When May Government Interfere with Religious Practices to Protect the Health and Safety of Children?

Allan J Jacobs, Kavita Shah Arora
Author Information
  1. Allan J Jacobs: Gynecologic Oncology, Coney Island Hospital, Brooklyn, New York, USA; and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and affiliated faculty in Bioethics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA. Postal address: 590 7 Street, Brooklyn, NY 11215, USA.
  2. Kavita Shah Arora: Reproductive Biology and of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Ohio, USA, and Director of Quality, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Postal address: 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Suite G267, Cleveland, OH 44109, USA.

Abstract

Secular states may be asked to override parental decisions based on religious beliefs when these decisions lead to concerns for the wellbeing of the child or welfare of society at large. Particular difficulties arise when goals of limited state importance to secular society conflict with practices that matter a great deal to members of religious groups. We propose a prudentially-based approach to resolving these conflicts by balancing the interests of the affected child, those close to the child, and society without compromising the child's needs. This approach acknowledges the importance of children's relational interests as members of families and religious cultures. It is compatible both with legal and bioethical practice. Decisions are contextually framed, taking into account the degree to which the state generally tolerates risks to children's health and safety. The constraints built into our approach protect against using child welfare as a pretext for attacks on minorities. Finally, use of this approach partially addresses the imprecision of other standards that have been applied to judge the appropriateness of parental decisions.

Keywords

References

  1. Lancet. 2002 Feb 16;359(9306):630 [PMID: 11867150]
  2. Theor Med Bioeth. 2004;25(4):243-64 [PMID: 15637945]
  3. J Med Philos. 2010 Oct;35(5):526-52 [PMID: 20819781]
  4. Theor Med Bioeth. 2012 Jun;33(3):179-98 [PMID: 22528148]
  5. Isr Med Assoc J. 2013 Jan;15(1):60-5 [PMID: 23484246]
  6. Pediatrics. 2013 Nov;132(5):962-5 [PMID: 24167167]
  7. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2014 Apr;15(2):113-25 [PMID: 24231942]
  8. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(1):3-13 [PMID: 25562214]
  9. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(2):30-9 [PMID: 25674955]
  10. J Med Ethics. 2016 Feb;42(2):111-5 [PMID: 26401048]
  11. Dev World Bioeth. 2017 Aug;17(2):134-140 [PMID: 27990743]
  12. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 1997 Spring;27(3):165-77 [PMID: 9062008]
  13. J Med Philos. 1997 Jun;22(3):271-89 [PMID: 9232512]

Grants

  1. KL2 TR000440/NCATS NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0childapproachdecisionsreligioussocietyparentalwelfarestateimportancemembersinterestschildren'sSecularstatesmayaskedoverridebasedbeliefsleadconcernswellbeinglargeParticulardifficultiesarisegoalslimitedsecularconflictpracticesmattergreatdealgroupsproposeprudentially-basedresolvingconflictsbalancingaffectedclosewithoutcompromisingchild'sneedsacknowledgesrelationalfamiliesculturescompatiblelegalbioethicalpracticeDecisionscontextuallyframedtakingaccountdegreegenerallytoleratesriskshealthsafetyconstraintsbuiltprotectusingpretextattacksminoritiesFinallyusepartiallyaddressesimprecisionstandardsappliedjudgeappropriatenessMayGovernmentInterfereReligiousPracticesProtectHealthSafetyChildren?GovernmentaldutyPaediatricdecision-makingReligion

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)