PUBLIC SAFETY: OBLIGATORY VACCINATION
In Jacobs vs. Massachusetts (Supreme Court, 1905), the court upheld the right of the
state to require an adult to submit to a vaccination to help prevent the spread of
disease.
PATIENT REFUSES TREATMENT, HAVING MADE PROVISIONS FOR HIS
CHILDREN
In re Osborne (Wash., D.C., 1972), the court refused to authorize a transfusion for a
father of two minor children because he had made adequate arrangements for their
future well-being.
DO PARENTS HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT FOR
THEIR MINOR CHILDREN?
According to Prince vs. Massachusetts (Supreme Court, 1944), "parents may be free
to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical
circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of
full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves." There is a
trend toward weakening of parental authority when it conflicts with generally
accepted medical practice. Every court, which has considered this question, has
concluded that parents may not refuse treatment if the result would be the death of a
child with an otherwise good prognosis. This is true even if the refusal is based on
the parents' religious beliefs. The decision maker has an obligation to act in the best
interests of the child (the ethical principle of beneficence) and, therefore, must
consent to necessary treatment. Thus, if a parent refuses to consent to necessary
treatment for a child, the courts are generally willing to intervene and appoint a
guardian who will provide consent. Most states have laws, which protect abused or
neglected minors. Parents who refuse to allow medical treatment for their children
are considered to be neglectful.
MD0067
2-32