Have we figured out how to approach issues concerning parental rights, children, and the public good?
Asked by
tom_g (
16638
)
November 13th, 2013
Sometimes it seems that people talk as though we have a pretty good idea of how to balance parental rights, child welfare, and the public good. But do we really?
Sometimes there is an issue (vaccinations) that exposes a point of friction between parental rights vs. the health of the child vs. the public good. Often, however, this friction is characterized as something unique to the vaccination issue, simply ignored, or presented in such a way that gives the impression that we act rationally and consistently when it comes to any other issues that are the result of these competing interests.
We can say that we care about the health of all children, and that parents do not have the right to risk the health of their children. But what does this even mean? Do we legislate nutrition and how we feed our children? Is breastfeeding legally mandated? Are we prosecuting parents who feed their kids McDonald’s or other garbage? Do we demand that parents not expose their kids to air pollution in inner city apartments, or wood smoke from fire pits? Are we considering prosecuting parents who are not making sure their kids get enough physical activity?
And what about educational considerations? Certainly parents may expose their kids to all kinds of unscientific woo or religion. Then there are simply environments lacking in sufficient intellectual stimulation. What about kids who watch tv all day?
Then there are the public good considerations. These brains will be entering the public as voting adults in the future. What should we consider when balancing the right of the public to not have to take on the costs that will likely result in allowing parental rights to trump individual health of the children? These kids will grow up less healthy and will put a strain on healthcare. The lack of education and exposure to decidedly unscientific dogma will put them in a position to vote in a way that will likely harm society.
Note: I am just running with a thought here. I haven’t even begun to cover all of the variables involved. But my point is – don’t we have a ton of work to do here to determine how we make decisions like these? It seems that the “how” has simply been pushed under the rug by many people who feel that it’s already been figured out. Has it?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
4 Answers
I think we’ve determined that parents can do anything with their children as long as they feed them, clothe them, take them to doctors when ill, send them to school, not abuse them physically, emotionally, or sexually. Have I missed anything? I think our society sees any other obligations as too onerous, both for the parents to do and the state to enforce.
I arrived at this list because I think these are the only things that everyone can do and everyone generally agrees is worth the minimal price it takes to do them. Other things may cost too much, or may not be universally agreed upon (religious education).
The vaccine issue is thorny because the decisions of parents effect people outside the household in a tangible way. So when one person decides not to give their child the MMR vaccine, another may come down with a serious case of measles. The decision to let a child’s brain rot in front of the television does not effect others in a way that is easily measured or agreed upon, may be too costly for some to afford, and can be argued that television does not in fact rot the brain. TO much headache to take up a firm stance on this issue.
Enforcement may play into it as well. How would one enforce, say, a weekly television time limit for children?
It’s hard enough to prove and prosecute emotional abuse – something that is patently harmful.
No, I don’t think so. I believe there is lots of work to be done.
These brains will be entering the public as voting adults in the future.
Exactly. One thing I’ve wondered about for a couple of months: Everyone goes on about education. School is compulsory in many places, and most people accept that. My question is: Will the education we’re providing help produce responsible, happy adults? I doubt it. What children need, more than anything, are adults who care about them. Some don’t have that. How come we’re hell bent on making sure every kid knows when Lincoln was born I know, hardly any of them will know…, while no-one is even thinking about the emotional component? Sure, there’s CPS – but they are usually called when the damage’s been done.
I may be horribly optimistic, but I think if every child had someone to spend time with, there would be less child abuse, less domestic violence…less crime. I don’t understand why all politicians talk about is a child’s ability to spell.
Edit: Hm. Slightly off-topic rant…ah well. I’m a bit off a rebel.
Prevention is far more important than cures. Your question is secondary (cures) and before it can be discussed, we have to discuss the primary (prevention), which is the pregnancies of unfit parents.
Who are unfit parents? The poor, the sick, the diseased/genetically diseased, the uneducated, etc. The study done by the Census Bureau of the Fertility of American Women showed that the birth rate of poor people is around 4x greater than of those who are not poor. This stupid system actually gives welfare per newborn child (aka – newborn problem).
How to prevent unfit parents from giving birth should be discussed, but its not going to be, or if it is discussed, there might not be a consensus which means it will remain on the individual level.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
