A story caught my attention this morning. It appears that a mother has run off with her son to avoid being forced to allow him to undergo chemotherapy. As odd as it sounds, it appears that the courts have ordered that this boy undergo chemotherapy, something that is apparently against the (slightly unusual) religious beliefs of the mother.
This story raises some interesting questions that I can't fully answer. Where is the line between protecting children from abuse/neglect and the government meddling in the family's personal affairs? Is it right (ethical) for the government to be involved in this family's personal business in this way? Is it right (ethical) for the government to be involved in family affairs, ever? (I think the answer to this last one is "Yes," but I'm having trouble figuring out where its limitations should be.)
While I think it is a bit silly for the mother to refuse her son treatment, it seems to me that the actions taken by the authorities are more likely to make the mother want to continue to run. Issuing an arrest warrant for her and holding her in contempt of court are not actions that would give her motivation to return home or turn herself in. Logically, she's going to see running as her only viable option, since not only will she see her son undergo something that she (I think incorrectly) believes is wrong but she will also have to endure legal penalties for running in the first place. It's a double-lose situation for her. I don't agree with her decision, but I do see that the course taken by the government is more likely to cause harm than good.
As I read through the story, it also seems to me that the government took incredibly strong action in rapid succession. The family refuses to continue chemotherapy, so the government steps in and tries to take custody of the child. That seems a bit authoritarian to me. And it seems to be a bit of dangerous precedent. What's to stop authorities from deciding (say, 40 years from now) that teaching children to believe in Jesus is abuse. Based on this set of court actions, it would appear that it would be legal (not ethical, mind you, but legal) for the court to take the children away from their parents.
That scenario is not likely to happen, I know. I'm considering an extreme case to try to help myself get a solid, logical grasp on where the boundaries should be between the social spheres of government and family. And all I'm left with right now is the same unanswered questions that I posed near the start of this post. I'm going to have to think this one through some more.
No comments:
Post a Comment