Instigator / Pro
11
1566
rating
29
debates
56.9%
won
Topic
#1697

Medical decisions should be made by parents instead of doctors

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
100
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.