Allopathic Behavior Case Study

Medical care in pediatrics is complicated network that involves decision making from both a patient and care provider perspective. In contrast with adult medicine, patient consent to treatment is muddled by the challenge posed in treating for young children who may lack cognitive maturity to achieve the requisite capacity and understanding. In these instances, parents are allocated the role of substitute decision maker. In order to enforce the pillar of patient autonomy, parents are afforded the right to guide treatment decisions in a similar manner to their own individual health care; it is hoped that through this process, the best interests of the child are maintained. In the case of Ezekiel Stephan, however, the parental beliefs surrounding best interest may be in …show more content…
However, it is important to consider the ethical implications should the opposite decision have been upheld. If David and Collet had not been found to have failed to provide the necessaries of life, a precedent would be set to include naturopaths as equal members of the healthcare community to allopathic practitioners. Simply put, this is extremely dangerous. Equal footing between allopathic and naturopathic practitioners implies that the recommendations made by the practitioners in question should carry equal weighting. This would be despite the fact that there is a clear dichotomy in the degree of training, evidence based practice, and understanding of disease between the two disciplines. The scope of the decision in this case has a broad reaching implication, in that the legal system does recognize the adjunctive nature of naturopathy compared to the integral nature of allopathic medicine. The argument here does not suggest that naturopaths have no place in healthcare; it rather reinforces the need for evidence based assessment of naturopathic remedies before involving them within the circle of