-
karthikpandian19
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
- Thanked: 165 times
- Followed by:70 members
Throughout history parental authority over children has been the norm of western society. The degree and ultimate scope of that power and control however, has varied over time, with a steady move towards state's rights over those of the family. Today's father can no longer wield ultimate control over his child to the point of legally proscribing life and death as he could under Roman law. He cannot expect full rights to the services and labor of the children regardless of the mother's wishes and the children's best interests as he could under English Common Law. In fact, under modern law, the parent cannot even be assured that he or she will be able to bring the child up in accordance with the practices he or she believes to be dictated by God.
Surely no one would argue that the images from the turn of the century of small children laboring in sweatshops should be revived today. By requiring inoculations, the state has overseen the development of a generation to whom the ravages of smallpox and polio are a mere historical curiosity. Compulsory education has spawned a literacy rate among the highest in the world, and in this arena the state even allows some degree of parental control over the type and content of the schooling.
In clear cases of abuse or neglect the state's intervention may be the best solution, but the inevitable slippery slope arises when the government defines the limits of its own power. Is a child neglected as a matter of law if the parent refuses to consent to a medical procedure that could save the child's life? What if the procedure is cosmetic such as repair of a cleft palate or harelip? Although the Constitution does not expressly countenance a right to a normal life, this bold assertation of this right goes unchallenged in many cases. Thus one can observe how imperative it is that the government not be allowed to stretch reasonable power over children's health too deeply into encroachment over their general welfare, especially in opposition to the parent's wishes
Which of the following most closely describes the author's tone with respect to governmental intrusion into familial affairs?
Ambiguous
Unequivocally condemnatory
Cautiously approbatory
Uncritically reproachful
Censorious
Surely no one would argue that the images from the turn of the century of small children laboring in sweatshops should be revived today. By requiring inoculations, the state has overseen the development of a generation to whom the ravages of smallpox and polio are a mere historical curiosity. Compulsory education has spawned a literacy rate among the highest in the world, and in this arena the state even allows some degree of parental control over the type and content of the schooling.
In clear cases of abuse or neglect the state's intervention may be the best solution, but the inevitable slippery slope arises when the government defines the limits of its own power. Is a child neglected as a matter of law if the parent refuses to consent to a medical procedure that could save the child's life? What if the procedure is cosmetic such as repair of a cleft palate or harelip? Although the Constitution does not expressly countenance a right to a normal life, this bold assertation of this right goes unchallenged in many cases. Thus one can observe how imperative it is that the government not be allowed to stretch reasonable power over children's health too deeply into encroachment over their general welfare, especially in opposition to the parent's wishes
Which of the following most closely describes the author's tone with respect to governmental intrusion into familial affairs?
Ambiguous
Unequivocally condemnatory
Cautiously approbatory
Uncritically reproachful
Censorious
