Monday 28 March 2011

The limits of parental rights

In America and also increasingly in this country, the debate about home education causes people to raise the question of parents' rights, as opposed to the rights of the state. It is suggested that the state is now trying to take over the role of parent and interfere in family life a little too much. I don't personally buy this; society has always had a stake in the welfare of children. Those arguing against state interference in their 'right' to home educate, often bring up other supposed rights that the state is trying to deprive them of in relation to their children. In the USA, this might be the right to allow one's children to use firearms; in this country, it is more likely to be the right not to vaccinate one's children. All these ideas were thrashed out legally in this country well over a century ago and it might be interesting to examine one of the seminal cases in this field of law; R v Downes 1875 1 QBD 25. Not far from where I live in Essex, a Christian sect was founded who called themselves the Peculiar People. Peculiar in this sense means not odd, by special. The expression is taken from the Bible ( Deut 14:2, Ps 135:4, 1 Pet 2:9 and so on). This sect was composed of ordinary working men and women who simply took the Bible as their guide for day to day living. They rejected all medical help, relying instead upon the words of scripture found in the Epistle of James, chapter 5, verses fourteen and fifteen; Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of the faithful shall save the sick. In 1874, one family of Peculiar People tried this with their two year-old child. He was wasting away from an illness and they loved him very much. There was no question of neglect; they took the best possible care of the child and did everything short of calling a doctor. Instead, they invited the elders of their church to pray over the sick child. When the child died, the father was charged with and convicted of manslaughter. It was held by the courts that the conscience of parents and their rights do not take precedence over the law, nor can they override what a normal person would do in similar circumstances. R v Downes found its way right up to the House of Lords and is still a binding precedent to this day. I have sometimes wondered what the legal implications of this case are for those parents who refuse to take their children to clinics to be vaccinated. If their children contracted measles and died; would they too be liable to a charge of manslaughter? It is an interesting point. The principle laid down in R v Downes is also important for home educating parents generally. There are no exemptions in law for parents who wish to pursue strange lifestyles founded upon weird beliefs. Such parents are expected not only to follow the same letter of the law as everybody else, but also to bear in mind what a right-thinking person would see as being good for their child. After all, looking again at R v Downes, there is no specific law which says that one must call the doctor if one's child is ill. We are expected to use common sense about this and abide by the consequences if our decision is wrong. This applies equally to calling a doctor or sending a kid to school. It is not possible to withdraw from society and ignore what everybody else thinks about education and medicine! This idea has far-reaching implications for those who follow unconventional lifestyles, especially if this lifestyle might ultimately cause harm to a child.

15 comments:

  1. The key point about state intervention in education is not whether or not the state can intervene in family life, but how it does it.

    There are very good reasons for: the content of education not being under state control, but control being dsitributed; parents having legal responsibility for causing a child to have a suitable education; local authorities only being allowed to make inquiries if there is evidence of a parent failing in their duty.

    The reasons for existing legislation were completely ignored, and in many cases not even understood by the previous government.

    This is not simply a matter of the benign state looking after the welfare of the vulnerable child.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Anonymous said...
    Paragraphs?'

    You may well ask. Blogspot does not seem to want me to use them any more. This distresses me more than anybody, but I am unable to find a way to deal with the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LOL... Maybe, as a temporary measure, you could insert symbols? Something like, -----------------

    ReplyDelete
  4. Webb says-It is not possible to withdraw from society and ignore what everybody else thinks about education

    you can ignore what others think about education and follow the education you wish to give your child.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter and Carol said...
    'you can ignore what others think about education and follow the education you wish to give your child.'
    Hmmm...might help if you at least managed to grasp the rudementary elements of reading and writing before attempting to.

    ReplyDelete
  6. anon says-Hmmm...might help if you at least managed to grasp the rudementary elements of reading and writing before attempting to.

    well we have ignored what others think about our child's education and nothing has happened to us? in fact have not heard a word from Hampshire County council for over 5 years!(after we told them to clear off) so we are living proof you can ignore what others think about the education you follow!
    OMG did we fail your reading and writing test anon? what you going to do about it? you could try and phone HCC and tell them their is a family who have failed your reading and spelling test yet their home educate their child ask them to take action over this matter LOL

    ReplyDelete
  7. i do like this statement- Why does everybody feel it is right to stick their noses into everybody else's lives?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "i do like this statement- Why does everybody feel it is right to stick their noses into everybody else's lives?"

    Well, it's all a matter of where you draw the line, isn't it? Pretty much everyone agrees that there are situations where the state needs to step in to protect a child from harm. (That the state then often causes further harm is worth baring in mind but doesn't negate the necessity, IMO) But precisely when the state should act is a trickier business. I expect we all have different views on that.

    As parents then surely we should make the choices we think are right for our children. So, Peter, the point is not that 'nothing has happened' to you but whether or not you think you are doing the right thing by your child. If you think you are doing right by your child then that's fine. You do seem to dwell on your interactions with the local authority. I understand that it was a very negative experience but it's in the past now, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. ' I understand that it was a very negative experience '

    You think that it was a negative experience for Peter Williams; only think what a nightmare it was for the poor devils who had to deal with him. The rumour in Hampshire is that two local authority officers and a councillor killed themselves as direct consequence of coming into contact with Mr Williams. Another man went completely mad and is now in an asylum.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Allie says-You do seem to dwell on your interactions with the local authority. I understand that it was a very negative experience but it's in the past now, isn't it?

    it sure was a very bad negative experience it can never be in the past if you where treated very bladly by your LEA how would you react would you say oh dont worry about it i dont mind that you where rude and lied to me?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Worn out Webb says-The rumour in Hampshire is that two local authority officers and a councillor killed themselves as direct consequence of coming into contact with Mr Williams.

    if only that was true! if it was i would not shed a tear for them! lets hope it is J Cawthra who gone! i drink to that!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peter and Carol said
    'well we ignored what others think about our childs education and nothing has happened to us?'

    There goes your proof, ignorance is bliss.

    ReplyDelete
  13. anther anon says-There goes your proof, ignorance is bliss.

    nothing has happened to us from our LA and we contine to educate our child how we want.

    but according to Webb 2 staff from Hampshire County council are dead abd a councillor?LOL I think you should tell us more about this rumour Webb? i do hope it is true?LOL

    ReplyDelete
  14. So educating your child in a way the government dislikes is on a par with allowing your child to die for your beliefs?

    ReplyDelete