This paper argues that liberal tenets that justify intervention to promote the welfare of an incompetent do not suffice as a basis for analyzing parent-child relationships, and that this inadequacy is the basis for many of the problems that arise when thinking about the state's role in resolving family conflicts, particularly when monitoring parental discretion in medical decision-making on behalf of a child. The state may be limited by the best interest criterion when dealing with children, but parents are not. The state's relation with the child is formal while the parental relation is intimate, having its own goals and purposes. While the liberal canons insist on the incompetent one's best interest, parents are permitted to compromise the child's interest for ends related to these familial goals and purposes. Parents decisions should be supervened, in general, only if it can be shown that no responsible mode of thinking warrants such treatment of a child.
KIE: It is argued that liberal tenets that justify intervention to promote the welfare of incompetents do not suffice as a basis for analyzing parent child relationships, and that this inadequacy is the basis for many of the problems that arise when considering the state's authority to limit parents' discretion over the medical care given to their children. The parents' responsibility is fundamentally different from that of the state, and parents are legitimately permitted to compromise a child's interests for ends related to the familial relationship. As a general rule, parental decisions should be supervened only if it can be shown that no responsible mode of thinking warrants such treatment of a child.