Volltext:The aim of this paper is to discuss theethical and legal relationship between thereligious, social and cultural beliefs held byparents and the health of their children, inestablishing a younger child’s bestinterests. I will argue that the law’sprimary responsibility to the welfare ofchildren is to protect the child fromphysical harm. Fundamental to myargument is disagreement with the ideathat failing to take parental beliefs intoaccount is contrary to a child’s bestinterests, when physical harm will occur.This will be demonstrated through legaland ethical analysis of two aspects ofchildren’s health that may be influenced byparental beliefs. These are, the refusal oftreatment or intervention using theexamples of blood transfusion andimmunisation, and the provision ofunnecessary medical intervention in theform of infant non-therapeutic malecircumcision. I argue that the actual orpotential physical harm resulting fromthese issues is contrary to the rightsafforded to children. Furthermore, that thelaw should be consistent in its approach toconsidering protection from physical harmas being in the best interests of children.Specifically, I will argue that society has amoral obligation towards immunisationand that it should be a legally enforcedspecific parental responsibility.Furthermore, that non-therapeutic malecircumcision should be morally consideredas being of a similar genital mutilation asthat of female circumcision, with emphasison the moral right to genital autonomy.
repository.edgehill.ac.uk/8237…nment%20E%20Horowicz.docx
Vorhaut hat Vorteile. Sonst gäbe es sie nicht.