Essay Sample on Right to Religious Freedom vs Duty to Protect Children

Introduction

The right to religious freedom enables everyone to choose the faith they will follow. Anyone in the United States has the right to choose the religion or even change religion anytime they want. Parents are also free to take their children to whichever religion they choose for them, and the children should not have to object (Leiker, 2009). The state cannot prosecute a parent for forcing his or her children to go to a certain religion. Parents are given the ability to choose the religion, and children have no power to object their parents' decisions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Religious Freedom

The right to religious freedom means that anyone can follow all the beliefs of their faith, including the power to pray for healing. However, when it comes to the duty to protect the children, the right to religious freedom is limited to a certain extent. Some religions believe that it is only God who can heal, which means that they do not have to go to the hospital whenever they are sick. However, although the state has guaranteed everyone the right to religious freedom, parents cannot endanger their children's health by praying for them to heal, especially when the health problem is life-threatening. That does not mean that parents are forced to take their children to the hospital whenever they fall sick as jurisdictions have accorded all the parents the right to raise their children according to their religious beliefs, but when the health condition of a child is life-threatening, the parent is required by law to seek medical care for the child (Abbott, 2009). If a child dies because the parents did not take him or her to the hospital, the parents are prosecuted for a child-neglect.

Ethical Implications

The ethical consideration of the regulations is that the parents may not know when their child may be suffering from a life-threatening condition. It is only after diagnosis that a condition can be termed as a life-threatening or not life-threatening. Deteriorating health cannot be used as a measure of life-threatening conditions, and therefore parents can argue that they did not know whether their child was in danger (Leiker, 2009). Another ethical implication of these laws is that parents think that being prosecuted for not taking their children to the hospital is a violation of their constitutional right to religious freedom. Therefore, the laws seem to contradict the parents because they believe the constitution protects their religious beliefs. Children cannot choose the religion they want to follow, and therefore, they are expected to follow their parent's religious beliefs. Therefore, the Neumann case presents several ethical implications that need to be considered to eliminate any confusion.

Conclusion

Healthcare providers need to take an ethical stand regarding these cases by always requiring parents to bring their children to the hospital whenever they fall sick regardless of whether the condition is life-threatening or not. This is because children's immunity is not strong enough to fight certain health conditions, and therefore, medical care should be a priority whenever a child falls sick. It is also through diagnosis that a condition can be termed as life-threatening or not as parents cannot tell by having a child's health deteriorate.

References

Abbott, K. (2009). Law and Medicine: Pediatric Faith Healing. AMA Journal of Ethics, 11, 778- 782. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2009/10/hlaw1- 0910.html.

Leiker, Michelle. JD. (2009). Kara Neumann, spiritual healing, and the law. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 108 (8), 415-416.