Instigator / Pro
Points: 11

Medical decisions should be made by parents instead of doctors

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
100
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
100 CHARCTERS. ONLY 100
(Keep that in mind)
Anyway,
This topic is pretty self explanatory, should we let medical professionals make a child's medical decision, or should we let parents?
I vote parents.
Round 1
Published:
Parents know child better
  • Understand feelings and thoughts
  • Accurately speak on behalf of child

Published:
Parents can be doctors and many doctors are parents. Doctors have more knowledge on the matter.
Round 2
Published:
Doctors could do something for personal gain (money, prestige) - parents have better intentions
Published:
The doctors care about all humans, parents can uniquely love or hate their own. utilitarianism matters
Round 3
Published:
Doctors also care about prestige and money. The most care comes from a parent.

Parents know children best!
Published:
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
Oh yes, I understand your point. But this debate is about ideas, not reality. I should of worded this topic better, my bad.
Should doctors be giving the right to make ruling medical decisions about children over their own parents?
And thanks guys for your votes
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
No problemo.
#8
Added:
--> @Trent0405
Thanks for the vote.
Contender
#7
Added:
My final link failed it seems. Oh well.
Contender
#6
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
Im confused. Doctors do not make medical decisions ever. It was in the early days of modern medicine that doctors decided on, and administered treatments, not only without consent, but often without the patients knowledge. Informed concent is a standard of practice in modern medicine and in almost every case the parent makes the decisions for a child.
In very extreme situations medical staff can seek a court order to overrule parents who are endangering a child unreasonably, but thats a power the courts can grant them, not something they can just do at will.
What doctors do do is inform the responsible party of the facts regarding to condition, treatment, consequences, and sideeffects. Then the responsible party (assuming free of suspicon of elder/child/spousal abuse) can make a decision regarding the care of themselves or whoever they are representing.
#5
Added:
'parents don't' and 'always love their child' link to different URLs intentionally.
Contender
#4
Added:
https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED775/5bf3735373712.jpeg
#3
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
I'll do this debate in full, if you're interested
#2
Added:
www.smbc-comics.com/comic/your-kid
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I was about to complain about the laziness of this debate but then I noticed the 100c limit which changes the game somewhat.
We might note that PRO is more or less arguing in favor of a long-standing and uncontroversial principle
PRO's R1 was fine: familiarity offers superior information
CON's R1 reply, some parents are also drs was lame. CON also argues superior information.
PRO's R2 argues Drs may be too self-interested
CON's R2 argues parents less impartial. cites utilitarianism without explainable.
PRO's R3 repeats R1, R2
CON's R3 does same.
Args too vague and unsubstantiated to ascribe a winning arg to either side.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro largely relied on the fact that parents know their child better because they've raised them and such. Con flips this however by pointing to people not getting vaccinated dying, and presumably this wouldn't happen if a doctor made the choice. So despite parents knowing their child's emotions better, it's clear that doctors are better at saving lives. This point was dominated by Con at the end of the day. Pro then says that doctors may have ulterior motives with no source to back it up, Con provides me with a source that show how a parent's ignorance can kill.
Honestly it was clear that allowing doctors to make medical choices for children saved lives, while parents, however knowledgeable of a child's emotions, can be ignorant to what is medically best for their child. The ulterior motives point fell flat, this was because Con proved that parents can be just the same by linking a story of a Jehovah's witness denying their child proper medical treatment for religious reasons.