The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

this house believes that parents not judges or doctors should have the final say in terminal care

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Man0fGod has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 107459
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Parents know the children best and have their best interests at heart more than a doctor or judge who does not know the child personally. Doctors and judges may be bias towards cost and see the expense of terminal care more than they see the benefits it can have. A parents responsibility is being 'eroded' if they have not got the final say in whether their child lives or dies. The children's interests should always prevail and how are doctors and judges sitting at their desks to really know what those interests are? Occasionally doctors can be wrong, having no faith in the child getting better and thinking its best to stop care when with examples like Charlotte Wyatt they do get better and they live on to are far greater age than expected.


The belief that the parents of a child knows what's best for that child simply isn't true. Your debating about professionals who have spent thousands of hours studying and practicing their chosen professions. To say that a professional of their trade shouldn't have a say, which could possibly be the best solution for the well-being of their children is absurd. Yes there have been numerous accounts of doctors and judges being wrong, but, most of the time they truly do know whats best,.
Debate Round No. 1


I am not suggesting that the professionals should not have a say by any means, in fact quite the contrary I believe it is imperative that the doctors and parents work extremely closely. The most appropriate decisions about care combine the professional expertise of health-care providers with the parents' values to determine the infant's best interests. But I believe their input should be strictly confined to consultation. Parents should have the ultimate decision as they are the ones who are responsible for the child, are more likely to know the child's best interests as they know them on a personal basis, how are doctors to know whether a child they have never met would want to live or die depending on medical conditions? Everybody has their own slightly different opinion on the sanctity of life.


In your latest argument you stated " Parents should have the ultimate decision as they are the ones who are responsible for the child". To have the ultimate decision is to have the last stay, even if the overruling decision is not what's best for the child. For a parent (whom is most likely untrained, even through consulting) to have an overruling say over a professional shouldn't be practiced. Even if the parent knows the child emotional wise, all able children are similar medical wise which a professional doctor would be needed. Unless the patient is sick emotionally the a physiologist would be needed. To say a doctor doesn't know if a child wants to live or die ?! How could you even suggest that a child wants to die. Therefore I won't be arguing against that statement.
Debate Round No. 2


Let me be extremely clear to avoid my argument being missed, when I talk of terminal care I mean to say when the child’s disease has progressed to a point at which curative treatment is no longer applicable and the child is beyond recovery, in most cases a permanent vegetative state. Why should the state have any authority over the parent? We live in an open, free society where the parents are help responsible for the welfare of their children to the point where if they are not doing an adequate job they can be persecuted and their children can be taken away from them. If the parents are held with complete responsibility of their children in this case, what possible justification does the state have to overrule the parents wishes? The parents are the ones that brought the child into this world, the parents are the ones that have loved this child, brought the child up and they are the ones that will suffer the most from whatever decision is made. The state does not know this child and has no responsibility for it. Anyone who disagrees must be in accordance with a totalitarianism state such as a Stalinist Russia where the state would have had an overruling say over the parents judgement.

I accept that terminal care can be expensive, and so as long as the parents are willing to shoulder the costs of their decision what grounds does the state have to overrule this?

I also accept that the parents have to be capable of making such decisions, if they are in any way mentally troubled or previously not abiding by the law then I do not think these sorts of parents are fit for such decisions in which case, it should be up to the state. But In most cases the parents are capable of making a decision that is for the best.

I conclude by saying that the state has no possible means of justifying its intervention when regarding life and death, Since when was the state a giver and taker of life? To suggest this would be in agreement with a totalitarianism state. The parents are the ones who are responsible for their child and they are the ones who can legitimately make decisions for their children providing they are willing to accept the responsibilities whether that be the cost of terminal care or the despair defying nature and of outliving their children.

May I thank you for accepting this motion.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.