The Instigator
abrahamlipets
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
gitnasty
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

THBT important decisions about children"s health should be made by medical professionals and not by

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,184 times Debate No: 29280
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

abrahamlipets

Pro

I personally believe that children's (child being under 21) health decisions (being defined as any medical procedure or action) should be made by medical professionals (being defined as liscenced doctors in the concerned field, generally to pediatricitons), not by the parents(parents being the legal guardians of the child).

Please accept my definitions for what they are, since I am interested in debating the resolution, not its interpretations. Also, I would enjoy constructive critisicm, for although I have debate experience, this is my first tiime using this site.
gitnasty

Con

At first glance your proposal appeared reasonable enough as there are plenty of incompetent parents. Take for example, Christian Scientists, who refuse medical treatment in hopes that a being in the sky should will away any ailments or trauma. Taking this into account, it seems that having licensed professionals making the most educated decisions for our youth would be a great idea, and in a perfect world it is. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world. It is a world where many people cant afford, or get time off of work, for certain procedures or treatments. It is a world where doctors would prefer more often than not to prescribe medication for ailments witch don't necessarily require them. Its rare to find any behind the counter medication without a newspaper sized list of possible side affects and complications. It isn't hard to see why some people would prefer less "mainstream" treatments. Do I really need to stuff adderall down little Billy's throat because hes dozing off in class? No. Many "professionals" however, would disagree. While there are plenty of idiots raising their children, there are plenty more parents doing a perfectly fine job. And while doctors do have a far greater knowledge in medicine, they do not necessarily know what is best for the worlds kids.
Debate Round No. 1
abrahamlipets

Pro

First, I will refute my opponent's argument before continuing on to state my contentions. The opposition claims that because doctors are interested only in monetary gain, decisions made by doctors would be inferior to the parents'. First of all, the opposition makes the assumption that all doctors are only interested in money. Although this may be true in some circumstances, doctors rely on patients for business. If parents did not agree with the doctors' diagnosis, the patients would not be patronizing with that doctor, in effect putting that doctor out of business. Also, remember that the doctor must take the Hippocratic oath.
Doctor's sole intentions are NOT to create a profit by giving their patients treatments, nor to extort them. Doctors are sworn to an oath in which they dedicate themselves to saving lives. Sexual intercourse does not require a such oath is the only requirement to be a parent. Despite this, not all parents lack qualifications. Some are indeed loving, caring, and tried for many years to conceive. This may seem like benefit to their children's health, but when their child's condition becomes serious, a bowl of chicken soup may not be enough. No parent wishes for their child to undergo invasive surgery even though, without it their child will not survive. Doctors may seem to be cold professionals, and that is exactly what they are, for better and for worse.
gitnasty

Con

It seems that your entire post revolves around me apparently saying that doctors are only interested in monetary gain. NOT ONCE did i say that, or even imply that. I'm assuming, however, that you must be referring to "doctors would prefer more often than not to prescribe medication for ailments witch don't necessarily require them" This is not in anyway saying doctors are "interested only in monetary gain", but rather pointing out that doctors very commonly refer patients medication for problems such as depression, ADD, ADHD, or anxiety, that while in some cases are necessary, in many they are not. And because of this, the idea of forcing parents to listen to doctors is absurd. I would never try to imply that all doctors are malicious money hungry liars.

"but when their child's condition becomes serious, a bowl of chicken soup may not be enough." You seem to be relying on an all or noting basis, as if this argument is a choice between forcing obedience to doctors, or not having doctors. You are right, bowl of soup wont always be enough. And when it isn't, parents in almost all cases take there kids to the doctor.

I understand that in some cases it would be better to force parents to listen to their doctor, however you must admit that the majority of parents do listen to the doctor, and when they don't their reasons are usually justified. While i do see whee you are coming from, the benefits of this medical dictatorship, if you will, are far outweighed by the number of problems and the sheer amount outrage it would certainly cause.
Debate Round No. 2
abrahamlipets

Pro

Yes, I assumed that the reason why you claimed that doctors prescribe unnecessary drugs is for their own benefit, yet if you intend to say that they just prescribe these drugs in general, then I apologize. Yet this enforces my case, for if a medical professional with at least 8 years of schooling on his practice fails to correctly diagnosis the patient, then the parents certainly will not! You use terms like "usually," yet this means that you admit that there is room for error. In many cases, parents enter a state of denial, and refuse to accept their childrens' ailments, which will lead to harm, and possible death.
You also say that when a parent rejects a doctor's prescription, it is "usually" justified. Again, there is an admission to error. Remember the case of denial brought up in the previous paragraph. What if parents disagree over a medical decission? what of children in an orphanage with no real mother or father (orphanages may skimp on operations or procedures due to lack of connection) ? And what of parents who have in the past abused their children and are afraid of this discovery? These are just some cases in which a stalemate occurs, and the child in question suffers unnessesarily.
Also, remember my argument about an ou-of-practice doctor. You claim that parents who reject doctor's advice are "usually justified." Therefore, any doctor giving quack advice would be put out of business and otherwise gain a bad reputation for parents' tendencies to make the right decision about their children.
One last thing. Parents are unable to look far into the future concerning the children's healthcare (unless they themselves are trained professionals), and would therefore want the least painful, least intrusive, and consequently, not always the most affective decision. An example: a child diagnosed with lung cancer would send parents into a frenzy due to their emotional attatchment, while a doctor could detatchedly make the most efficient choice.-
gitnasty

Con

You are correct in saying i did continually use the word "usually" as I try to refrain from bold blanket statements such as " Parents are unable to look far into the future concerning the children's healthcare." simply untrue. You continue to assert a sort of undertone, that all parents are completely incompetent. Another example of this being "In many cases, parents enter a state of denial, and refuse to accept their childrens' ailments, which will lead to harm, and possible death." This is a very bold and foolish guess, and I am sure you would agree. It would take a parent with a serious mental condition to just deny that their bedridden child coughing blood is completely fine.

You go on to say that "a child diagnosed with lung cancer would send parents into a frenzy due to their emotional attachment, while a doctor could detatchedly make the most efficient choice" So the point that you are making is that when a child is diagnosed with a sort of terminal illness, their parents are so distraught that they transform into a primal idiot incapable of making rational decisions. If not I don't see why a parent would not go to extreme lengths to get their child help. It is a very rare occurrence, if at all, that parents whose children are diagnosed with cancer simply ignore it and refuse them treatment, and that seems to be one of the main points of your last round.

"you admit that there is room for error." Yes I do admit that there is an insignificant fraction of parents who make ridiculous medical decisions, however the mistakes of such a small number of incompetent people is not enough basis for a national policy that forces parents to listen to doctors. Not anywhere near it. This is a matter of simply weighing the pros and cons. In all honesty the pro's are extremely scarce while it seems the cons have broken the scale.
Debate Round No. 3
abrahamlipets

Pro

abrahamlipets forfeited this round.
gitnasty

Con

gitnasty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by abrahamlipets 4 years ago
abrahamlipets
Maybe you would be interested in judging our debate, then? Please judge not on your views but on presentation of arguments.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
dang, I wanted to take this one. Taking away a parents responsibility for their own child is horrifically immoral. You must not have any children to posit such an argument.
No votes have been placed for this debate.