Parents' love is eternal. They want the best for their children and would do anything to protect them from harm. However, in the face of a child's life and death situation, love may not be adequate enough.

In some cases, parents may refuse medical treatment for their child, citing religious or personal beliefs, which may result in the loss of custody. This essay will examine several legal cases where parents have lost custody of their children due to their refusal to provide necessary medical treatment and the relevant laws in several countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Malaysia.

In the United States, parents' rights to make decisions for their children are not absolute. When a child's life is at risk, the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that the child receives necessary medical treatment. In some cases, this may require the state to intervene and remove the child from the custody of the parents. In the landmark case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court held that parents have a First Amendment right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, but this right does not extend to denying a child necessary medical treatment (406 U.S. 205, 1972).

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, parents have a duty to provide medical treatment for their children. The Children Act 1989 requires parents to provide for their children's "physical, emotional, and educational needs" (s. 1(1)). The act also gives courts the power to make orders for the protection of children, including the power to order medical treatment. In the case of Re C, the court ordered that a child receive chemotherapy for leukemia over the objections of her parents (2015 EWHC 558 (Fam)).

While one may think that such law only exist in western countries, this is very much untrue, especially for eastern countries which are part of the commonwealth realm. In Malaysia, parents also have a duty to provide medical treatment for their children. The Child Act 2001 requires parents to provide for their children's "maintenance, protection, and education." The act also gives courts the power to make orders for the protection of children, including the power to order medical treatment. In the case of NAA v. MCMC, the court ordered that a child receive blood transfusions over the objections of her parents, who were Jehovah's Witnesses (2018 2 MLJ 1).

These laws demonstrate that a parent's right to make decisions for their child must be balanced against the child's right to receive necessary medical treatment. While parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their religious or personal beliefs, this right does not extend to denying a child necessary medical treatment. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that children receive necessary medical treatment, and courts have the power to intervene and order such treatment when necessary.

In conclusion, while parents' love is eternal, it may not always be enough to ensure the health and well-being of their children. The laws in the United States, United Kingdom, and Malaysia recognize the importance of balancing parents' rights with children's rights to receive necessary medical treatment. Ultimately, the state has a responsibility to protect the welfare of children, and this may require the state to intervene and remove a child from the custody of their parents to ensure that they receive necessary medical treatment.

References:

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Children Act 1989, c. 41 (UK).

Re C, [2015] EWHC 558 (Fam).

Child Act 2001, Act 611 (Malaysia).

NAA v. MCMC, [2018] 2 MLJ 1.