In early 2017, Abigail Piland was born without any explicitly clear health problems. However, days after her birth, the midwife suggested that Abigail was sick and needed to go to the hospital. Abigail’s mother, Rachel Piland, refused to take her to the hospital due to their religious beliefs. Days later, Abigail was pronounced dead, and the medical examiner confirmed she died from a medical issue that is treatable. Seven weeks after the death of Abigail, the Pilands' two sons were removed from their custody. Last week in connection to this two year long saga, the Michigan Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for the Piland couple who lost all parental rights after failing to seek medical care for a newborn. A new trial was ordered because the Piland parents wanted the jury to be instructed on Michigan Statute 722.634 that stated ““parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian.”
The resurgence of this case is because of the state statutes use of “legitimately.” Initially, the trial court withheld the instruction because it interpreted the statue to only have relevance to the practice or belief of a religious organization, not an individual belief. The court of appeals disagreed citing Michigan Statute 722.634, suggesting that the government should have no discretion over the interpretation of “legitimately.” Essentially, the Michigan appellate court held that trial was erred because it refused to give the jury instruction on the Michigan statute granting the Piland’s a new trial. The constitutional question at stake: Does the right to free exercise of religion allow these parents to withhold medical care from their children based upon their sincere religious beliefs?
While free exercise is a pinnacle of religious freedom, I do not believe that parents should be able to withhold medical care from their children based upon their sincere religious beliefs. First, it is important to recognize that children are often helpless and extremely impressionable in conjunction to religious beliefs. In this case, Abigail bore the consequences of her mother and father religious beliefs, not her own. Their religious freedom infringed on her own personal freedom. One court case that was centered around religious freedom and children was Wisconsin v. Yoder. A Wisconsin law required all children to attend public school until age 16 which was in stark contrast to Amish tradition. The court evaluated if the Wisconsin act violated the First Amendment. The court ruled in favor of the Amish deciding that the free exercise of religion outweighed the state’s compelling interest in promoting school attendance. Wisconsin v. Yoder is an important precedent because not only does it encompass children like this case, but also it evaluates a compelling state interest. In this case, it is clear that there is a compelling state interest to provide medical care and services to children even at the expense of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Additionally, this case is centered around the use of “legitimately” in the Michigan statute. While I do believe that the government should not have the ability to deficer what religious practices are sincere or legit, there are rare exceptions. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights the role of the government in deciphering religious legitimacy was assessed, “the government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground" for a person's actions "is legitimate or illegitimate." Again, it is a scary thought having the government decide which religious beliefs are lawful, but there needs to be some metric for when religious beliefs invoke harm. I truly believe that any case that involves religious belief in conjunction with individuals being harmed should be subject to evaluation. This is important because without confirming the sincerity of religious practices there will be potential dangerous ripple effects. Parents could pretend to be religiously affiliated as protection under the law to abuse their children. In my assessment of free exercise, I truly believe that religious organizations and individuals should have the ability to assert a wide range of practices and values, but it is crucial that they are limited when they place any potential harm on others.Works Cited
11 comments:
I agree with Anna's assessment here, and particularly appreciated her bringing up the potential slippery slope at the end as I had not thought of this - that parents could potentially legally abuse their children by arguing free exercise. In this case, while I do not believe that the court should have a right to determine what religious beliefs are legitimate or illegitimate, the problem at stake goes further than that. As discussed in class, there must be some limit to free exercise, which in this case would be the compelling state interest of keeping children alive. I believe in any case that the need to keep a child alive is far greater than the need to uphold religious convictions particularly, as Anna mentions, due to the fact that children are unable to make decisions for themselves. Because of this, I believe that it is the state's responsibility to ensure its' children are protected, which is an issue that I believe transcends the religious clauses in the First Amendment.
I believe that due to the child dying, Anna's opinion is right, however I may reconsider her opinion if the child did not end up dead. One question I am struggling to grasp surrounds parents and the control they have over their children. We have talked about this a lot in class as to whether or not parents should be making decisions for their children, and the outcome of Wisconsin v. Yoder might actually support the opposing argument here. One could argue that the parents in Wisconsin v. Yoder made the decision for their children to be removed from school, not the children themselves. So couldn't the same logic be applied where the Pilands made the decision for their child not to be brought to the hospital and thus the parents are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. As I mentioned before, I also think the fact that Abigail died plays a large role here. Clearly her illness was life threatening and because it seems like the Pilands had no regard to Abigail's life I do ultimately think what they did was wrong.
I agree with Anna’s rationale here because there is a very slippery slope with the state of Michigan taking on the responsibility of trying to define religious “legitimacy”. This on any grounds, goes against the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. If there is harm done to a child at a parent’s hand, what should be brought into question is how fit the parent is to take care of the child, not the validity of their religious beliefs.
I agree with Anna's conclusion for this case. While I agree that it is not ideal for the government to be determining the legitimacy of religions, it is the government's responsibility to protect citizens. In this case, a child died due to religious beliefs that oppose medical care. This is directly impacted a child who had no say in the matter. I also agree with the slippery slope that Anna referred to at the end of her post. Actions should not be ignored just because they are being labeled as religious.
I agree with Anna in this instance and think that parents shouldn't be able to withhold medical care from their children based upon their sincere religious beliefs. I also like what Amanda said about how parents have so much control over their children. I think it is important to take Wisconsin v. Yoder into account because you could argue that parents made the decision for their children to not attend school. The child didn't make this decision. The same logic could be applied to this case. I do not think actions should be ignored because they are labeled as religious.
I also agree with Anna's assessment as I am aware of quite a few cases where parents withheld medical treatment from their young children which caused them to die of easily treated illnesses. The state has a prevailing interest of preventing negligent parenting and the death or injury of children. Regardless of religious belief many negligent parents believe that their parenting tactics are responsible and in the best interest of their children even when most would consider them abuse. Therefore legitimate belief does not excuse negligent behavior. Intentions matter but the outcomes often matter more.
I agree with Anna here based off the reasoning that free exercise exemptions stop when the lives and general well being of an individual is put in harms way. religious beliefs cannot be used to justify the necessary health treatment of a child. this sets a dangerous precedent and is needed to ensure the safety of children
I also agree with the decision of the author and see that maintaining the well being of a child overrides the religious exercise of the parents. Even though the parents have the right to their religious beliefs, the child has the right to a healthy life and the state is responsible for maintaining the health of its citizens.
I agree with the author in this interpretation. I do not believe religious beliefs give the parents the right to reject medical care for a helpless infant. Reading the summary, I was reminded of Reynolds v. United States. The majority opinion noted that, by engaging in a polygamous marriage, George Reynolds knowingly committed a crime to fulfill his religious obligations. I believe there are similarities in this case since the parents were warned of the child's illness and knowingly withheld treatment.
I agree with Anna and my peers in this decision, especially because there are children involved, who may not be aware or understand the decisions being made by their parents in the name of free exercise. The question of legitimacy and how old the child is definitely open up a slippery slope. However, as several of my classmates have stated, the religious belief of a parent resulted in a newborn's death. In addition, I appreciated Mason bringing up Reynolds v. United States. We discuss the slippery slope and the example of breaking the law in criminal behavior such as human sacrifice. Although they do not have similar intent, the Court believes human sacrifice to be wrong and unconstitutional even in the name of religious freedom. I see a similarity between this extreme and the negligence of the parents to save their daughter's life. As Mason mentions, "the parents were warned of the child's illness and knowingly withheld treatment."
I agree with Anna because it is within the state's interest to protect a child and provide them with medical care. If healthcare professionals are able to provide care for a child, the parent's religion should not supercede that. While it can be difficult to tell a mother what to do with their child, there is still a life that is in need of care, and that should be the priority. At some point, there has to be a limit and it should not allow parents to withold care from their child.
Post a Comment