Go back
How far do parents rights over their children go?

How far do parents rights over their children go?

Debates

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I doubt the possible benefits outweigh the disadvantages. But if it's reasonably established that they do, I do not oppose circumcision.
Is there any evidence of trauma on circumcised boys?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
Is there any evidence of trauma on circumcised boys?
Yes - though I read about it a long time ago I'm too lazy to verify it right now.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why is the State better qualified to decide what is "optimal medical care" for a child than their parents?
Exactly. I fail to see how one can see this point EXCEPT in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why is the State better qualified to decide what is "optimal medical care" for a child than their parents?
I generally do agree with you.

In some cases where the parents are making objectively negligent positions though and that's where I tend to feel there may be a reason to intercede.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly. I fail to see how one can see this point EXCEPT in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
So pre-pregnant= gov intervention. Post-preg =the parents know best. Great argument.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly. I fail to see how one can see this point EXCEPT in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
But in the example given, the actions of the parents seem very likely to result in the death of their child, no?

And, even if not, what about in such a circumstance?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

What is the government's compelling interest for legislating in this matter?

Is there another, analogous matter where the same compelling interest can be demonstrated?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Scriabin
What is the government's compelling interest for legislating in this matter?

Is there another, analogous matter where the same compelling interest can be demonstrated?
Orphanages.

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly. I fail to see how one can see this point EXCEPT in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
Hold the fort.

I didn't say that parents had an unlimited power to tell their minor children what they should do. I said as between the State and a child's parents, the one who should be considered a priori more qualified to decide for the child what medical care should be afforded is the parent.

IF in this case the 13 year old wanted chemotherapy and the parents objected, I'd say he was old enough to make that decision and override his parent's objections. Ditto for a teenager facing an unwanted pregnancy.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DrKF
But in the example given, the actions of the parents seem very likely to result in the death of their child, no?

And, even if not, what about in such a circumstance?
What of the 13 year old's wishes? It's his body and his potential death, after all.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Hold the fort.

I didn't say that parents had an unlimited right to tell their minor children what they should do. I said as between the State and a [b]child's parents, the one who should be considered a priori more qualified to decide for the child what medical care should be afforded is the parent.

IF in thi ...[text shortened]... ion and override his parent's objections. Ditto for a teenager facing an unwanted pregnancy.[/b]
So if parents deem a thorough beating of therapeutic use, should it be allowed?

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So if parents deem a thorough beating of therapeutic use, should it be allowed?
A real slippery slope fallacy. I specifically stated that parents don't have unlimited power over their children.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So if parents deem a thorough beating of therapeutic use, should it be allowed?
Suppose an independent team of medical experts thought it would be a good idea to treat a child's depression with electroshock treatment, cutting out bits of his brain, giving him large doses of strong, personality altering drugs, etc. etc. Should it be allowed?

Clock
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Suppose an independent team of medical experts thought it would be a good idea to treat a child's depression with electroshock treatment, cutting out bits of his brain, giving him large doses of strong, personality altering drugs, etc. etc. Should it be allowed?
what jurisdiction or legal right would such a team have with respect to the child?

who gets to decide what is in the best interest of the child?

According to one prominent expert on the legal rights associated with child welfare:

snip
"Positive and negative rights and immunities protect the children from exploitation such as child labor. Liberties and power rights would entail decisions such as abortion. Due process is a mixture of the two types of rights. The question of whether to grant more rights to children should be accompanied by the question of whether such action would benefit them."

Also, for legal info on child welfare, see http://www.megalaw.com/top/children.php

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Suppose an independent team of medical experts thought it would be a good idea to treat a child's depression with electroshock treatment, cutting out bits of his brain, giving him large doses of strong, personality altering drugs, etc. etc. Should it be allowed?
Fortunately, medicine has advanced far enough to make this question irrelevant.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.