Parental Rights v Parental Responsibilities

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Asguard, Aug 25, 2008.

  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    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:

    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)


    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:

    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
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    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?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    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".
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    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)
     
  9. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    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.
     
  10. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    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.
     
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    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
     
  12. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    LOL, don't you hate that. I have a lot of moments like that as well.
     
  13. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    I would respect the kid's wishes. Asking him to live longer is just selfish.
     
  14. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    My thoughts exactly. I'd stop wasting time complaining about his wishes and get to share the last few moments with him.
     
  15. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    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.
     
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    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
     
  17. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    It's still not your choice. Just because he may live, and in some cases do, it's entirely up to the individual.
     
  18. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    :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.
     
  19. Kadark Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,724
    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
     
  20. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817

    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.
     
  21. Kadark Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,724
    Warning: Graphic Content

    http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html

    Do those look like mere cells to you?

    You'll make a great slave for the New World Order.


    Kadark
     
  22. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    LOL, whatever
     
  23. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    I wonder how that ties into abortion.
     

Share This Page