Lot’s of places have made laws to cover this. In Ontario, where I reside, we have both common law, such as Malette v Schulman (1987), and even more recent statute law, the Health Care Consent Act (1996), both of which do not permit a doctor to act against the express intent of a competent person holding the right to make or withold consent. There is a somewhat complex hierarchy of circumstances and deemed decision makers, but what it eventually comes down to is that a Jehovah parent has the right to withold treatment of his child provided that the child does not disagree.
Yet another example of the horror of relgion. Sickening, if you ask me.
Where it gets interesting is in deciding what constitutes a valid religion. Religious cults that are into amputation, sacrifice or suicide have not received any protection in Ontario. Similarly, mainstream religious practices from other areas of the world (e.g. female genital mutilation) have not recived any protection. Children with parents whose faith includes these religious practices have a great deal of protection from their parents under the law. On the other hand, more locally popular religions are granted great latitude. Jehovahs can let their children die with impunity. No one blinks twice at Judeo-Christian male genital mutilation. Why is one religion offered legal protection, whereas another religion not?
This is where I find the entire concept of “Freedom of Religion” laughable. There is no such absolute. Actions are tolerated or protected as much as society wishes to permit such toleration or protection. If your religion is close enough to other religions in a society, or if there are enough of you in a society, then you will gain protection. If not, then you and your religion are out of luck. Some religions straddle the line, sometimes being protected, and sometimes being attacked (e.g. Jehovahs in Quebec or Sikhs in British Columbia). Since there is no such thing as true “Freedom of Religion”, cutting into any locally accepted religion’s practices lead people of other religions to often worry about a slippery slope. Sometimes it gets sort of wierd, where people of different religions which do not permit their children to die sill support the “right” of Jehovahs to let their children die. It comes down to a great many people, far beyond the limiten number of Jehovahs, being willing to protect abstract belief systems, and being rightfully concerned about the slippery slope argument which puts forth that a reduction of priviledge to one religion could lead to a reduction of privledge of another religion. So many people are religious in one form or another that you can say that society is willing to protect generally accepted belief systems at tremendous cost.
Unfortunately, it is often real children who pay the price for the society’s acceptance and protection various religions. In Ontario we see it where Jehovahs have let children die through want of basic medical intervention, where pedophiliac priests and violently abusive sisters have identified but then been protected by the Roman Catholic Church, and where the religious right continues to push brainwashing on children in the school system in the form of public prayers. Like I say, religion is sickening, and sadly one of the least empowered groups, children, often pay the highest price.
