Ethical and legal issues involved in parental refusal to give children vaccinations

Parents may refuse traditional medical care for ill
children on religious grounds,  there are consequences when they do  but
the issue continues to be tested and likely will continue on the matter
of vaccines.

 

This issue was raised recently following the death
of John Travolta’s son and new information about vaccines.  But the
details of this were only speculation at the time.  The issue continues
to be hazy since the new research on the lack of relationship between
vaccines and autism was announced.

It has also been raised
by cases in the news recently where children have died following the
parents refusal of recommended care. In 2008 Madeline
Neuman died because her parents refused to give her insulin,
choosing prayer instead.


Ava Worthington,
died
because her parents refused to give medical care, again with prayer for
care. There are many cases of where parental refusal of getting medical
care for their child has led to serious reprisals.


Many of these
cases that have occurred in the past few years have led to discussion
on the matter of parental
culpability.


Despite findings that underline other research
that shows there is no linkage between autism and vaccinations, some
parents have resisted vaccinations because of religious reasons, others
because of the fear of a child becoming autistic as a result of
vaccinations.  Then there are
the moral and ethical questions that are involved if children die
as a result of that refusal.


The



issues and the law have been examined by Richard Law who observes
the ambiguity of some of the courts with respect to religion and
medicine, but observes that most courts have held the right of adults to
refuse medical treatment, if they are judged mentally competent, on the
basis of religious reasons.


He notes, however, that refusing to
give child medical treatment is a different issue. The court has
maintained that the child isn’t the property of the parents but is
included in the protection of the state on matters of health, and
parents cannot deny medical care so long as that care is not expected to
provide serious injury to the child. One court stated the following in
response to issues involving the child’s welfare vs the religious issues
of the parents involved in that:

“The child is a citizen of
the State. While he “belongs” to his parents, he belongs also to his
State. Their rights in him entail many duties. Likewise, the fact the
child belongs to the State imposes upon the State many duties. Chief
among them is the duty to protect his right to live and to grow up with a
sound mind in a sound body . . . . When a religious doctrine espoused
by the parents threatens to defeat or curtail such a right of their
child, the State's duty to step in and preserve the child's right is
immediately operative.1

How the issue of medical care and
denial of vaccines on the basis of religion or other worries will be
dealt with in the courts has yet to be determined, however the recent
research rebutting beliefs that vaccination causes autism removes the
negative consequences of vaccines and therefore opens up the question of
neglect when they are not given, given Richard Law’s commentary on
court decisions. This will be particularly of concern when it has been
noted that children have died because of parental refusal to give
vaccines for religious reasons, and most especially because of their
concerns about their causing autism, especially now that it is known
that autism is not caused by vaccines.


There are still
considerable numbers of parents who continue to refuse to have their
children vaccinated.  Some argue that this not only puts the child at
risk but other children also.


But it is also the risk to the
parents as well in the courts, depending how these issues are impacted
by the research on autism and legal decisions if a child dies of a
disease that could have been prevented by vaccination.