Possible Solution?

Our First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Those in favor of religious exemptions have argued that punishing a parent who denies their child medical treatment because their religion forbids it violates the parent's First Amendment right to religious freedom.  Does a parent's right to freedom of religious (and authority over their child) take precedence over the child's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?  

I believe the answer should be no and that the right to life should always take precedence over the right to religious freedom.  I think religious exemptions should be removed altogether when it involves children. Children who are unable to make decisions for themselves and who are under the age of eighteen should not be denied medical care because the religion of their parents forbids it.   Parents are suppose to protect and provide for their children and, if they are unable to do so, I also believe that the state governments should hold these parents accountable for their actions 

Parents should only be allowed to deny their child a specific medical treatment if there is an equally effective alternative, which they are willing to give to their child.  Physicians should always make the final decision and be able to override the parent's if they believe that the parent's decision is not in the best interest of the child.  

It doesn't seem there will ever be a solution that pleases all three fields--medicine, religion and law.  But I think the best solution here is to protect children in every way that we can.