When is the Life of a Child Less Important than the Beliefs of the Parent?

I had to take my last post further. Here is the result:

This issue is highly volatile, and triggers high emotion on both sides, but I think it is time we reexamined it.

It's bad enough these days that the uninsured and the under insured are being denied treatment, but there are also cases where people deny themselves treatments that could save their lives in deference to their beliefs, and, worse, they deny care for their children for that reason.

Now, to keep the focus of this article reasonably narrow, I'm not going to get into a discussion of the right to believe. I will simply say that we grant the right to freedom of religion and belief in this country.

However.

When adherence to one's belief contributes to the death or threat of death of another, especially when that death has a very good chance of being prevented by methods which have been proven effective countless times, we come into conflict. And this is even more true when the life at stake belongs to a child, who depends on an adult to make decisions for him/her.

The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics, in an article entitled, “Religious Objections to Medical Care,” summarizes the issue this way:

"ABSTRACT. Parents sometimes deny their children the benefits of medical care because of religious beliefs. In some jurisdictions, exemptions to child abuse and neglect laws restrict government action to protect children or seek legal redress when the alleged abuse or neglect has occurred in the name of religion. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that all children deserve effective medical treatment that is likely to prevent substantial harm or suffering or death. In addition the AAP advocates that all legal interventions apply equally whenever children are endangered or harmed, without exemptions based on parental religious beliefs. To these ends, the AAP calls for the end of religious exemption laws and supports additional efforts to educate the public about the medical needs of children."

Here are two examples where this conflict came into play. One child died, and the other got treatment, and although he himself objected to to the treatment, it seems his objections focused on the discomfort involved, seems to be improving:

The headline of the first one reads: “Mom of dead girl: Sickness was test of faith”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32191966/?GT1=43001

The second is about Daniel Hauser, whose mother fled with him to avoid court-ordered chemotherapy, and then later was brought back to be treated:

http://kaaltv.com/article/stories/S991782.shtml?cat=10151

So, I'm asking: When does the right to have one's own religious beliefs stop and the right of an individual, especially a minor, to have measures taken to save their life begin? When is the life of a child less important than the beliefs of the parent?

A Newswise article (link below) puts it this way:

According to Jody Madeira, a professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Brown County (Minn.) District Judge John Rodenberg correctly found that the parents of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser have medically neglected their son by refusing chemotherapy.

"Parents have key interests in maintaining the autonomy of the parent-child relationship, and it is crucial that state courts act to preserve family integrity whenever possible," she said.

"However, parental autonomy is not an absolute right, and the state can and should intervene when, as here, a child's health and safety are in jeopardy. In this case, Judge Rodenberg correctly determined that conventional cancer treatment was in Daniel's best interests after weighing the effectiveness of the chemotherapy treatment, its effects upon Daniel, and his 90 percent chance of survival against the wishes of his parents. Judge Rodenberg's ruling is so in line with current rulings on medical neglect and parental decision-making that a decision in the alternative would be incomprehensible, particularly given Daniel's extremely high chances of survival and the child's inability to read and therefore give informed consent."

But, she added, freedom of religion is a difficult issue to navigate, but is less of an issue in this case for two reasons. "First, state statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child, and explicitly state that alternative and complementary health care methods are not sufficient. These requirements apply no matter what treatments the tenets of the family's religion prescribe or prohibit."

(Source: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/552562/)

It's one thing when you deny yourself medical treatment based on your beliefs. It's quite another thing when you do it to another, especially a child whose care and well being is assigned to you. It's a difficult issue, with opinions on both sides.

But when, if ever, does a parent's opinion outweigh the life of their child?

See the original post of this article at :

http://evedialogue.blogspot.com/2009/07/when-is-life-of-child-less-important.html