May 28, 2009   14 notes

Religious exemption and medical neglect

robot-heart-politics:

squashed:robot-heart-politics:

Religion has yet to be allowed as an excuse for parents abusing, neglecting or otherwise failing to promote the well-being of their child. I don’t think we should start doing so now.

Contrarily, it always been used as a justification for treating children differently for years. Wisconsin v. Yoder said the Amish do not have to send their children to school past eighth grade. I don’t know of any challenges to allowing children to stay home on religious holidays. Many states have religious exemptions to mandatory immunization programs. Many states have explicit religious exemptions to their medical abuse laws. The question is how comfortable we are having the majority trample a minority’s freedom of conscience because we think we know what’s best for their children.

But as I pointed out in the case of marriage, there are occasions where the best interests of the child are put above religious interests.

Regardless, of the examples you provide, immunizations are preventative medicine rather than a treatment for an existing ailment and an education is not an absolute necessity to survival. There is a big difference between getting a shot to prevent an illness you may or may not get, and not receiving treatment to cure an illness you already have and which will almost certainly kill you. Until the child is old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to die for their parents’ religious beliefs, I think we should assume that it is best to preserve their health until they reach their majority, at which point they can make that decision for themselves.

As I mentioned in my initial post, I’m ambivalent on this issue. I do think some weight should be given to the religious views of parents. I don’t see it as an absolute bar. If CPS decides a child is suffering medical neglect, they should absolutely intervene. But significant deference should be given to the wishes of the parents, even if those wishes are religiously grounded.

And no, I don’t think it’s wrong to require parents to provide health insurance for children.

  1. squashedcomments reblogged this from robot-heart-politics and added:
    As I mentioned in my initial post, I’m ambivalent on this issue. I do think some weight should be given to the religious...
  2. robot-heart-politics reblogged this from squashed and added:
    robot-heart-politics:...But as I pointed out in the case of marriage, there are occasions...
  3. robot-heart-politics reblogged this from alicia and added:
    Who defines abuse? We live in a country where...government has already decided
  4. alicia reblogged this from squashed and added:
    Who defines what is in the best interest of the child? Most of the time it should definitely be their parents and not...
  5. thereisnogod reblogged this from robot-heart-politics and added:
    Seems this is a hot topic today. Fuck your god.
  6. squashed reblogged this from robot-heart-politics and added:
    treating children differently for years. Wisconsin v. Yoder said the Amish...to school...
  7. irreverentandirrelevant reblogged this from robot-heart-politics
  8. robot-heart-politics reblogged this from squashed and added:
    There are some parents who because of...beliefs would argue that even if their child were...
  9. squashed reblogged this from robot-heart-politics and added:
    Responding to my previous post on religious exemption and medical neglect, Robot-heart-politics offers
  10. robot-heart-politics reblogged this from squashed and added:
    a child with a treatable illness (which is what we are talking about, by...way), whose...
  11. squashed posted this