>I think it's pretty well established law in most jurisdictions in the US that
>you are not allowed to endanger your child, even if you "just don't agree"
>with the research or with the principles (even religious ones) on which it is
>based.

We really need the lawyers here to tell us the actual state-by-state laws
about this, but I believe that in most states in the US, parents DO
CURRENTLY have the right to choose medical care for their child, including
the right not to give food and water to a newborn (i.e., to cause the child
to die) when the child is not 'perfect.'  The situation with which I am most
familiar is "Baby Doe" of Bloomington, Indiana, a boy who was born and died
in 1982.  He was refused needed surgery to repair his tracheo-esophageal
fistula, and his parents refused to allow the NICU nurses to give him any
food and water -- he died after 8 days.  This was 'allowed' because the baby
had Down Syndrome.  There was a big outcry and the Congress passed
legislation, which President Ronald Reagan signed into law, to take effect 1
June 1985, taking away parents' rights to make these kinds of decisions.  My
son with Down Syndrome, Peter, was the NEXT BABY with Down Syndrome born at
Bloomington, Indiana hospital after the birth and death of Baby Doe.  My son
needed surgery to repair duodenal atresia.  He was born on 17 May 1985, two
weeks before the Baby Doe legislation was slated to take effect, so we could
have decided to "let him die" by withholding surgery, food, and water.  We
obviously did not choose to do so.  After several years, it was clear that
most US courts felt the Baby Doe legislation went too far in taking away
parental rights, and it was repealed.  So parents once again have the right
to refuse medical care, food, and water to their newborn children if they so
choose.  There have been many cases over the years of parents refusing blood
transfusions and antibiotics due to religious beliefs, and the courts
decisions are sometimes in the parents' favor, and sometimes against.  I
think it depends mostly on the state and who is willing to go to bat for the
child.  But parents' rights are held to be very important, and not lightly
contravened by the state.

Another good example is all the exceptions to the rules that children must
be immunized in order to go to school.  Here in Texas it is very difficult
to get a religious or conscience-based exemption, but it can be done.  I
hear it is much easier in other states.

Kathy Dettwyler

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html