THBT important decisions about children"s health should be made by medical professionals and not by
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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.
"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.
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.-
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.
abrahamlipets forfeited this round.
gitnasty forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.