Generally, state laws, either explicitly or implicitly,
impose a requirement that parents provide appropriate medical care for their
children. However, many states also provide religious based exception to the
provision of medical care. For example, in North Carolina, an exception is
provided to compulsory laws requiring childhood immunization if the parent has
a bona fide religious belief which would preclude immunization. See N.C. Gen Stat 130A-157. In other states,
the religious exemptions can be more extensive and in many cases allow for
faith based healing to be a lawful substitute for traditional medicine if such
healing is provided for by a parent’s religion. See State v. Neumann, 832 N.W.2d 560 (Wis. 2013); Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992); State v. McKown, 475 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. 1991); State v. Crank, 468
S.W.3d 15, 21 (Tenn. 2015). In each of the afore-mentioned cases (and a number
of others), religious exemptions to traditional medicine led to the death of a child when the parents solely relied upon prayer as a means to heal a sick
child. In such cases, the parents were criminally charged following the death
of their child. On appeal, some of the cases (Neumann, Crank) resulted in the convictions being affirmed. In
others, the convictions were said aside (Hermanson,
McKown).
In light of this mixed result where prosecution of
parents occurred who withheld modern medical treatment, two questions arise:
First,
does a child in a parent or parents’ care have an absolute right to modern medical
treatment?
Second,
if that right is not absolute, when does it arise?
Whether a child has an absolute right to medical
treatment turns generally on whether a parent, in withholding modern medical
treatment is acting in a reasonable fashion. Unfortunately, exactly what
constitutes an unreasonable refusal to administer treatment is far from settled.
For example, in Wisconsin, a child’s parents were convicted of second-degree
reckless homicide when their daughter, who suffered from diabetic-ketoacidosis,
died from untreated juvenile onset diabetes mellitus. Rather than allow the
child to be treated with medication, the parents opted for prayer, though they
were of no particular faith but loosely identified as Pentecostal. The parents’
conviction was subsequently affirmed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court despite the
existence of a state statute which provided an allowance for treatment by spiritual
means through prayer in lieu of medical or surgical treatment. See Wis. Stat. §948.03(6). The court, after
considering the statute which provided for faith based healing, determined that
(1) a parent who fails to provide medical care to his or her child, (2) creates
a unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm, (3) is aware
of that risk, and (4) causes the death of the child through continued reliance
on faith-based treatment, runs afoul of the Wisconsin’s criminal laws regarding
reckless homicide. See State v. Neumann,
832 N.W.2d 560 (Wis. 2013).
This same point of law has also been taken up in
several other states which have similar faith healing statutes. Unlike the
court in Neumann, courts in other
states such as Florida and Minnesota have reached different conclusions and
have found that either the faith healing statute failed to provide a line of
demarcation at which point a parent could know their reliance of prayer amounted
to criminal conduct or that the statute was a complete defense to prosecution.
See Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775
(Fla. 1992); State v. McKown, 475
N.W.2d 63 (Minn. 1991).
Thus when it comes to the rights of children to
receive appropriate medical treatment, there is no absolute right for children
to receive modern medical treatment. To the extent that a child does have this
right at the present time seems to be a function of (1) the severity of the
illness or malady faced by the child; and (2) whether a religious exemption to
treatment exists where a court has firmly defined the limits to which prayer
can be used as a substitute for medicine. Generally speaking, the right to
treatment is only guaranteed in states which lack faith healing statutes. Even
then, a child’s right to treatment exists only to the extent that the sickness
or malady is serious and life threatening, where failure to provide modern
medical treatment would most likely result in the death of a child if the
parents continued to withhold the same.
The present state of uncertainty in the law regarding
faith healing presents a serious consequence for children who certainly cannot
choose their parents, their parents’ religious beliefs, or generally the state
that they live in. In turn, this uncertainty also presents a serious challenge
for parents of certain religious traditions who must decide the limits to which
they will cleave to their faith in opposition to the claims of scientific
medicine. While no solid solutions exist in all states, the law in this area is
evolving. Perhaps in the near future compromise legislation can be made on the
federal level or as a result of uniform action among the states which will not
only assure the well-being of dependent children but which also respects the
rights of parents to not only believe their faith but to put it into practice
without fear of prosecution or the specter of a child being delivered to the
grave.
