|
The clock of time kept chiming away. Over a century and a half since, his words still resonate. The setting is somewhat familiar. A massive public health crisis is looming. An isolated case of deadly polio was discovered. It sent shock waves across the breadth and dimensions of the country. Left unchecked, this could wreak frightening health havoc. Something had to be done and quickly. Fortunately, modern medicine and scientific advancement are at a point where polio can be dealt with effectively. Simply immunize every child in every household and the dangers would be averted. And this is what the authorities set out to do. They took steps, the correct steps, to deal with the clear and present danger of polio in Botswana. Resources have been committed; personnel deployed. Our right to health care and a disease free environment was being advanced.
But then problems of a different kind obtruded. Certain sections of our society asserted their right to religion. On account of religious doctrine and creed, their children could not be immunized. This would violate the basic tenets of their religious beliefs, values and practices. It would, therefore amount to a violation of their freedom of religion and worship. From what I gather, many of these people believe that immunizing their children would do violence to their religions and place them in some spiritual or other kind of danger. They believe this with fervour verging on froth-foaming frenzy!
If you gave them a chance they would rely on some interpretation of religious doctrine. They would find a basis, however spurious, in some sacred text. They would swing wildly between blind worship and abject recantation of some scriptural interpretation. But when they descend from that region of myth and fable, we must advise them that their entrenched position is untenable.
We must politely, but firmly, point them to Section 11 of the constitution which entrenches freedom of religion and worship. They must be advised that their freedom of religion is not absolute. It is subject to limitation reasonably required in the interests of public safety and public health. This is not a violation of their freedom of religion. Far from it. We have to engage in a balancing act here. We must balance the scales of risk and take appropriate measures.
At another level the tension implicates the rights and welfare interests of the children themselves. We recognize the right of parents or guardians to take decisions regarding their children’s welfare. They can guide them religiously or any other way. But they must remember, that their ministrations are subject to the overriding consideration of the best interests of the children. If their conduct, or treatment of their children, falls foul of what is in the best interests of the children, not only can the law step in but it may also, in terms of the Children’s Act, remove such children from the care and custody of the parents or guardians.
Religion can make people do strange things. We tolerate most of these. Sikhs can refuse to wear helmets in a hard hat area. In the process they risk their safety. The turban offers no protection against a falling brick or other dangerous object. The danger is theirs and theirs alone. Jehovah’s Witnesses can refuse life-saving blood transfusions. It is their right. But where the interests and welfare of children are at stake a totally different set of considerations must apply.
The danger posed by the re-emergence of polio is serious and real. It faces not just the communities whose religious beliefs are against immunization, but the whole nation. The risk of non-immunization is not one that anybody should be allowed to take. Let the most religious raise their voices in prayer. They must pray for their brethren to see the sense of immunizing their children against polio. In the meantime let the authorities go about their pressing task of immunizing every child in every household. And let us all immunize ourselves against religious fanaticism and blind worship.
|
