Legal And Ethical Implications Of The 19th Amendment

Throughout the United States the judicial system has interpreted the 1st Amendment very broadly. This interpretation has included freedom of both religious belief and most religious practices. Historically the courts have ruled in favor of the individual’s right to choose prayer and/ or religious ritual in place of medical treatment. This freedom gives an adult the right to seek out traditional medical attention, faith healing, herbal or other alternative treatments, or choose no treatment at all when diagnosed with an illness. As a result, the broad spectrum of freedom within the 1st Amendment, parents or guardians may wish to exercise the same rights for their minor children. It is at this time when the legal systems and churches can create a complex legal and ethical dilemma.

Aside from the 1st amendment giving religious freedoms, the 19th amendment gives parents autonomy. The autonomy of this constitutional right is complicated when challenged by the states Paren’s Patriae, “a states right and duty to protect children, evidenced by the requirement to report child abuse or neglect,” (Linnard-Palmer & Kools, 2004, p. 353). As sighted by CHILD (2013), refusing treatment is a recognizable form of neglect of a minor. The courts need to consider both subjective and objective evidence when a case of a minor’s best welfare is being questions; this is known as The Best Interest Doctrine. In contrast, the issue of competency on behalf of an incompetent individual is settled in by a Substituted