Parents’ and Children’s Rights in Conflict: The Religious Exemption to Treatment

  • Thomas J. Scully
Chapter

Abstract

Public attention has recently focused on a number of instances in which parents have refused consent to medical care for their children, based on the parents’ belief in “faith healing” and/or their rejection of the value of currently accepted medical treatment. The exact number of such cases nationwide is unknown and the underlying reasons for the increase in numbers are varied. But at a minimum they include a resurgence in the United States of fundamentalist religions, the primacy of the family in society, and the notion that government intervention into the private lives of citizens has gone too far.

Keywords

Child Neglect Parental Autonomy Fourth Amendment Faith Healing State Statute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Religious exemptions from child abuse statutes. Pediatrics 81:169–171, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Sacramento Bee. Capitol/state news. Nov 11, 1988, p A3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prince v Massachusetts, 321 US 158, 166, 64 S Ct. 438, 88 L Ed 645 (1944).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    87–1722 Barnhart v. Pennsylvania (Pa SuperCt, 345 PaSuper 10, 497 A2d 616); 57 LW 3212, United States Law Week, Oct 4, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Associated Press. Former faith-healing official sentenced in son’s death. Reno Gazette-Journal, Dec 16, 1988, p 24-A.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Swan R: Faith healing, Christian Science, and the medical care of children. N Engl J Med 309:1639–1641, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Relman A: Sounding boards: Christian Science and the care of children. N Engl J Med 309: p 1639, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olmstead v US, 277 US 438 at 478 (1928).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Constitution of the United States of America, 1791.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reynolds v U.S., 98 US 145 at 166, 167 (1879).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jonsen R:Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York:The Free Press, 1978, Vol 2, p 625.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital, 211 NY 25, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (1914).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bouvia v Superior Court, 179 Cal App 3d 1127, 225 Cal Reptr. 297; review denied (1986).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    In re Osborne: 294 A 2d 372 (1972).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    In re Pogue: Washington Post, metro edition, sec C; pp 1,5, Nov 14, 1974.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blustein J: Parents and Children, the Ethics of the Family. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982, p 124.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holder AR: Disclosure and consent problems in pediatrics: The silent world. Law Med Health Care 16:219–228, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Capron AM: The competence of children as self deciders in biomedical interventions. In Gaylin W, Macklin R (eds); Who Speaks for the Child. New York: Plenum Press, 1982, pp 92–114.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldstein J: Medical care for the child at risk: On state supervention of parental autonomy. In Gaylin W, Macklin R (eds): Who Speaks for the Child. New York: Ple­num Press, pp 153–188, 163.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    In re Hojbauer: 47 NYS 2d 648, 419 NYS 2d 936; 393 NE 2d 1009 (1979).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Petitioner vs American Hospital Association etal.; 84 US 1529 at B2765, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. Scully
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pediatrics and the Program in BioethicsUniversity of Nevada School of MedicineRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations