|
I have sympathy for the parents who are obviously in a desperate situation. That said, and to answer the thread title - yes sometimes the state does know what's best for your children. I know this doesn't apply in this case but on the principle of 'parents know best', which I assume is the spirit behind the question, but imagine if a child was suffering from something and the parents refused treatment. Surely the state should have the right to intervene and overrule the parents and give treatment to that child.
As I say I'm not speaking necessarily about this case as I'm aware the circumstances are different but as a matter of principle I can think of plenty of times where the state/law should be able to over-rule or ignore parents wishes especially when it comes to medical care of a minor. Parents aren't given a divine right to control everything in the life of a child at the moment of conception. A parent cannot deny their child education as another example.
Again I know this doesn't relate to this case but I've never thought parents should be viewed as some infallible oracles when it comes to deciding things in relation to the welfare of their child. There are many areas where their beliefs and wishes need to be ignored in interest of the child's welfare and safety |
|