In the great state of Idaho, there has been a reoccurring issue in which families are looking to receive a very specific religious exemption from prenatal and other western health care services for their infants, and resultantly the babies are dying because they are not being treated in a way that allows them to become healthy individuals. This is a multifaceted issue in nature, due to the fact that not only are infantile children dying on the state’s watch, but there also seems to be many quarrels regarding the exemption and its impact on all religions. The exemption is in the name of faith healing, and since 2012 alone, there has been two easily preventable deaths of young children due to their familial ties to the faith healing exemption. The state has the responsibility to protect its citizens and has even more of a responsibility to protect its children, however the state is also obliged to respect the free exercise rights of the parties involved.
In 2011, a couple was imprisoned for six years for manslaughter in response to the negligent act of not supplying their premature child any medical support. In response to the consistent happenings of premature deaths, child advocates have attempted to get legislatures to fine-tune and rework the current written law. There seems to be a pattern of religious tolerance and maybe even promotion in Idaho, by allowing for the Bible to be used as law. Idaho leads the nation in faith-based child neglect related deaths. The exemption only exists for a specific section of the Idaho population, which also has lead citizens of the state to believe the exemption is actually discriminatory in nature.
It is not an uncommon belief that even with the evidence proving that these neglectful deaths are occurring, the parental and religious rights of the parties involved in these cases are absolute in power. The issue stretches much farther than Idaho. After the passing of the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974, states began implementing faith-based medical exemptions in return for financial aid from the federal government. Easily avoidable deaths are occurring, and it brings up a valid question: How many deaths will it take before the endangerment of children takes precedence over the religious rights of the parents? This is in essence a free-exercise issue that upholds personal liberties for a section of the population by allowing them to give their children the treatment they believe in, while simultaneously creating the possibility of a death sentence for many innocent and blissful children who will never get to live a life they can make decisions in, based on one decision their parents made based on faith.
In my personal opinion, I believe that this debate has a very hard time being answered. It is not rational to argue that this laws benefits outweigh it costs, but to allow the government to step in and force an individual to act or parent in a certain manner is authoritative and unconstitutional in my opinion. A compromise on how faith-based and non western the treatment is may be warranted, but to force the parents of a newborn baby to change and expunge their values because they do not believe they can give their children certain medical treatments on a religious level is what the free-exercise clause looks to prohibit. The government undoubtedly holds the interest of protecting its citizens, and the somewhat common fatalities of children of families who gain the religious exemption leads many to believe that there is a public consensus to get rid of the exemption.
On the other hand, the government may be able to come to the same conclusion that they did in Reynolds vs. United States, in which they decided beliefs and actions are two completely different animals. The parents may believe that they do not have to treat their kids with western medicine because it goes against their religion, but if the states mandates that every child gets a certain type of health care, the written law would have more power than the beliefs of the people involved. People are entitled to their beliefs, but if the actions go against the interests of the state clearly illustrated by documented law, those actions would still remain illegal. Until the exemption is deemed illegal based on solid grounds, the state does not have the right to deny the religious based exemption from the parents who believe it is in their purview and rights to use it.
3 comments:
Based on freedom of religion, individuals should be able to reject medical treatment that could save their lives. With that said, religious freedom should not be grounds for allowing individuals to reject life saving medical care for their children or dependents. Rather refusing life saving care for dependent children should be treated as neglect, manslaughter or even murder. While there are gray areas such a parent’s refusing vaccines and then a child dying from a preventable disease, there are many cases that are much more clear cut. The case mentioned in which parents did not allow their premature child any medical support, resulting in the child’s death, is a little more straightforward. If medical experts agree that reasonable treatment could have prevented the child’s death, then by all means the free-exercise clause cannot override the government’s responsibility to protect children from harm. Freedom of religion is not enough to trump a child’s life.
The government should have the right to step in if they deem the safety of the individual is at risk, just as schools require specific vaccinations parents should be required to get their children vaccinated if a medical professional deems it necessary for there health or else if they refuse can be charged with manslaughter if the child dies. The government has an incredibly compelling interest to protect the health of its constituents and thus should be granted the right to step in if necessary. If the issue is non-life threatening parents can be granted specific exemptions but if the health of a child is at risk the state has an obligation to get the child vaccinated in order to prevent the spread of disease.
I agree with your analysis that this is an especially difficult subject to provide a solution for. That being said, I do think that when there are children's lives at stake the government does have a compelling state interest to ensure that they have the opportunity to live long enough to grow into contributing members of society. I think your paragraph about how beliefs and actions are two separate things is especially applicable to this. The parents are allowed to believe what they want, but they should not be allowed to act in a way that brings their child harm. I think especially in this case, there is an overriding state interest that overpowers the freedoms the First Amendment affords citizens. As was quoted in the Bob Jones University v United States (1983) case from an earlier United States v Lee (1982) case, "[not] all burdens on religion are unconstitutional...The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest." This seems like an ideal scenario for invoking an overriding governmental interest and placing a Constitutional burden on religion.
Post a Comment