The right to neglect a child to death
I was going to make this an LJ post a few days ago, but scrapped it, then I saw this interesting discussion and decided to modify the post for EvCforum. Now I bring that post here. The background for this can be found here, wherein a parent prayed for their little girl to get better despite the fact that the little girl was suffering from diabetes caused acidosis and fell into a coma, they continued praying and the child ended up dead after 30 days. I have experienced acidosis, and it is very very very unpleasant. I'd rather suffer a crush injury to my middle finger (something else I have experienced).
The Wisconsin case concerned an 11-year-girl in Weston, in Marathon County. According to an Associated Press account, the girl withered away from diabetic ketoacidosis, suffering from such symptoms as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, and loss of appetite.
The parents might escape charges of neglect because state law holds that "A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing … in lieu of medical or surgical treatment."
Many times in our lives we hand ourselves over to the care of another. We consent to the government building an army so that it can do the hard work of protecting us and our interests. We had ourselves to doctors, giving trust in them that they will treat us to the best of their ability - even so far as removing our heart from our chests in some circumstances...that's a lot of trust. The doctor is given a role of responsibility, not just personal responsibility but a stewardship over the individual in their care. If they neglect their responsibility by withholding vital medication, or by not following standard procedure to determine easily determinable allergies - then they know that society will hold them accountable for their inaction or negligence.
If our government sends the entire army thousands of miles away, when a neighbour is amassing an army on our borders - the government will be called to pay for their negligence even if our neighbours do nothing.
By becoming a parent we become stewards of those children (and this seems to be a common theme in Christian rhetoric incidentally). We have a responsibility to feed, clothe and educate them. Religious freedom even allows you to teach the child your moral values and religious beliefs.
However, like the doctor is allowed to pray before going into surgery, they are not allowed to pray in lieu of surgery.
The politician can pray before war, but they should not pray in lieu of ordering the deployment of units.
The parent is allowed to pray for the well being of the child, but they cannot pray in lieu of providing welfare.
So where should we draw the line of religious freedom? As with any freedoms they have to be balanced. Whichever freedom is more important should on balance win out. A child's right to life should massively overbalance a parent's religious right to neglect a sick or injured child.
Need I point out that
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It appears that children don't deserve equal protection, if it means the parent's religious rights to neglect will be infringed. However, here is a secular case. In this case a mother was not given correct medical advice (due to problems with the healthcare system), and her child died of malnutrition after the mother fed her with breast milk after an operation that could reduce breast milk nutritional value.
The mother was acting in good faith - she was told breast milk was the best way to feed her child, but a jury found her guilty of criminally negligent homicide.
And yet, the parents in the OP article might even escape facing a jury!? If sincere secular beliefs of a mother aren't mitigating factors in absolving her of her responsibility to her child, why do sincere religious beliefs have the potential to receive a 'get out of facing a jury free' card?
And yes, the state this happened in, New York, does have a religious exemption.
If this imbalance seems right, or just, or moral to you - I submit it is very likely your moral compass needs sending back for repairs.
The Wisconsin case concerned an 11-year-girl in Weston, in Marathon County. According to an Associated Press account, the girl withered away from diabetic ketoacidosis, suffering from such symptoms as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, and loss of appetite.
The parents might escape charges of neglect because state law holds that "A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing … in lieu of medical or surgical treatment."
Many times in our lives we hand ourselves over to the care of another. We consent to the government building an army so that it can do the hard work of protecting us and our interests. We had ourselves to doctors, giving trust in them that they will treat us to the best of their ability - even so far as removing our heart from our chests in some circumstances...that's a lot of trust. The doctor is given a role of responsibility, not just personal responsibility but a stewardship over the individual in their care. If they neglect their responsibility by withholding vital medication, or by not following standard procedure to determine easily determinable allergies - then they know that society will hold them accountable for their inaction or negligence.
If our government sends the entire army thousands of miles away, when a neighbour is amassing an army on our borders - the government will be called to pay for their negligence even if our neighbours do nothing.
By becoming a parent we become stewards of those children (and this seems to be a common theme in Christian rhetoric incidentally). We have a responsibility to feed, clothe and educate them. Religious freedom even allows you to teach the child your moral values and religious beliefs.
However, like the doctor is allowed to pray before going into surgery, they are not allowed to pray in lieu of surgery.
The politician can pray before war, but they should not pray in lieu of ordering the deployment of units.
The parent is allowed to pray for the well being of the child, but they cannot pray in lieu of providing welfare.
So where should we draw the line of religious freedom? As with any freedoms they have to be balanced. Whichever freedom is more important should on balance win out. A child's right to life should massively overbalance a parent's religious right to neglect a sick or injured child.
Need I point out that
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It appears that children don't deserve equal protection, if it means the parent's religious rights to neglect will be infringed. However, here is a secular case. In this case a mother was not given correct medical advice (due to problems with the healthcare system), and her child died of malnutrition after the mother fed her with breast milk after an operation that could reduce breast milk nutritional value.
The mother was acting in good faith - she was told breast milk was the best way to feed her child, but a jury found her guilty of criminally negligent homicide.
And yet, the parents in the OP article might even escape facing a jury!? If sincere secular beliefs of a mother aren't mitigating factors in absolving her of her responsibility to her child, why do sincere religious beliefs have the potential to receive a 'get out of facing a jury free' card?
And yes, the state this happened in, New York, does have a religious exemption.
If this imbalance seems right, or just, or moral to you - I submit it is very likely your moral compass needs sending back for repairs.