Pattern 66
Spiritual practice does not replace health care
Clarify service scope when wellness, illness and faith overlap.
Concrete takeaway
Distinguish general information, pastoral reflection, optional wellness practice and professional health care.
Choose an approach
These are editorial decision conditions to validate. Some alternatives are successive states or can be combined; they are not always exclusive choices.
| Alternative | Use when | Tradeoff or requirement |
|---|---|---|
| A · Scope is clear | The person wants general or pastoral information | The interface must not imply individual treatment |
| B · Safer practice alternative | A practice conflicts with health circumstances | An alternative should not become another demand |
| C · Care remains available | Professional support is relevant | Spiritual support can accompany it without replacing it |
The problem
An app may frame symptoms as weak faith, give medication advice, or intensify fasting and other practices despite potential harm.
The pattern
Distinguish general information, pastoral reflection, optional wellness practice and professional health care. Do not diagnose, recommend medication changes or promise healing from devotional activity. If a suggested practice could conflict with health or personal circumstances, offer a non-demanding alternative and appropriate professional advice. Treat urgent physical or psychological danger through the relevant human-help route. Respect spirituality without validating dangerous commands or replacing professional care. Product purpose and claims determine the evidence and regulatory review required.
Compare the alternatives
Clarify service scope when wellness, illness and faith overlap.
A · Scope is clear
The type of help remains named.
B · Safer practice alternative
Participation is optional and can fit the person’s circumstances.
C · Care remains available
Spiritual support can accompany professional help.
Original wireframe proposals · No live controls · Grey rows represent schematic text, not loading states · Labelled placeholders are not Scripture quotations
Download this wireframe as SVGFailure modes
Prayer offered instead of urgent care; attributing illness to sin; medical advice disguised as spiritual coaching; harmful fasting or sleep restriction; guaranteed treatment claims.
What to validate
Qualified health and pastoral reviewers should test illness, medication questions, fasting, eating-related distress, harmful spiritual instructions and ordinary wellness requests.
Sensitive design proposal · Clinical review required. These visual alternatives have not been tested with users in this atlas. Source findings, documented behaviour and this proposed adaptation are different kinds of evidence.
Sources and adaptation
This card is an original design synthesis. The following sources inform its content distinctions, interaction approach or review requirements; they do not validate the whole pattern.
- Evidence standards framework for digital health technologiesOfficial classification text reviewed · A UK evaluation framework, not German law or a product certification.
- Psychological first aid Guide for field workersOfficial guide overview reviewed · Designed for human helpers, not authorisation of autonomous AI crisis care.
- Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providersOriginal paper reviewed · Specific models and experimental scenarios; not a measurement of all present or future systems.
- Guidance on software qualification and classification MDR and IVDROfficial guidance reviewed · A disclaimer does not override medical functionality or contradictory claims. Guidance is not a product-specific legal opinion.
Common scenarios and flows
- Respond to a sensitive disclosure with accountable support — Keep disclosure, present safety, user choice and service responsibility distinct.
Design principles in this decision
Editorial application of Missional by Design. These values frame review questions; they do not validate a pattern’s effectiveness.
- Reverence — What does this interaction ask of the person, and can they understand, decline, correct or leave it without penalty?
Compare alternatives using the task and evidence above. Record competing needs instead of treating a principle as an automatic verdict.
Regional applicability
Design review questions · 5 October 2026. These prompts identify possible triggers; they do not classify this pattern or every faith app as a regulated service.
Could functionality, marketing or reasonable expectations make this a companion or mental-health service? Define the human role, health claims, escalation capability and locally verified support route before selecting dialogue UI.
Start with EU and Germany, then review the relevant market:
- US · California — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · New York — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · Utah: mental-health chatbots — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · Illinois — Enacted AI-specific therapy restrictions
- US · Texas — Enacted AI-specific law; effective 1 January 2026
- US · Federal health software and data — Existing law; regulator implementation guidance
- United Kingdom — Existing law + regulator guidance; policy statement
- Australia — Existing law + regulator guidance; national policy
Use the jurisdiction decision guide to record the trigger, source version and resulting product requirement.