When Will the State Intervene?: Medical Neglect & Medical Child Abuse

Name
Tutor
Course
Date
Week 5 Tutorial Questions
TQ 5.1
The distinction between Matter of Cabrera and In re Green
At the surface level, both cases require a determination by the court on whether a child can access necessary medical procedures without the parents’ consent. Parents have the right to approve medical operations performed on their children. However, the State can usurp the right when the court declares the guardian as not acting in the child’s best interest through the adjudication of neglect. The Matter of Cabrera case ordered for blood transfusion against the parents’ wishes. At 17 years old, the court declared Green mature, making his input in the case indispensable, unlike in the Matter of Cabrera case. Other than age dynamics, the two lawsuits also differed on the extent of the exercisable powers of the State. While the Matter of Cabrera ruling gave the full State sovereignty to override the parent’s consent, the In re Green ruling granted the state conditional authority. Accordingly, the State’s interests only sufficiently outweigh the custody rights and religious freedom of the parent when the diagnosed physical condition threatens the child’s life. This rider implies that the supreme court determined Green’s paralytic scoliosis was life-threatening (In re Green). As a result, the parent’s consent becomes outweighed. The physical condition did not have to be life-threatening to warrant state intervention.

Why the Court Ruled for Blood Transfusion
The court ruled for blood transfusion in the Matter of Cabrera because the health facility convinced the court that the failure to perform the procedure was harmful to the child. The court ordered for blood transfusion for Tara because of the predicted 70% likelihood of a stroke. The subscribers of the Jehovah’s Witness faith remain opposed to blood transfusion, and their religious freedom covers their right to exercise this doctrine (Matter of Cabrera). The children are drawn into the conflict because they remain under their parents’ care until they age. The court overrides this aspect by transferring the child’s custody to the health center for the necessary medical procedure. As a requisite, the child becomes adjudicated as neglected by the parent.
TQ 5.2
The distinction between the Matter of Cabrera and Newmark v. Williams
One of the distinctions between the Matter of Cabrera and Newmark v. Williams cases is the extent of the authorities granted to the parent and State. In the Matter of Cabrera, the court awarded the full State sovereignty to consider interventions in child custody (Matter of Cabrera). In contrast, in Newmark v. Williams, the burden lies on the State to justify its intervention in a parent-child relationship. Moreover, the ruling accentuates the parent`s role in making important decisions in the child`s life. Deductively, the Matter of Cabrera favors the State while Newmark v. Williams favors the parent. Newmark v. Williams awarded the parent significant, albeit not absolute, authority over the affairs offered to the child, unlike the Matter of Cabrera, which grants the State an absolute privilege of intervention. The shifted burden of proof to the State allows for objective evaluation of the consequences of the proposed medication. For instance, risky medical procedures diminish the State’s interest while strengthening the parent`s objection to the recommended guidelines.
Why did the Parents prevail in Newmark v. Williams and not in the Matter of Cabrera
First, unlike in the Matter of Cabrera, the court does not grant the State an absolute right to intervene in the parent-child relationship in Newmark v. Williams. Thus, the State becomes burdened to prove that its intervention would be in the child’s best interest. In contrast, Matter of Cabrera grants State intervention even without evaluating the intricacies of the dispute. As such, a parent could barely prevail in the Matter of Cabrera. On the contrary, a parent has a higher probability of winning in Newmark v. Williams because parents become anticipated to make significant decisions in the life of their children for their welfare. Colin`s parents objected to chemotherapy because it endangered Colin`s life. The State, on the other hand, had the unsurmountable task of proving that chemotherapy was in Colin’s interest while exhibiting below a 40% chance for success (Newmark v. Williams). Consequently, unlike blood transfusion, chemotherapy could not prevail.
Again, Although the parents in both instances appealed for the right to exercise religion as granted by the First Amendment, the implementation is slightly distinct for the two religions. The Jehovah Witness is against blood transfusion but does not offer an alternative solution to the procedure (Matter of Cabrera). In contrast, Christian Science has the Christian Science treatment prescribed for every ailment, even cancer. As a result, the Jehovah’s Witness parent was more vulnerable to adjudication of neglect than the Christian Science parent.
TQ 5.3
When Should the State Overthrow the Parent`s decision to use CAM for the child?
Professor Boozang considers State intervention ideal when it will facilitate the implementation of an aspect in the child’s best interest. In the context of CAM, the parents’ decision is deemed unhealthy for the child.
Why?
There is an increased fascination with Chiropractic Alternative Medicine (CAM). Nevertheless, experts regard it with caution as other pseudoscientific procedures. While an adult is free to consider the options, the legality of subjecting children to the procedures remains debatable. Prof. Boozang explores the legal puzzle (109). The discourse aims to strike a balance between the State’s concern for the welfare of children and the parent’s authority to make medical decisions for the children under their custody. Prof. Boozang synthesizes the existing literature on the topic and the plausible arguments for and against the process to conclude that state intervention is preferable when parents make unreasonable health decisions for their children (Boozang 125). Notably, it is the prerogative of physicians to determine a suitable medical procedure. As a result, the appeal for CAM should follow physician referrals rather than unjustified parental wishes.
TQ 5.4
The fundamental difference between Medical Child Abuse and Medical Neglect is that the former implies infliction, while the latter means apathy.
Medical Child Abuse
Swidey and Wen trace the term medica...