English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The right to family life and religious freedom rejoice an universal recognition. The right to family life involves the prerogative of exercising parental authority in accordance with the religious beliefs of the parents. The right of parents to decide on behalf of their children is not an absolute one. Interference by the states must justify a legitimate aim and must be proportionate to that purpose. The states have to maintain a balance between the right to family life and religious freedom and its interests in safeguarding the lives and health of its citizens. The difficulty of maintaining this balance was also found in the jurisprudence of the courts. The most common cases arose as a result of the refusal of parents who belonged to the Jehovah's Witnesses religion to allow blood to be transfused for their children, risking their lives. Although the courts have explicitly recognized the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs, they have shown that rescuing life and ensuring the physical and mental integrity of children are issues of national concern, so that the rapid intervention of public authorities, when these values are jeopardized, becomes not only a right of the state but also an obligation

The Right to Family Life and Religious Freedom Versus the States‘ Interests