Christian Science Case

[Fred Gedicks]

Donald Gianella argued many years ago that saving the life of a child who
is unable to consent to the withholding of medical treament was the
paradigm of  a compelling state interest overriding a parent's free
exercise right under Sherbert.  My review of the cases indicates that,
although there is the odd case  upholding parental rights even in the face
of a child's impending death, the courts overwhelmingly displace parental
decisions to withhold medical care in these situations.  It is not, therefore,
a matter of "drawing the line at death," as Mark puts it; the line has pretty
much already been drawn there.  I agree with Mark that this is probably
the right place to draw it.

Nevertheless,  the accusation that "Christian Science
systematically kills children," besides being insensitive and inflammatory,
begs the question.  For many religious people, the next life is far more
important than this one; for believers, there can be many things--like
unfaithfulness--that are worse than death.   I can imagine situtations in
which life subject to certain spiritual or physical constraints would be
worse than death, as a matter of my faith.  Why such a situation might
require that I insist on faithfulness rather than choosing  the life of my
child would be difficult  to explain, let alone justify,  to someone who did
not share my faith.  At the same time, in would be a severe, damaging
intrusion on both my faith and that of my child if the state were to make
the decision for me.   While I agree with Mark that preserving the life of a
child justifies intruding upon a parent's free exercise and due process
rights, it is not obvious that this is the only place the line could be drawn.
To save a believing Christian Scientist child by medical intervention could
be  a fate worse than death.

Fred Gedicks
gedicksf at lawgate.byu.edu