So that "wide berth" would extend to parents of a young child with DM I who refuse to allow treatment on religious grounds and relying on their "strength of prayer" to cure the DM I?
In the 80s, there was a case where that happened (which may be what you're referencing). The legal determination at the time was that the parents weren't guilty of homicide, but they were held to be civilly liable (with a $5.2 million award to the noncustodial parent who'd opposed the decision.)
As I said, freedom of religion isn't the only principle in the world, and neither are parental rights to make decisions regarding their kids. We let, e.g., Amish parents take their kids out of school at 13, even though mainstream culture generally regards that as harmful to their future prospects. We don't let parents sacrifice their children to Moloch. Corporal punishment is legal, but only up to the point it becomes child abuse.
Honestly, if it were my decision, I'd probably put the decision not to treat a diabetic kid with insulin as closer to sacrificing him to Moloch. Whether or not I'd jail them after the fact, I'd be sympathetic to a court order to treat him which, if disobeyed, would cost them custody. (Though in practice, they might just flee the jurisdiction, so I don't know how much good it would do.)
But the line between parental autonomy in medical and religious matters and state intervention has to be somewhere, and wherever it's drawn it's going to result in bad cases and harm in one direction or the other. There's a reason for the adage "hard cases make bad law". Given the many times facially neutral laws have historically been used as cover for religious persecution, I can understand why the law has developed in the direction it has.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2014-05-01 03:01 pm (UTC)In the 80s, there was a case where that happened (which may be what you're referencing). The legal determination at the time was that the parents weren't guilty of homicide, but they were held to be civilly liable (with a $5.2 million award to the noncustodial parent who'd opposed the decision.)
As I said, freedom of religion isn't the only principle in the world, and neither are parental rights to make decisions regarding their kids. We let, e.g., Amish parents take their kids out of school at 13, even though mainstream culture generally regards that as harmful to their future prospects. We don't let parents sacrifice their children to Moloch. Corporal punishment is legal, but only up to the point it becomes child abuse.
Honestly, if it were my decision, I'd probably put the decision not to treat a diabetic kid with insulin as closer to sacrificing him to Moloch. Whether or not I'd jail them after the fact, I'd be sympathetic to a court order to treat him which, if disobeyed, would cost them custody. (Though in practice, they might just flee the jurisdiction, so I don't know how much good it would do.)
But the line between parental autonomy in medical and religious matters and state intervention has to be somewhere, and wherever it's drawn it's going to result in bad cases and harm in one direction or the other. There's a reason for the adage "hard cases make bad law". Given the many times facially neutral laws have historically been used as cover for religious persecution, I can understand why the law has developed in the direction it has.