Parental Rights v Parental Responsibilities

A

Asguard

Kiss my dark side
Valued Senior Member
This thread has come out of three different threads currently and alot of comments around here

The main threads are:
Mothers..
Is this normal?
Spanking children, a parent's right ?

Now i respect both orleander and especially LA but some of the things they have been saying are quite desterbing.

My issue centers around the way people view parenting

The Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 States:

CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE ACT 1995 - SECT 10
10—Review of medical agent's decision


3) The purpose of the review is—


(a) to ensure that the medical agent's decision is in accordance with lawful conditions and directions contained in the medical power of attorney and, if the grantor of the power has also given an anticipatory direction, is consistent with that direction; and


(b) to ensure as far as possible that the medical agent's decision is in accordance with what the grantor would have wished if the grantor had been able to express his or her wishes.
Click to expand...

I admit this isnt actually the section i entended to quote at the moment which was regarding the way a medical power of attorney MUST act but my computer isnt running at its normal speed at the moment and i want to post this BEFORE IE crashes and i lose this post. That being said it shows the fact that a) the person with power of attoneys decision is not apsolute (in the case of someone with power of attoney they can be reviewed by the supreme court, in the case of parents its by YAFS and the guardianship board)

CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE ACT 1995 - SECT 12
12—Administration of medical treatment to a child


A medical practitioner may administer medical treatment to a child if—


(a) the parent or guardian consents; or


(b) the child consents and—


(i) the medical practitioner who is to administer the treatment is of the opinion that the child is capable of understanding the nature, consequences and risks of the treatment and that the treatment is in the best interest of the child's health and well-being; and


(ii) that opinion is supported by the written opinion of at least one other medical practitioner who personally examines the child before the treatment is commenced.
Click to expand...

CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE ACT 1995
Division 5—Emergency medical treatment
13—Emergency medical treatment

(5) If the patient is a child, and a parent or guardian of the child is available to decide whether the medical treatment should be administered, the parent's or guardian's consent to the treatment must be sought but the child's health and well-being are paramount and if the parent or guardian refuses consent, the treatment may be administered despite the refusal if it is in the best interests of the child's health and well-being.
Click to expand...


All these show that the "rights" of the parent are less important than the responcabilities of the parent and the RIGHTS of the child. Note the Bold section of the above quote, it is the section the guardianship board and the courts in general use to overrule a parents refusal of blood for children of JW i belive (there is the chance that is spelled out more clearly in the regulations or in other legislation but this act does give this power)

Then we move on to the CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

The preable states:

The States Parties to the present Convention,Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants onHuman Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume itsresponsibilities within the community,Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children,Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",Recalling the provisions of the Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally; the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules); and the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict,Recognizing that, in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration,Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child,Recognizing the importance of international co-operation for improving the living

http://untreaty.un.org/English/TreatyEvent2001/pdf/03e.pdf
Click to expand...

and it goes on for another 17 + pages or so on the specific responciablities goverments, comunities and families have to children.

Further more the former goverment knew community surport for the rights of children are so strong that they actually used that feeling to inact some VERY draconinian and racially based legislation which i personally dont surport. That being said the public surport for this legislation does show that the community at large feels the "rights" of the parent come secondry to the rights of the child

Now this may seem self evident but for long periods in history the head of the household (normally a male) had APSOLUTE control not only of his partner but also his children. In some historical periods killing children was a legal power of this family head. In some countries this right to control your children remains but in westen sociaty these have mostly (if not compleatly) been abolished
 
We should first establish what a parents responsibility is. What do we expect/want from a parent for a functioning society? What are they supposed to teach their children? What are they supposed to tell them? What are they supposed to make them do, and what are they supposed to not let them do?
 
I get torn in half over this issue all the time.
Half of me jump into the defensive stance against hegemony and for liberty and personal values.
The other half would maul a person for abusing their own kid and is a firm believer in "it takes a village to raise a child".
 
one_raven
the question is WHOS libety are we talking about?

For instance if you look at the responcabilities of a carer they are quite well defined. There is a responcability to act as the person would act if they were able to.
This leaves no room for interpritation, if a person expressed (or even just exibited) a wish to spend there life with someone of the same sex for instance and the guardian was a rabid homophobe thats just symply to bad. They MUST do all in there power to facilitate this desire.

The problem when it comes to children is that they are GAINING rather than LOSING compitance. There is no past actions to judge there desires by

one thing which comes up all the time is parents deciding they dont like who there children date or are friends with. Now as someone looking in from the outside we might agree with the parents but if the child is compitant enough to express this desire and the reasons behind it should they make that decision even if its the wrong one?

Another where its slightly MORE defined is in medical treatment. The age of medical consent is 16. Now you have a 13 year old with lukemia (this example came out of an ethics class i took, though i may have got the age wrong) who has already had one bone marrow transplant which wasnt sucessful. The odds of a second one working are low (i think about 5% was the figure we were quoted) yet the parents want the child to have it. With no treatment the child will die in 3 months, with chemo he might last a year but not much longer. The child states that he has been through this before and doesnt wish to have the procidure because in his estimation the pain and seperation from his friend symply isnt worth the 5% chance. He is however quite willing to continue with the chemo as it will improve his quality of life

Now oviously the words in this arnt what a 13 year old would nessarly say (in fact most adults wouldnt put it this way) but the case is still the same. Who should make the choice?

the parents who desire the treatment for there child with the BEST intentions or the child who is willing to way up the benifts and the costs and make a choice that its just not worth it?

As an adult if i chose as the child did the doctors might disagree but they would have to respect this autonomious choice. The last part of this case was that 2 pediatrictions sat down with the child and judged that the decision was made on a rational compitant basis and should there for be respected. Two oncologists however surported the parents.

So if you were the ethicist in the middle, making the final decision, who would you surport?

If your interested the end result was that the childs decision was respected and he died 9 months latter (from memory)
 
When considering that any events which occur in childhood will impact and affect the child for life, the child's rights must come before the parent, who has already lived longer.

In the case of the 13 year old with the terminal disease, It would have been purely selfish for the parents to ask that he live longer, at such a cost. If he understands clearly, it's his choice.
 
Asguard said:
....Now i respect both orleander and especially LA but some of the things they have been saying are quite desterbing....
Click to expand...

Considering I don't assault my kids, I have no idea what you are talking about. :bugeye: Are you saying I should? Sorry, not gonna happen.
 
orleander would you like to look at the date on this thread?
im not going to take up an argument we were having months ago, especially when i dont even rember why i said it
 
Now you have a 13 year old with lukemia (this example came out of an ethics class i took, though i may have got the age wrong) who has already had one bone marrow transplant which wasnt sucessful. The odds of a second one working are low (i think about 5% was the figure we were quoted) yet the parents want the child to have it. With no treatment the child will die in 3 months, with chemo he might last a year but not much longer. The child states that he has been through this before and doesnt wish to have the procidure because in his estimation the pain and seperation from his friend symply isnt worth the 5% chance. He is however quite willing to continue with the chemo as it will improve his quality of life
Click to expand...

I would respect the kid's wishes. Asking him to live longer is just selfish.
 
I used to think that way. Quit putting the kid through all the torment. Til a man at work had to deal with his son's leukemia. Chemo. The kid had to have a colostomy because his digestive tract, including his anus got infected. Then came a coma. Then more chemo. The kid was begging for it all to stop.
He's a healthy 19 yr old now.
I'd stop when the doctor tells me to.
 
I think that the topic of this thread is indicative of, and a good example of, the human ideal(?) of wanting to control the lives of all others ...even while protesting loudly when others try to control their own lives. Is that hypocritical?

When I see threads like this, on similar topics of control, I keep wondering just how far it's going to go before people begin to wake up? If you wish to control the lives of others, shouldn't you be willing to allow others to control your life if they wish?

Or is it that we're going to keep on until every single aspect of everyone's life is fully under someone's control? And is that what we want?

And just who or what controls all of those who are trying to control us?

I don't know, but threads like this just bother the hell out of me!

Baron Max
 
Orleander said:
I used to think that way. Quit putting the kid through all the torment. Til a man at work had to deal with his son's leukemia. Chemo. The kid had to have a colostomy because his digestive tract, including his anus got infected. Then came a coma. Then more chemo. The kid was begging for it all to stop.
He's a healthy 19 yr old now.
I'd stop when the doctor tells me to.
Click to expand...

It's still not your choice. Just because he may live, and in some cases do, it's entirely up to the individual.
 
Challenger78 said:
It's still not your choice. Just because he may live, and in some cases do, it's entirely up to the individual.
Click to expand...

:bugeye: yes it is my choice. My children are not emancipated. Their medical decisions are my decisions. Its why they have been vaccinated. Its why my son got tubes in his ears. And it would be why they would go through chemo if necessary.
 
How amusing. The people who support murdering the baby before it's born are strongly against spanking the baby after it's born.

What rights do the parents have? Every right.


Kadark
 
Kadark said:
How amusing. The people who support murdering the baby before it's born are strongly against spanking the baby after it's born......
Click to expand...


Hmm, yeah. I guess I see it as a mass of cells and not a child. My kids are definitely children.

And no, I don't have every right. I don't have the right to assault my children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top