When Religion Meets Medical Malpractice

Across the country, there is an increasing trend for large hospital entities to absorb smaller chains under their umbrellas. An estimated 600 hospitals across the United States are Catholic, and more are associated with other religions. When religion and healthcare mix, some worry that health outcomes suffer. Do religious beliefs in hospitals force doctors to provide substandard care, leading to medical malpractice?

A HISTORY OF RELIGION IN MEDICINE

The complicated relationship between religion and medicine makes it more difficult for Americans to access healthcare. Consider the case of Jessica Mann, a young woman who recently had a baby and wanted her tubes tied after the procedure. Her local hospital, a Catholic medical center in Michigan, said no.

Tubal litigation is not allowed in Catholic hospitals, as are other methods that prevent pregnancy—even when the mother’s health is at stake. Mann has a rare brain tumor, and her doctor suggested a sterilization procedure, citing that further pregnancies could endanger her health and perhaps even be fatal. However, the hospital refused the procedure, citing an exemption allowing them to forbid it on religious grounds.

Federal law stipulates that medical providers can legally refuse abortion or sterilization services for religious reasons. Most providers, however, are legally bound to provide care in the event of an emergency. Even when a religious hospital offers emergency services, bylaws can lead to unnecessary services and delays in medical care. For example, a woman was recently traveling in the Midwest with her husband when she developed severe abdominal pain, landing her in a nearby emergency room.

Doctors determined that she had an ectopic pregnancy, a life-threatening condition in which an embryo implants in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. A drug called Methotrexate can force the embryo out of the tube, but according to Catholic bylaws, this constitutes an abortion. Instead, doctors working for Catholic organizations are required to remove the tube that contains the embryo.

IS THIS MALPRACTICE?

Malpractice hinges on the idea of negligence: that another doctor would have performed differently in the same circumstances. Doctors are trained to make minimally invasive decisions, maximize the patient’s outcome, and are interested in saving lives before considering religious freedom.

Methotrexate is less invasive than surgery, and most healthcare professionals consider it a “first-line” treatment for ectopic pregnancy. However, the law becomes less clear when doctors operate under an institution’s religious constraints.

The key to determining malpractice is the phrase “given the same circumstances.” In secular hospitals, doctors would give a woman with an ectopic pregnancy Methotrexate before risking severe surgery. But when healthcare providers are forced to follow Catholic directives, they must recommend surgery—even if it goes against the current standard of care.

VACCINES AND RELIGION

In some religions, vaccines are considered a violation of the body, which many people feel is a holy vessel. However, the Centers for Disease Control and other organizations involved with world health care consider vaccines a necessary health service to protect the general public, especially young children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems. While Pennsylvania currently allows philosophical exemptions to vaccination, lawmakers are banning personal exemptions, citing that vaccines save lives and that exemptions should only be granted on medical or religious grounds.

Vaccines are a sensitive subject. Some claim that vaccination should be a personal choice, while others hold that herd immunity protects vulnerable populations from preventable diseases. Still others, such as those with children who cannot take vaccines due to compromised immune systems—like those undergoing chemotherapy—rightly suggest that healthy children without vaccines endanger their own children’s health.

RELIGION AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS

Religious beliefs often affect medical malpractice claims in cases involving Catholic hospitals or faith-based health care providers. Malpractice claims depend on whether the standard of care—what most physicians would consider best practice in similar situations—was met.

When doctors prioritize religious practices over medical standards, patients can sometimes face increased risks. For instance, in situations where patients are denied treatments like blood transfusions or certain types of medication due to religious policies, the resulting harm can raise complex questions about medical negligence. Medical practitioners generally aim to provide safe, effective care, but religious directives may prevent them from offering the full spectrum of medical options.

IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ON PATIENT CARE

Federal and state laws, including the Affordable Care Act, strive to balance religious freedom with the right to access adequate medical care. However, religious exemptions often leave health and human services providers in difficult situations, especially in emergency scenarios where treatment decisions must be immediate. For example, some Christian Science practitioners and faith healers prefer prayer over modern medical treatments, a choice supported by the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. Nonetheless, when this preference intersects with health care provider’s duty to treat life-threatening conditions, questions about the role of religious beliefs in medical malpractice emerge.

RELIGIOUS PRACTICES AND ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT

In addition to Catholic hospitals, other groups, such as Christian Scientists, may decline specific treatments, like blood transfusions or vaccines, based on religious grounds. Public officials often debate the limits of these practices, especially when preventable diseases are involved. For instance, while religious exemptions for vaccinations exist in some states, medical and philosophical exemptions are restricted to protect public health.

Herd immunity is critical for those unable to receive vaccines, such as children with compromised immune systems, yet personal and religious beliefs sometimes conflict with these protections. In states where philosophical exemptions are allowed, many physicians worry that reduced vaccination rates increase the spread of preventable diseases, putting entire communities at risk.

LEGAL RIGHTS AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE IN FAITH-BASED HOSPITALS

Patients treated in religious hospitals have a legal right to understand their treatment options. When hospitals impose policies rooted in religious beliefs, they sometimes restrict or modify treatment options, particularly for procedures like sterilizations or abortions. Secular hospitals typically follow a more standardized approach, but religious facilities are permitted by law to adapt their care based on religious doctrine.

This can raise issues when patients are denied certain forms of medical care on religious grounds. Federal government protections provide leeway for institutions. However, patients experiencing adverse outcomes from limited treatment options may still have grounds to file malpractice claims if the treatment falls below accepted medical standards.

The relationship between medicine and religion can be tricky to navigate. Do not let your rights be lost in the process. If you have any questions about the quality of your medical services, contact us at (215) 567-7600 and speak with a Philadelphia medical malpractice attorney from the Hill & Associates law firm for a free case evaluation. We take our clients contingently, so you only pay if we win. Get in touch today.