Although almost everyone agrees about the necessity to provide children with the best healthcare, there is some dispute about whether parents or the government should decide what that care is. My own view is that while governments may adopt a general policy for children’s medical care, parents should normally have the ultimate say.
There are good grounds for arguing that the state should decide on the form of medical provision for children. One of these is that typically the state is better able to make informed decisions because it has access to all the latest medical research. Another is that occasionally there are epidemics in schools and it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that illnesses should not be spread unnecessarily. In this case, it might justifiably order compulsory vaccination.
Equally there is a very strong argument for allowing parents to decide on what care their children receive. This is because one extremely important principle is that everyone should have the right to choose what care they receive. For children who are too young to make their own choice, it is only natural that their parents should make that decision for them. This is particularly important for families that come from a culture where certain medical interventions such as blood transfusions are forbidden. In this case, it seems quite wrong for the government to order something that may go against religious beliefs.
In conclusion, I do accept that there are good reasons for the state to outline what care children should receive, but parents should be able to have the last word particularly when religious principles are at stake.
Although almost everyone
agrees
about the necessity to provide
children
with the best healthcare, there is
some
dispute about whether
parents
or the
government
should decide what that
care
is. My
own
view is that while
governments
may adopt a general policy for
children’s
medical
care
,
parents
should
normally
have the ultimate say.
There are
good
grounds for arguing that the state should decide on the form of
medical
provision for
children
. One of these is that
typically
the state is better able to
make
informed decisions
because
it has access to all the latest
medical
research. Another is that
occasionally
there are epidemics in schools and it is the responsibility of the
government
to ensure that illnesses should not
be spread
unnecessarily
.
In this case
, it might
justifiably
order compulsory vaccination.
Equally
there is a
very
strong argument for allowing
parents
to decide on what
care
their
children
receive. This is
because
one
extremely
important
principle is that everyone should have the right to choose what
care
they receive. For
children
who are too young to
make
their
own
choice, it is
only
natural that their
parents
should
make
that decision for them. This is
particularly
important
for families that
come
from a culture where certain
medical
interventions such as blood transfusions
are forbidden
.
In this case
, it seems quite
wrong
for the
government
to order something that may go against religious beliefs.
In conclusion
, I do accept that there are
good
reasons for the state to outline what
care
children
should receive,
but
parents
should be able to have the last word
particularly
when religious principles are at stake.
7Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
24Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
1Mistakes