Issues surrounding a parent's ability to deny medical care to their child have become a controversial topic in health law policy. Parents often cite religious reasons or personal preferences for alternative medical treatments to justify withholding medical treatment for their child. Although a parent's ability to consent to medical treatment that could save their child's life is established law, the ability to refuse life-saving treatment is less defined. The basic legal principle of compulsory treatment in this country is based on a distinction made by the courts between religious beliefs and practices. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayReynolds v. US Supreme Court (98 US 145) of 1879, which involved polygamous marriage practices, set a precedent that, while guaranteeing the free exercise of religious beliefs, allows the state, in certain circumstances, to limit religious practices. In general, when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in the preservation or promotion of health, life, safety, or welfare, religious practices may be restricted. (Kasprak) Failure to provide children with essential medical care is increasingly recognized as a form of neglect. (Bioethics 2013) According to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, neglect is defined as: Harm or threat of harm to the health or well-being of a child by a parent, legal guardian or any other person responsible for the health or welfare of the child that occurs through any of the following: Negligent treatment, including failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or care adequate medical conditions. Placing a child at unreasonable risk to his or her health or well-being by failing to intervene to eliminate that risk from the parent, legal guardian or other person responsible for the health or well-being of the child when this no one is capable of doing so and has done so, or should have, knowledge of the risk. (Michigan Department of Health and Human Services) In 1983, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services changed its definition of negligent treatment to include failure to provide adequate medical care. Many factors are important when assessing risk. suspicion of medical negligence. Some factors include the likelihood and magnitude of harm from forgoing medical treatment as well as the benefits, risks, and burdens of the proposed treatment. (Bioethics 2013) One example is that the risk of an unvaccinated child contracting a vaccine-preventable contagious disease may be low if community vaccination rates are high and disease prevalence is low. Many parents cite religious beliefs as a reason for refusing medical treatment. Some examples: Christ's disciples refuse all medical treatment in favor of prayer, anointing with oil and laying on of hands. Christian Scientists may call on dentists and doctors for "mechanical" problems like bone repair or childbirth, but view most illnesses as the result of the individual's mental attitude and seek healing through spiritual means, such as prayer. (Bioethics 2013) Other religions only prohibit certain medical interventions, for example Jehovah's Witnesses only prohibit the use of blood and blood transfusions. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get now.