1. Whose Belief Is It Anyway
Whose Belief Is It Anyway?: Children, Their Bodies And Beliefs That Influence Parental Decision-Making
Ed Horowicz DipHE RGN LLB(Hons)
Lecturer in Healthcare
Edge Hill University
LLM Student - University of Manchester

2. Aim
The paper seeks to question whether it is lawful and furthermore morally right for any parental social, cultural or religious belief to be allowed to justify decisions that may be less beneficial or even cause harm to their children.
Focusing on:
Refusal of treatment -
Immunisation and Blood Transfusion
Unnecessary Medical Intervention
Non-therapeutic Infant Male Circumcision

3. The Problem UNCRC- Article 24
‘Each State should take appropriate measures to abolish practices prejudicial to the physical health of children’
However, what if?
A belief exposes a child to potential physical harm?
Refusal to vaccinate child Re C [2003] Or
Parental beliefs cause actual physical harm?
Non-therapeutic infant male circumcision
Re J [2000]
Refusal of blood transfusion

4. Position Physical welfare of children is paramount.
Disagreement with the notion that failing to take parental beliefs into account is contrary to a child’s best interests, when physical harm may occur.
It is morally wrong for the to law operate an inconsistent approach to supporting a child’s welfare

5. Beliefs Cultural Social Religious
Physical welfare is not the only attribute to a child’s well-being (O’Donnell, 2004 and Seymour, 2012)
However, emotional or social benefit should never outweigh causing actual/potential physical harm (Fox and Thomson, 2005)

6. Children and Autonomy
Limited scope for younger children (Baines, 2008)
Children’s rights and their protection
Parental influence on older children

7. Parental Autonomy Parental right to make decisions, is it paramount?
Law allows parental autonomy to be restricted if it conflicts with child’s best interests (Fortin, 2004)
Restricted if unlawful, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), for example
Inconsistent legal approach if disagreement between parents or a practice is considered more acceptable

8. Child’s Physical Welfare
Younger children are most vulnerable to potential or actual harm from parental beliefs (Hirasawa, 2006)
UNCRC places physical well-being ahead of parental beliefs/wishes (Kilkelly, 2001)
Potential harm v Actual harm
-Risk of harm as significant

9. Vaccination Not unlawful to not vaccinate despite medical evidence
If parents disagree though, vaccination is always ordered by the courts in recognition of best interests
-Re C [2003]
Appears to demonstrate agreed parental decision making as holding greater parental rights?
Fundamental issue-
Child cannot consent to risk of harm
Harm to child of parental disagreement (Wearmouth, 2014)

10. Blood Transfusion Refusal
Considered by the law as actual harm and parental beliefs not considered
‘Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children’
Prince v Massachusetts [1944]
Immunisation any different?

11. Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision (NTMC)
Removal of healthy tissue for no clinical reason
Recognition of benefits in belonging to a group (Bridge, 2002)
Fox and Thomson (2005)
Social/cultural/religious norms must be open to challenge
&
Biological desires to protect children from physical harm

12. Genital Autonomy
Genital autonomy should be applied to children as a right as it is in adults (DeLaet, 2012)
Upon adulthood a man can decide to undergo non-therapeutic circumcision
Manifesting beliefs should be protected but not where another person’s genitals are physically altered, without a free choice.
-Piercings, tattoos and surgical procedures

13. FGM and NTMC
Brazier and Cave (2011)- Differentiated approach but both based on a belief, regardless of origin
Accepted greater physical detriment and risk in FGM but…….
Is there a moral difference?
Genital autonomy must be universal

14. Conclusion Moral and legal recognition of children’s rights
Evolution of society now beyond only parental rights
Emotional and social factors influence well-being
BUT
Right to physical well-being is paramount to a child’s welfare
Inconsistent attitude towards this in society
Consistent approach in law needed to protect children from actual or potential physical harm

15. References
Baines P. ‘Medical Ethics for Children: Applying the Four Principles to Paediatrics’ Journal of Medical Ethics (2008) 34:
Brazier M. and Cave E. Medicine, Patients and the Law (5th Ed Penguin Books 2011).
Bridge C. ‘Religion, Culture and the Body of the Child’ in Bainham A., Richards M. and Day-Sclater S. (Eds) Body Lore and Laws (Hart 2002) p284.
DeLaet D. ‘Genital Autonomy, Childrens’s Rights and Competing Rights Claims in International Human Rights Law’ International Journal of Children’s Rights (2012) 20:
Fortin J. ‘Children’s Rights: Are the Courts Now Taking them More Seriously?’ Kings Law Journal (2004) 15 (2):
Fox M. and Thomson M. ‘Short Changed? The Law and Ethics of Male Circumcision’ (2005) The International Journal of Children’s Rights 13:
Hirasawa K. ‘Are Parents Acting In The Best Interests Of Their Children When They Make Medical Decisions Based On Their Religious Beliefs’ (2006) Family Court Review 44 (2):
Kilkelly U. ‘The Best of Both Worlds for Children’s Rights? Interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights in the Light of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’ Human Rights Quarterly (2001) 23 (2):
O’Donnell K. ‘Re C (Welfare of Child Immunisation)- Room to Refuse? Immunisation and the Role of Parental Decision Making’ (2004) Child and Family Law Quarterly 16 (2):
Seymour D. ‘English Law and the Dilemmas of Assimilation’ Social and Legal Studies (2012) 21 (4):
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [available online at] (accessed 20/01/2016).
Wearmouth E. ‘Children, Vaccination and UK Law’ Archives of Disease in Childhood (2014) 99 (1):