2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemep.2018.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

When may government interfere with religious practices to protect the health and safety of children?

Abstract: Secular states may be asked to override parental decisions based on religious beliefs when these decisions lead to concerns for the wellbeing of the child or welfare of society at large. Particular difficulties arise when goals of limited state importance to secular society conflict with practices that matter a great deal to members of religious groups. We propose a prudentially-based approach to resolving these conflicts by balancing the interests of the affected child, those close to the child, and society w… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the 19th-century Chinese custom of foot binding (Cummings et al, 1997) and the Southern European custom of castrating prepubertal boys who sing well in a high range (Jenkins, 2000) 4 were never permitted in the liberal West. 5 Jacobs and Arora (2018) propose that government intervention against parental decisions is only permissible under two circumstances: first, governments may act to preclude decisions that significantly disadvantage society or its members; and, second, governments may prevent or punish parental action or neglect that can foreseeably and frequently create for the child either substantial chance of death or of major disruption of a physiological function, or other severe tangible harmful effects, such as malnutrition or major psychological morbidity. The second of these factors is at issue when parents authorise Abrahamic circumcision for their children (Jacobs and Arora, 2015;Arora and Jacobs, 2016).…”
Section: A Liberal Pluralist Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the 19th-century Chinese custom of foot binding (Cummings et al, 1997) and the Southern European custom of castrating prepubertal boys who sing well in a high range (Jenkins, 2000) 4 were never permitted in the liberal West. 5 Jacobs and Arora (2018) propose that government intervention against parental decisions is only permissible under two circumstances: first, governments may act to preclude decisions that significantly disadvantage society or its members; and, second, governments may prevent or punish parental action or neglect that can foreseeably and frequently create for the child either substantial chance of death or of major disruption of a physiological function, or other severe tangible harmful effects, such as malnutrition or major psychological morbidity. The second of these factors is at issue when parents authorise Abrahamic circumcision for their children (Jacobs and Arora, 2015;Arora and Jacobs, 2016).…”
Section: A Liberal Pluralist Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Abstinence is one of the approaches to HIV prevention taken by the Physicians' organizations. Preventive measures include abstinencebased prevention massages like counseling adolescents and their families for being more responsible on sexual decision making including abstinence 13,15 . Some religious conservatives thought that the availability of the vaccine could affect the promotion of these messages 10,13 .…”
Section: Ethical Issues In Mass Vaccinationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some advocacy groups agreed availability of the vaccines in public health systems; however, they did not agree on making the vaccine mandatory 4,10,12,13 . Their perspective was this decision of the state may lead to force a child to undergo an intervention that may be incompatible with her family's religious values and beliefs 15 . The huge expense of vaccines starting from research to introduce a successful product in the market along with maintenance of its safety and efficacy is a debatable concern in public health in terms cost -as most of the developing countries have some other priorities like pure water supply or sanitation 13 .…”
Section: Ethical Issues In Mass Vaccinationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation