http://www.wwnytv.net/index.php/2008/09/19/amish-family-in-court-over-childs-heart-condition/
WNFY Channel 7 in New York recorded on Friday that, Gideon and Barbara Hershberger, an Amish couple, were being petitioned by the county Department of Social Services to court because they refuse to let their 17th month old son receive open heart surgery for religious reasons. The article states that it is important to know that they are not brought to court on criminal charges. The county is stating that it is neglect on the parents behalf because if the surgery is not completed the child is in grave danger of losing his life. The county wants the child to be removed from the parents’ custody to perform the surgery, and then, I assume, they could have their child back. Karen Johnson-Weiner, an expert on Amish culture, commented on this situation from a sociological perspective stating, “parents in this culture, like any other, love and care for their children and want to do what’s best. For Amish parents what’s best involves not just this world, but the next.”
This article draws on many different sociological and constitutional aspects. It draws on the free exercise clause addressing whether the Amish have the right to withhold their son from medical attention due to religious beliefs. The questions that need to be addressed have to do with the sincerity of their beliefs and who has the right to decide that, which is something we discussed in class today in the US v. Ballard case. This case gets even more complicated because there is a child involved. When that is the case, the state takes authority in deciding what is in the best interest for the child.
I feel that in this case the parents are in the right because it has to do with the Amish, and they have precedence in our society as a group of religious citizens that have been committed to their practices and beliefs for hundreds of years. This has to be taken into consideration because if it were a new religious movement, the motives and intentions would have to be more heavily questioned. What the Amish believe to be true has not changed over time, but our medical technology has. Just because we have the technology, should it be used? Does this technology mean that the courts have the right to intervene? I am more on the side of the Amish parents; however, I am not sure if I would feel the same way if it were a different religious group or institution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
It is a difficult situation when choosing between free exercise of religion and medically the best interest of a child, especially when dealing with a long-standing and respected religion. Although I do think that everyone involved has the best interest of the child at heart, it is their views on what this means that conflict. To the parents it is the best interest to not allow surgery due to religious beliefs, while the court believes that medically attempting to save the child’s life is in the best interest. Maybe the only win-win situation would be for the judge to order surgery. If this happens then it was taken out of the parents’ hands and therefore they have not gone against their religious beliefs but the child still receives the surgery.
I think that the child's life takes precedence over any religious group, no matter how long they've been around, or how consistent and establish their beliefs are. If it were an adult making a medical choice based on their religious beliefs, they should have every right to do so. An infant is hardly mature enough to make a life-and-death decision in the same way. Unlike an adult, the 17-month old child never made the conscious, informed, decision to join the Amish faith and commit to its rules. Simply being born into the culture is not reason enough for the government to stand by while the child dies from a neglectful lack of medical care.
I would like to throw in my two little cents with a string of pointed questions. What if the religion had no bearing on the decision? Would a parent's decision still be overruled or questioned? If It is illegal or frowned upon for a parent to make a decision against treatment, is it also frowned upon if a third-party payer makes that same decision?
Thanks for the blog post buddy! Keep them coming... best cardiology hospital in Hyderabad
Post a Comment