In 2002, Michael Jackson dangled his nine month old son over the edge of a fourth floor balcony of the Hotel Aldon in Berlin so paparazzi and fans could see the child. Jackson was widely condemned for endangering the child in such a manner. Jackson later apologized and said that it was a mistake. In the end, Berlin police declined to prosecute Jackson for child endangerment, despite calls do so by several child rights organizations. Many felt Jackson escaped prosecution due to his celebrity. Should he have faced charges?
Today, some parents across the country are fighting against mandates that children must wear masks in school. This despite the Center for Disease Control findings that mask wearing is one of the best, and perhaps only, way to protect children at this time since children under 12 are not eligible to be vaccinated. Opponents of mask mandates in school argue that it is the right of parents to determine whether or not their child should wear a mask in school. They also contend that:
- There is no clear evidence that wearing a mask is effective in preventing transmission of the virus.
- Children can suffer psychological harm from being forced to wear masks.
- Children’s learning is hampered by mask wearing.
First, despite the claims of anti-maskers, there is clear-cut evidence that wearing a mask is one of the most effective ways to prevent transmission of the virus. Arguing otherwise is to just plain ignore the scientific evidence. Second, there is virtually no evidence that children are psychologically harmed, in either the short-run or the long-run, from wearing a mask. Third, while wearing a mask might make learning slightly more difficult, the cost surely is less than the harm done if a child becomes ill with Covid-19. Given all the evidence that mask wearing is an effective and perhaps necessary tool in fighting the transmission of Covid-19, how much leeway should parents be given in refusing to have their children wear a mask in order to attend school?
A good comparison is government “mandates” that young children must be placed in an approved car-seat carrier when riding in an automobile. Should parents be able to “opt out” of this requirement. What if a parent contended that:
- There is no clear evidence that car-seats are effective in protecting a child in case of an accident.
- Car seats can actually endanger a child since in case of an accident it is more difficult to get the child out of the car.
- Children can suffer psychological damage from being strapped into a car seat rather than being able to freely roam about.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, if a parent sincerely believed these things, should the parent be allowed to not use a car-seat when transporting their child?
Certainly parents should be given wide lee-way in many decisions in raising their children. However, at some point, despite a parents sincerely held beliefs, the state must to step in to protect children against the ill-informed decisions of parents when they clearly present potential serious harm to a child. This includes dangling a child from a fourth floor balcony of a hotel room, refusing to use a car seat when transporting a child in an automobile, and demanding that their child not wear a mask in school during a pandemic.
