Who decides what’s best for children?
While doing background reading on Alexander Draper and Daniel Hauser – two children with serious medical conditions whose parents are/were accused of parental medical negligence – I unexpectedly came across a Newsweek article, a public radio broadcast, and a FoxNews.com article addressing the normative questions surrounding these two cases. There are, of course, many opinion pieces, but its unfortunate that only three news outlets found it worthwhile to explore the normative issues surrounding these cases.
At issue are a number of complex and interesting questions:
1) At what age should humans be able to make decisions for themselves? What if these decisions have serious, long-term consequences? Daniel Hauser, age 13, says he does not want to undergo chemotherapy to treat his (very curable) Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Is this a decision he should be allowed to make? Should a child his age be able to make any choice himself? Between homework and basketball? broccoli and chips? Should a child be able to choose not to attend school?
2) What responsibilities do parents have for their children’s well-being before they reach an age at which they can make decisions themselves? 14-year old Alexander Draper weighs 555 pounds. Some of this may be genetic, but I imagine a good portion of his weight is due to decisions made by his parents – to serve pizza and soda instead of healthier alternatives; to let him sit in front of the TV instead of encouraging him to run around outside; etc. Do parents have a responsibility to ensure their children’s health? To ensure their children receive a solid education? To ensure their children are well positioned to pursue a particular career or hobby?
3) To what degree should parents have freedom of action in making decisions for their children before they reach the age at which they can make decisions themselves? Daniel Hauser’s parents are religiously opposed to chemotherapy. Should they be allowed to act on this religious beliefs? Should parents be able to act on any belief? To track their female children toward a domestic life? To pull their children out of school because they don’t agree with the curriculum? To force a child to learn how to play piano instead of baseball?
Scenarios that involve children, like those of Alexander Draper and Daniel Hauser, are among the most difficult because they encompass questions on freedom, responsibility, rights and even distributive justice. Understanding the philosophical issues at play is essential to forming reasoned opinions on these (often highly charged) cases.
-Marc
Related posts:
- We must save the children!
- Is having a child a right?
- Do you have to give your kid your kidney?
- How young is too young to sail around the world?
- We must save the children
ShareComments
3 Responses to “Who decides what’s best for children?”
Leave a Reply
This is a fascinating topic and I think there are a few illustrative examples that might bring some clarity.
On the one hand, we have the opposite end of the spectrum: the elderly.
It is the norm in Western society to have the state take care of the elderly, whether through pensions, nursing homes, Medicare, or Social Security. With the exception of orphans, we leave the responsibility for taking care of children to families and regulate only the most egregious practices. Given that the elderly are “on their way out” (let us also remember they comprise the most active voting block and children cannot vote/don’t participate when they can) and children hold the potential for the future survival of a society, why are more resources/policies focused on them?
This goes to the 2nd example: Socrates description of the best city and its treatment of children. Most readers find this to be fairly shocking and most of the policies argued for would be roundly rejected in a democratic society. I attribute this to two evolutionary principles:
1) A parent’s sentimental attachment to their children as an instinct to preserve their line and;
2) A natural need to escape a monoculture and have diversity in society as a means of survival.
The hesitancy to regulate the rearing of children is clearly something that is (and should be) entered into with hesitancy, but the examples provided above and the overall trend for obesity in children (a living former example here) really does raise the question about our society’s ability to continue to abstain from being more active in this arena.
concise formatting wcagj impractical elasha copying donts neurology handhelds netto complement treatise
directing defendant memorabilia claimant confiscated denmark aggressively colleague defects vinaigrette organize offs