Ch. 7: Current Issues of Religious Exp. vs. Competing...

Chris OConnor

Ch. 7: Current Issues of Religious Expression Versus Competing Social Interests

This thread is for discussing Chapter 7: Current Issues of Religious Expression Versus Competing Social Interests. You're welcome to use this thread or create your own threads.

JulianTheApostate · Sophomore Joined: 23 Jul 2005 Posts: 287 Gender:

The cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists bring up subtle moral issues. Should there be laws that keep people from doing things that are hazardous to themselves or their children? While I concluded that people should have the right to refuse medical care that goes against their religious principles, that issue troubles me more than others discussed in this book. When it comes to medical care of children, I'd rather overriding the parents' wishes to ensure that minors receive the necessary medical procedures. To be honest, it's difficult to put aside my negative view of religions whose practices are so destructive.

Government supported faith-based social services are aggravating. Besides any explicit proselytizing that could occur, church-sponsored social services improve public opinion of the church, the same way corporate-sponsored sports events provide advertising to the corporation. And a big reason why such social services are needed so drastically is because the Republicans have significantly cut social programs since Reagan took office.

George Ricker

JulianTheApostate: The cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists bring up subtle moral issues. Should there be laws that keep people from doing things that are hazardous to themselves or their children? While I concluded that people should have the right to refuse medical care that goes against their religious principles, that issue troubles me more than others discussed in this book. When it comes to medical care of children, I'd rather overriding the parents' wishes to ensure that minors receive the necessary medical procedures. To be honest, it's difficult to put aside my negative view of religions whose practices are so destructive.

I don't think minor children should be put at risk because of their parents' religious beliefs. If adults - or even children who are old enough to make such decisions - want to refuse medical treatment, then, in the interest of protecting their rights of conscience, I think we must honor their preferences. However, minor children are not able to make such decisions for themselves. I don't think it interferes with any adult's rights of conscience to declare that decisions about the medical care of children must be made with the health of the children as the paramount concern.

That doesn't mean I think the state should ride roughshod over parental preferences. It does mean that, if we wish to call ourselves a humane society, we cannot allow parents to intentionally place the lives of their children at risk on religious - or any other - grounds.

Government supported faith-based social services are aggravating. Besides any explicit proselytizing that could occur, church-sponsored social services improve public opinion of the church, the same way corporate-sponsored sports events provide advertising to the corporation. And a big reason why such social services are needed so drastically is because the Republicans have significantly cut social programs since Reagan took office.

On this issue, I take a fairly exteme position. I am opposed to any government agency giving any tax dollars to any religious organization for any reason whatever. In my view the dangers inherent in such an arrangement far outweigh any potential benefits. If our society has needs to be met then we should meet them by providing the necessary werewithal to do so.

At the very least, any religious organization that accepts money from any government agency ought to be held to the same legal standards and the same reporting requirements as any other non-profit organization.

George

http://www.godlessinamerica.com

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

MadArchitect

Not having actually read the book, I can't contribute much in the way of detailed comment, but I did want to raise a hypothetical question that may or may not be germaine to the topic.

Would you support the right of an atheist parent to withhold treatment for a terminally ill child (ie. diagnosed with a potentially fatal illness -- not guaranteed to die) on the grounds that, given a 50/50 chance of survival, they'd rather at least give their child the satisfaction of not being confined to a treatment ward or exposed to painful treatments (eg. chemotherapy)?

Or up the odds against survival. Say the doctors give the child a 25% hance of surviving if treated immediately. That still leaves the child a 75% chance of death even if quarantined and subjected to arduous treatment. Would the parent be justified in opting to allow their child to some sense of normalcy and a temporary repreive from pain (which, admittedly, is probably inevitable for a terminally ill child), or should society make it incumbent on any parent to wager on that 25% chance?

Since I've already partly made it a number's game, what's the lowest predicted chance of survival at which you'd still insist that the parent ought to submit their child for treatment? Ten? Five? On the other end of the scale, what's the highest predicted chance of survival at which you'd say it's tolerable to allow the parent to withhold treatment? Seventy-five? Ninety?

Secondly, given your answer to the above, do these considerations have any bearing on the right of religious parents to withhold treatment?

irishrosem · Doctorate Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 536 Gender:

JtA: Government supported faith-based social services are aggravating.

Garicker: I am opposed to any government agency giving any tax dollars to any religious organization for any reason whatever.

Ditto, a thousand times over.

Mad: Would you support the right of an atheist parent to withhold treatment for a terminally ill child (ie. diagnosed with a potentially fatal illness -- not guaranteed to die)

Mad, I think you’ve raised a salient point here, one Haiman himself somewhat hits on with the caselaw he chooses to introduce. In In re E.G., the mother of a 17-year-old girl (months away from her 18th birthday) with nonlymphatic leukemia refused to give her consent for a blood transfusion. The mother and daughter had no problem with the chemotherapy; but, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, would not allow for the necessary blood transfusion prescribed along with the chemotherapy. The mother thought that her daughter was mature enough to make the decision for herself. A child psychiatrist interviewed the child patient and found that she was a “mature minor.” Both mother and child continued to refuse consent for a blood transfusion. In response, the hospital obtained from a trial court judge a ruling of “medical neglect” against the mother and the court appointed a temporary guardian who authorized the transfusion. The Illinois Supreme Court on appeal (after the case was actually moot), ruled that the child’s right to refuse treatment, as a “mature minor” just months from her eighteenth birthday, should have been respected. Haiman notes that when adults are making medical decisions for themselves, and free religious exercise competes with social interests, the adults’ free religious exercise should be given priority. However, when an adult is making decisions for a minor child the issue becomes less clear—actually for me it becomes very clear the other way. As noted in the majority Opinion in Prince v. Massachusetts, “Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstance, to make martyrs of their children.”

I don’t think there is any question that, in situations where the child’s quality of life is weighed against her chance of survival, and the parents are making an informed decision about what they feel is in the best interest of their child, the decision is left to the parents. But if that decision is clouded by religious beliefs that interfere with necessary medical treatment, I think there are very few instances that I would object to the state getting involved. Though I reject the outcome of the E.G. case noted above, it is only because I believe allowances should be made for “mature minors” to make decisions for themselves. Had E.G. been seven and not seventeen, I would fully support state involvement. The issue there wasn’t whether or not the chemotherapy would lead to a quality of life issue; it was whether or not a necessary blood transfusion could accompany the chemotherapy. When parental free religious expression and a child’s best interests are in conflict, the child’s best interests should always win. States are finally starting to catch-up to this.

BTW, there are cases where the refusal of medical treatment for children on religious grounds occur in non-life-threatening illnesses, some of which can turn deadly. Haiman mentions just two (I’ve personally witnessed a handful when I worked in minor dependency court). In Commonwealth v. Twitchell, defendants were convicted of involuntary manslaughter when they refused surgery for their 2 ½ yr. old son’s obstructed bowel, which resulted in his death. The court found the condition could have been “corrected by surgery with a high success rate.” The parents refused treatment because they were Christian Scientists who believed “in healing by spiritual treatment.” Defendants’ convictions were reversed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court due to a statute that provided: “A child shall not be deemed to be neglected or lack proper physical care for the sole reason that he is being provided remedial treatment by spiritual means alone in accordance with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof.”

In State v. McKown, a Christian Scientist couple were the mother and step-father of an 11-year-old boy with diabetes. Here child Ian Lundman’s death was caused by “diabetic ketoacidosis,” after occasional illnesses “weeks preceding his death” and serious illness “two or three days before he died.” Medical doctors testified “that Ian’s diabetes was apparently treatable through conventional medicine and that his condition probably could have been stabilized as late as two hours before he died.” Instead, Ian was “treated with Christian Science spiritual healing methods,” and died. The parents’ case was dismissed due to a Minnesota statute, similar to Massachusetts statute, which states “relying on spiritual treatment and prayer does not in itself constitute child neglect.” This case was additionally complicated by a biological father who does nto believe in "spiritual healing" and wanted his son treated with conventional medicine.

Let me reiterate my above statement, when parental free religious expression and a child’s best interests are in conflict, the child’s best interests should always win. State respect for free religious expression should never lead to minor children dying from obstructed bowels and diabetes.

So what role do you think free religious expression should play in these cases?

George Ricker

Mad, I was going to respond but I think Rosemary says it all with this statement: Let me reiterate my above statement, when parental free religious expression and a child's best interests are in conflict, the child's best interests should always win. State respect for free religious expression should never lead to minor children dying from obstructed bowels and diabetes.

I repeat, I have no quarrel with adults or even mature children rejecting medical treatment on religious grounds. I do object when a parent's religious opinions put a child's life at risk. In such cases I think the best interest of the child must be the primary concern.

I also would have no problem with the state intervening in a case where an atheist parent was making such a decision on the basis of some arbitrary criterion and ignoring the best interest of the child in question.

For me, what's at issue here is not the religious opinions (or their lack, as the case may be) of adults but the well-being of children.

George

http://www.godlessinamerica.com

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

irishrosem · Doctorate Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 536 Gender:

Garicker: I also would have no problem with the state intervening in a case where an atheist parent was making such a decision on the basis of some arbitrary criterion and ignoring the best interest of the child in question.

Nice follow-up, George. I agree wholeheartedly, though I don’t think my above post spells this out. It doesn’t matter to me what is cited as the reason for medical refusal, if the child’s best physical interests is not the primary goal (not to say that is always easily determined), then I think the state has every right to get involved.

MadArchitect

Without outright championing either side, I will say that I think any attempt to cut directly through the debate on either side is problematic here. I think it very likely that most of the participants in this thread would balk (and probably have balked) at any attempt to justify, say, anti-abortion legislation by reference to a moral argument. And "the well-being of the child" is, so far as I can see, a moral argument.

I bring that up not in order to argue any specific point that the two of you have raised, but in order to re-address the entire question from another point of view. I think it may be necessary to clarify a more general point before we can sort out the difficulty here.

If it can be agreed (and I feel fairly confident that at least one of you will not agree, calling it false analogy) that moral arguments are being called in to settle legal issues in both cases -- that is, the moral argument against abortion, and what I'm claiming is a moral argument against endangering a child by withholding treatment -- then is it possible to navigate a consistent position that allows the moral reference in one case but not in the other?

(Incidentally, just to illustrate the moral character of an appeal like "the well-being of the child", you might think about the way in which, in a different cultural context, attitudes towards children differed. The critiques of Industrial Revolution child labor policies, for example, were primarily moral in character. Outside of a popularly recognized perception that it is morally wrong to endanger a child in the same way that you would endanger someone past the age of consent, how do you argue against social practices that can and do harm children?)

irishrosem · Doctorate Joined: 19 Oct 2006 Posts: 536 Gender:

Mad: And "the well-being of the child" is, so far as I can see, a moral argument.

I don’t think I’ve referenced “the well-being of the child” in this thread. I’ve used “best interests,” which I then clarified as “best physical interests,” but not “well-being.” Either way, Mad, if you’re equating “well-being” and “best physical interests” then I disagree that it is a moral argument. I’m not saying that the answer is always going to be clear, nor am I saying that morality never plays a role. (Because goddamn it if you let a child die rather than give her insulin I feel compelled to make a moral judgment about you.) But outside what I feel morally about that decision there are legal considerations, and the legal rights of the child, that should and do supersede the free religious expression rights (or any other parenting rights) of the parents.

And those “best interests” legal considerations extend to the mother and fetus, along with state interest, in most abortion caselaw. However, I hate to engage abortion in this discussion because it’s apples and oranges; the issues involved are not very comparable. But I do find it ironic that some religious minded people who feel the need to protect the “well-being” of a fertilized egg don’t think it is necessary to protect the physical life of an eleven-year-old who just happened to be born with diabetes. Religion is a curious animal to create such conflicting thought processes.

MadArchitect

irishrosem: I don’t think I’ve referenced “the well-being of the child” in this thread. I’ve used “best interests,” which I then clarified as “best physical interests,” but not “well-being.”

"Well-being" is a direct quote from garicker's post. If it doesn't accurately reflect your view on the matter, then I apologize for making it seem like the two were consensible.

As for the differences between "well-being", "best interests", and "best physical interests", I'm not sure I see the difference. I get that "physical" denotes a distinction, as against, say, "spiritual", but either way, I don't see how we can rationally determine what's implied by either "well-being" or "best interests" apart from some moral assumption that serves as premise.

(Because goddamn it if you let a child die rather than give her insulin I feel compelled to make a moral judgment about you.)

So am I. But I'm also trying to get used to the idea of distinguishing between what's appropriate as a moral judgment and what's appropriate as a secular, legal judgment.

But outside what I feel morally about that decision there are legal considerations, and the legal rights of the child, that should and do supersede the free religious expression rights (or any other parenting rights) of the parents.

This is no doubt territory that you know a lot better than I do. What are the legal rights of the child, and how are they derived?

But I do find it ironic that some religious minded people who feel the need to protect the “well-being” of a fertilized egg don’t think it is necessary to protect the physical life of an eleven-year-old who just happened to be born with diabetes. Religion is a curious animal to create such conflicting thought processes.

I don't think the processes that lead to such contradictions are by any means exclusive to religion, and there's a very good chance that people are going to one day look back at aspects of our secular culture that we thought were either entirely consistent or at least benignly compatible, and call non sequitur.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT