Conventionally, parents are regarded the natural stewards and guardians of their children. As such, they are required to engage only in practices that promote the welfare of their children. However, it should also be noted that society has provided parents with broad latitude when it comes to caring for and raising the child. Also, the health professionals and law enforcement authorities have an essential obligation in ensuring that vulnerable children are protected from medical neglect. In some situations, parents hold certain religious beliefs that cause them to refuse the medical treatment of a child. The question therefore asked by many is whether parents should be allowed to deny children access to healthcare based on the religious stand. Individuals of a particular faith, such as the Jehovah's Witness are against blood transfusions. However, this can be risky for the child and in many states, it qualifies as child neglect. State laws provide that denying a child medical care because of religious reasons is legally considered neglect (McCoy & Keen, 2013). Secondly, religion-based medical neglect is the only type of neglect that is protected in some states by law. Thirdly, if a parent opts out of medical care in place of spiritual care even if the child dies, it won't be regarded as neglect.
Child neglect is regarded as maltreatment where the parent or guardian fails to provide the required age-appropriate care. One of the common characteristics of neglect includes a continuous pattern of inadequate care observed in individuals closely related to the particular child. According to the federal law, neglect is defined as “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation” (Horwath, 2013). Although parents have leeway in deciding their child’s medical care, refusing care for religious reasons in some states is regarded as neglect. For instance, in 2018, a couple was criminally charged and sentenced to six years imprisonment in Oregon for having denied their child healthcare due to their belief in faith healing (Radcliffe, 2018). Therefore, Oregon is among the few states in the US that do not allow any form of religious exemptions from civil or criminal charges for their role in medically neglecting their child.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Although all the states in the US have laws banning child abuse and neglect, some 34 states have exemptions in criminal and civil child abuse statutes when the treatment of a child conflicts with their parent's religious beliefs (Radcliffe, 2018). Although religion-based medical neglect is protected in some states, it remains critical to take into consideration certain vital tenets. An adult has the right to refuse treatment, but the same cannot be said for a child who is regarded to be below their parents and guardians. The US Supreme Court has in the recent past stated that "the right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose the community or child to communicable disease, or the latter to ill health or death" (Committee on Bioethics, 2013). The protection of religious-based medical neglect in some states can be a cause for morbidity, mortality, disability, and death among children. Although religion has a critical role to play in spiritual nourishment, no scientific evidence has shown that it has healing capacity. Therefore, states must revisit their laws to protect the welfare of children.
As stated earlier, religion remains one of the primary reasons in many states that parents can use to ensure that their children stay out of medical procedures. In states that allow religious exemptions for treatment, a parent can refuse medical treatment and opts out to revert to spiritual therapy. As such, according to the law, the child will not be considered neglected even if they get harmed or eventually die (Radcliffe, 2018). Such a scenario would result not in an ethical question. Why would a parent allow their children to die despite the presence of proven scientific means of treatment? The primary reasoning behind this law is to limit the ability of a state to prosecute a parent for medical neglect due to their endeavors in seeking religious practice as treatment remedy. Such loopholes in law should not be allowed given that they have potentials for causing immense suffering and death on innocent children who primarily lack the power of autonomy.
However, it remains critical to note that under the First Amendment, religion is a protected entity in American society. Everybody has a right to worship including choosing how it affects the social life. When the Witnesses refuse a blood transfusion on their child, it should not be regarded as neglect before considering that the constitution protects religious liberties. Secondly, it would also be meaningful for parents to deny children's participation in a medical procedure especially if it causes pain, harm, or prolongs death. Parents would instead resort to less intrusive and painless methods such as prayer and meditation. As such, this would be in tandem with non-maleficence ethical principle.
With regards to the religious rights, the Supreme Court provided an advisory opinion stating that the liberties of religion should not include any endeavor meant to spread a disease to a community or a child. Every right has a limitation, and freedom of religion is no exception. Secondly, with regards to the harmful or painful procedures, they are better off because they have scientific backing. Although spirituality has a vital role in influencing healing, no proof has shown the role it plays in diseases such as meningitis, HIV, and cancer among others.
In conclusion, the parents are the primary caregivers for the children. In their capacity, they influence how their children receive treatment. Religion has in the past played a critical role in determining whether or not children receive medical treatment. As such, it has turned into a legal debate with states enacting laws to establish whether religion can be used as an exemption to neglect. State laws provide that denying a child medical care because of religious reasons is legally considered neglect. Secondly, religion-based medical neglect is the only type of neglect that is protected in some states by law. Thirdly, if a parent opts out of medical care in place of spiritual care even if the child dies, it won’t be regarded as neglect. Taking all three factors into consideration, parents should not be able to deny children medical care due to religious beliefs.
References
Committee on Bioethics. (2013). Conflicts between religious or spiritual beliefs and pediatric care: Informed refusal, exemptions, and public funding. Pediatrics, peds -2013.
Horwath, J. (2013). Child neglect: Planning and intervention. Macmillan International Higher Education.
McCoy, M. L., & Keen, S. M. (2013). Child abuse and neglect. Psychology Press.
Radcliffe, S. (2018). When a Parent’s Beliefs about Medicine become Child Abuse. Healthline https://www.healthline.com/health-news/parents-beliefs-about-medicine-child-abuse#1
