Parental denial of Child’s Treatment
Parents and other adult patients have the legal and moral obligation concerning their own medical care. The children are however placed on the brink with matters that pertain to medical treatment. Since minors are not in a position to make complicated decisions for themselves, it, therefore, becomes the moral obligation of the parents to make medical choices on behalf of their children.
The Parent possesses the authority and responsibility to make decisions on the child’s behalf. That incorporates the right to discontinue or refuse treatments, even those that can prove to be sustaining. That said, however, the decisions enshrining medical undertaking should be best guided by the best interest of the child. Any decision that does not operate in the best interest of the young patient needs to be challenged (Larcher, Craig, Bhogal, Wilkinson & Brierley, 2015).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is not ethically permissible for the parent to deny recommended treatment for the child. The parent's decisions in the cases highlighted are potentially dangerous to the health of the child. The conclusions are abusive and imprudent. Further, the decisions are based on ignorant and unfounded religious beliefs. Such personal and religious beliefs do not serve the best interest of the child. It is therefore ethically correct when the medical practitioners challenge such ignorant parental decisions. The decision herein places the child in a vulnerable situation, which makes the child be at a significant risk of serious harm (Larcher, Craig, Bhogal, Wilkinson & Brierley, 2015). Cancer and Diabetes are very harmful if not attended to in the correct schedule of their development. The pain of these chronic diseases will barely fall on the minor and potentially lead to their death. Defying the parent's archaic thought system will go a long way in protecting the child’s right of access to quality universal healthcare.
Legal Position and Child’s Treatment
Parents have the legal obligation to make a medical decision for their children, and that should not violate any right or interest of the child. The act can function to safeguard the minors’ well-being even if in so doing limits the authority and freedom of the parents. It is legally correct that parents have the responsibility to make decisions concerning their child’s care, but such decisions must yield to the intervention of the state in the event they fail to deliver in their legal obligation to provide their child’s Medicare.
Bell (2017) mentioned that the parent’s right is all subject to the order of the court, and that incorporates the right to grant an order to government authority to consent to the treatment of the child previously refused by the parent. It is, therefore, the obligation of the medical practitioner to seek court’s intervention to ensure treatment of the child. The healthcare provider is legally permitted to comply with the refusal of the parent’s treatment until otherwise ordered by the court.
The action of the state to force the parents to have treatment administered against the wish of the parents is ethically permissible. The children deserve to leave. The child is the center of operation, and it is, therefore, significant that health to be keenly taken into consideration. Religion is good but should have its appropriate context of operation (Bell, 2017). The beliefs are the parents, and as such, appropriate treatment should be given to the minor to safeguard them from the looming danger. The parents' testimonies and beliefs were not premised on any proof, and therefore it was accurate for the court to dismiss their request.
References
Larcher, V., Craig, F., Bhogal, K., Wilkinson, D., & Brierley, J. (2015). Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice. Archives of disease in childhood , 100 (Suppl 2), s1-s23.
Bell, R. Q. (2017). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. In Interpersonal Development (pp. 93-107). Routledge.
