Abortion And Parent's Refusal To Allow Medical Treatment

[Starwynd]

This is here because i lost track of the thread in regards to John Travolta’s child’s death.

In it it was stated that a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment for religious reasons if their child becomes ill.

I don’t under understand why.

And here’s why.

If abortion is about protecting the child and giving it life, even against the parent’s wishes, then what is the moral difference in allowing the parent the right to choose to refuse medical treatment for religious grounds? After all, refusing medical treatment causes harm and in serious situations will even kill a child, and I believe in some cases has.

I see no moral difference. If a pregnant woman should allow life to flourish, then so should a parent allow a born child to flourish as well, and may not refuse medical treatment for their child.

 

[wjp984]

The State can move the Court to grant them custody over a child if his or life is in danger due to a parent refusing life saving treatment.

For non threatning situations, the parent of course should have the right to refuse certain treatments.

A parent in some states can even be charged with negligent homicide for refusing to obtain medical care for their child.

 

[wjp984]

Now for the abortion issue. Using a general knowledge of the Common Law, here is my opinion on why the laws are the way they are.

There is no fundamental right to health care of life saving treatment. There is a right to life which is why the State can move to obtain custody of the child for a parent’s negligence but in regards to health care, there is no fundamental right.

There is a fundamental right to parental autonomy. Children are considered a liberty interest meaning the State should not interfere with the parental liberty in bringing up their children. (God forbid the Court determined them to be a property interest).

Roe v. Wade established a fundamental right to privacy including the right to have an abortion. While Roe interpreted the right to an abortion as a fundamental right, Planned Parenthood v. Casey at least limited this to an undue burdon case. This means there can be no undue burdon on a women’s right to obtain an abortion.

Therefore, the Court seems to place the right to have an abortion higher than the right to healthcare. The child has no fundamental right to healthcare so revert back to the parents on this issue. See above for what the State can do to intervene.

The child does have a right to obtain an abortion without an undue burden and this right can not be unduly burdened. There is no such right for healthcare.

It follows therefore that the State can choose allow abortions without parental notification to meet this right of an abortion.

It also follows the State can require parental notification if it so desires since this does not place an undue burden on the child’s right to obtain an abortion. However, the State can once again intervene on behave of the child should the child have reasons to believe he or she would be in danger if the parents were notified about his or her pregnancy.

I hope that sums it up.

 

[wjp984]

As a side note, this is what makes FOCA so dangerous if it gets passed. It guarantees the right to abortion as a Constitutional fundamental right that Roe v. Wade suggested.

It overrules Planned v. Casey and the undue burden test.

Therefore, instead there must be a compelling state interest to place any restrictions on abortions which means just about every restriction in place would now be unconstitutional. There are very few compelling State interests.

The right to life of the unborn child after viability, a thankfully compelling state interest, would compete and lose out against the mother’s life interest which includes her health and any doctor could just sign off stating there is some medical reason, (not even life threatning) to why the mother needs an abortion and the State would have to comply.

.

 

[Newbie2]

This is here because i lost track of the thread in regards to John Travolta’s child’s death.

In it it was stated that a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment for religious reasons if their child becomes ill.

I don’t under understand why.

And here’s why.

If abortion is about protecting the child and giving it life, even against the parent’s wishes, then what is the moral difference in allowing the parent the right to choose to refuse medical treatment for religious grounds? After all, refusing medical treatment causes harm and in serious situations will even kill a child, and I believe in some cases has.

I see no moral difference. If a pregnant woman should allow life to flourish, then so should a parent allow a born child to flourish as well, and may not refuse medical treatment for their child.

Methinks there may be a difference between Moral and Legal differences, but since the OP addressed the moral issue…

I can’t speak for other religions i.e. scientology as in Travolta, but Catholic moral theology would certainly require a parent to seek medical attention for routine illnesses, accidents and conditions. The question arises for cases like terminal cancer, life-threatening injuries “brain death” and need for transplants.

While parents are not required to subject their child to treatments that may not alter the course of the condition under these circumstances (and every case is different), the parents need to take many things into consideration when making such decisons. I do not envy parents who must make such decisions for their children.

Legally, in most instances throughout the US, I’d assume that parents are required to seek routine medical care for their children, although I’ve heard of cases, for example, where a blood transfusion has been refused under religious grounds by a parent.