Two Sections from the 2018 Annual Meeting draft deal with this topic. Black letter for each Section is included below. The full draft contains Comments (with Illustrations) and Reporters’ Notes.

Section 2.30, on parental authority and responsibility for medical care, recognizes broad parental authority to make medical decisions because broad authority generally furthers children’s welfare, promotes pluralism, and avoids unwarranted state intervention. But it also limits parental authority to consent to nontherapeutic procedures that pose a substantial risk of serious harm to the child’s health or that impinge on the child’s constitutional rights. This Section also recognizes the parental duty to provide medical care when necessary to protect the child or others (including the public health) from serious harm. These limits apply even when the parent’s decision is based on religious conscience.

§ 2.30. Parental Authority and Responsibility for Medical Care

(1) Authority

(a) A parent or guardian has broad authority to make medical decisions for a child.
(b) A parent does not have authority to consent to medical procedures or treatments that provide no health benefit to the child and pose a substantial risk of serious harm to the child’s physical or mental health.
(c) A parent does not have authority to consent to medical procedures or treatments that impinge on the child’s constitutional rights to bodily integrity or reproductive privacy.

(2) Responsibility

(a) A parent, guardian, custodian, or temporary caregiver has a duty to provide necessary medical care for the child.
(b) Medical care is necessary if it is required to prevent serious harm or a substantial risk of serious harm to the child’s physical or mental health or to the safety of others.

Section 3.26, on medical neglect, should be read after § 2.30. It addresses state intervention through a criminal or civil child-protection proceeding when a parent fails to provide the child with necessary medical care. This Section also reflects the principles noted above. It recognizes the state’s interest and responsibility to intervene, through a civil child-protection proceeding, when the parent fails to exercise a minimum degree of care necessary to avoid a substantial risk of serious harm to the child. It further recognizes the state’s interest in punitive and deterrent action through a criminal proceeding in some cases, but only when the parent’s conduct is, at minimum, reckless. This high threshold for state intervention protects children from harm but also respects family integrity and minimizes the risk that the state will impose dominant parenting norms on low-income families and on racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities.

§ 3.26. Medical Neglect

(a) In a criminal proceeding, medical neglect is the unjustifiable failure or refusal of a parent, guardian, custodian, or temporary caregiver to provide medical care necessary to prevent serious harm or a substantial risk of serious harm to the child’s physical or mental health.

(1) In a criminal proceeding in which the failure or refusal to provide necessary medical care results in the death of the child, the failure or refusal to provide such care is unjustifiable if it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable parent would observe in the actor’s situation.

(2) In all other criminal proceedings, the failure or refusal to provide necessary medical care is unjustifiable if the obligated individual purposely, knowingly, or recklessly fails or refuses to provide such care. 

(b) In a civil child-protection proceeding, the failure or refusal of a parent, guardian, or custodian to provide medical care to a child is medical neglect if the parent, guardian, or custodian fails to exercise the minimum degree of care necessary to prevent serious harm or a substantial risk of serious harm to the child’s physical or mental health.