him to refuse treatment, he has as much right to refuse as I have to consent.

[Quickbeam, BSN, RN]

My opinion based on my study of this denomination:

One of the reasons some of the tenets of CS may seem illogical is that it was a faith founded by one person in the 1800's. When Mary Baker Eddy got a toothache, it was then ok for Christian Scientists to have dental care. It didn't spring so much from a set of texts or a scripture but rather one woman's experience in life. Christian Science exploded in the 1930's in the US but has quietly shrunk in the past 4 decades. The church in my town has fewer than 5 attendees. 3 churches have closed and been sold in the towns near mine in the last 10 years.

Many of the tenets of Christian Science were great in a time before antibiotics. Instead of taking to their beds with "the vapors", ladies were encouraged to loosen their corsets and get some exercise. Eat well. Live free from vice. Many people attributed their improved mental and physical health to the principles of healthy living Eddy espoused.

The CS child deaths of the 1980's and 1990's have caused many to rethink denying their children health care. It is a contraversial issue.

[CEG]

One other thing to consider- it is sometimes implied or even outright told to women that certain tests are "mandatory" and they can get into trouble with the state or CPS, or that their doctor will not care for them if they refuse. That may have influenced some of her treatment decisions.

Sometimes women will get an epi as an alternative to c/s, maybe allowing them to rest, relax and progress further. It's possible that it was presented to her that way. Then of course with the c/s the belief that baby's life was in danger may have prompted mom's sacrifice by having the surgery. Dad may not have felt baby was in that much danger with the murmur or perhaps takes a harder stance than mom. He may be thinking that many newborn murmurs are harmless.

Just throwing out another possibilty- I've heard the "epi to relax and progress and avoid c/s" argument frequently. I've also heard of many women being coerced into tests and procedures they did not want.

[NurseNora, BSN, RN]

Allowing for one thing for mom led to her having a section. Perhaps in looking back over her pregnancy and labor she believes she'd have been better off not to have started on the road that led to the section and so she's going to not get let things start for the baby.

Or perhaps, as another poster suggested, if the father wasn't around, she would have OK'd the O2 and such for her baby. It's hard to look at someone's behavior and figure out what they're thinking.

[pi-csn]

as a christian science nurse, i sympathize with your ethical dilemma and genuinely appreciate the compassion & understanding you all are presenting here about this difficult case. although i don't deal on the medical level that you do, & don't know the facts of this case, nor can i comment on the rightness of the ethics that would particularly support this decision, there are a few points about christian science that i could clarify. i'm not here to endorse or take a side, though.

the christian science church does not dictate to its members what they must or mustn't do in any regard to healthcare. it is often assumed that christian science imposes some irrational dogmatic bias against medicine for church members. although we do generally rely of prayer instead of mainstream medicine, most christian scientists i know would never put a child or family member at risk, particularly in this kind of situation where they're in a hospital under the care of medical professionals. as unusual as it may seem, most christian scientists rely on prayer as their first resort, not out any kind of religious zeal, blind faith, or indoctrination, but because they have seen it work effectively for themselves and their families over many generations.

re: happybunny1970's experience, i don't think this is anything a christian scientist would say or think. are you not referring to jehovah's witnesses? there is nothing in the teachings of christian science that supports any of those ideas[color=#990000].

contrary to quickbeam's opinion, the situation describing eddy's teeth is not in any biography or archival material i have ever found. indeed, christian science sprang directly from the scriptures and not from "one woman's experience in life." she instructed her pupils to follow her example only so far as she followed the christ, nor were some of the ideas associated with mrs. eddy by the poster espoused by mrs. eddy.

as one of you pointed out, it is a different day and a different culture and certainly a different level of scientific progress. thus it isn't easy for us christian scientists to find ourselves in these kinds of situations. yet our trust and understanding of christian healing is based on present-day experience and success, not on the particulars of the life of mary baker eddy so much as on the understanding & healing system she has presented. for many of us, our conviction of the effectiveness of christian science healing is no less logical and no less based on our experience than is your trust in modern medicine.

personally, i was healed, through prayer alone, of deafness in my right ear as a child after being examined by the health authorities. as a child, i was hit by a car, thrown over 10 feet into a ditch, had internal bleeding and was unable to walk, so was examined by an md, relied totally on prayer for healing and was healed and back in school in two weeks. those are just two of many instances of healing through prayer in my experience.

to learn what the tenets of christian science actually are, you're invited to go to [color=#003399]http://www.spirituality.com/dt/book_lookup.jhtml#jumpto and type in 497:3-27 in the "search for citation:" box. this is an online version of eddy's primary book, science and health with key to the scriptures. this is the best book for learning what christian science is really about.

[happybunny1970]

re: happybunny1970's experience, i don't think this is anything a christian scientist would say or think. are you not referring to jehovah's witnesses? there is nothing in the teachings of christian science that supports any of those ideas[color=#990000].

nope, he was quite clear. i thought the same thing initially. but we had a lengthy discussion.

[Quickbeam, BSN, RN]

There is a powerful book: "God's Perfect Child" by Caroline Fraser. It is now out of print but widely available used (Amazon, etc.). It is a wonderfully written book about the history of Christian Science. Fraser is a former CS. I found it balanced and it gave me a lot of insight into the current status of the CS church. I first got interested because my denomination bought a CS church. I also grew up in an area with a lot of CS churches.

Fraser discusses the practice of Christian Science nursing in addition to the child deaths and politics in the mother church.

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

Nope, he was quite clear. I thought the same thing initially. But we had a lengthy discussion.

He was confused himself then. Poor guy.

Jehovah's Witness's are the ones who don't take blood products because of their interpretation of scripture.

"The official teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses regards blood as sacred and rejects allogeneic and pre-operative autologous transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma.This is based on an understanding of the Biblical admonition to " abstain from ... blood," based on Acts 15:28, 29, and also on Leviticus 17:11,12, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood ... No soul of you shall eat blood."

Although accepted by a majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, evidence indicates a minority does not wholly endorse this doctrine. Baptized Witnesses who violate the prohibition on blood are subject to organized communal shunning. However, it is a personal decision on how their "own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy." This is qualified by their understanding that "collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy," so their position is they do not "store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out." Of course, in current medical practice, whole blood transfusions are very rare, and individual blood components are used instead. While Witnesses may not accept red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, they may accept any fractions made from these components. However, if a fraction, "makes up a significant portion of that component" or "carries out the key function of a primary component" it may be objectionable to them but is permissible.

Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to highlight dangers of blood transfusions. Witness representatives have stated that plasma volume expanders are often sufficient to take care of various medical emergency situations. However, Witnesses explain that their objections to blood transfusions are for religious reasons.

A growing number of hospitals are offering bloodless techniques in medicine and surgery. A number of medical professionals have credited Jehovah's Witnesses and their related organizations for their contribution to the dissemination of information regarding bloodless surgery techniques. Experts in the medical surgical profession have collaborated with Jehovah's Witnesses to produce information regarding the benefits of bloodless techniques and therapies.

Witness publications have acknowledged that abiding by this doctrine has led to premature deaths due to blood loss, but there are no published statistics on total deaths. However, regarding the single patient presentation of pregnancy, a 2002 medical journal stated: "In the CEMD the very high risk of mortality in women who refuse blood transfusion was highlighted. The death rate in this group was 1 per 1,000 maternities compared with an expected incidence of less than 1 per 100,000 maternities."

In her article in the Journal of Church and State, Kerry Louderback-Wood alleges that labeling the currently acceptable blood fractions as "minute" in relation to whole blood causes followers to misunderstand the scope and extent of allowed fractions. She also claims that Witness publications exaggerate the medical risks of taking blood and the efficiency of non-blood medical therapies in critical situations.However, blood transfusions still pose risks and can lead to complications, including death. Many hospitals require close monitoring of patients who have received blood transfusions up to 24 hours after treatment.

Ethical concerns in managing blood crisis situations in pediatric cases has sometimes led to transfusions being administered to children against family wishes. Some medical ethicists contend that "serious ethical violations are currently used to enforce the blood policy" among Jehovah's Witnesses, including the suppression of dissident views within the religion. Witness leaders have defended these policies as obedience to scripture and religious conscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses