Expand on the post to about 500 words, based on additional…

Question Answered step-by-step Expand on the post to about 500 words, based on additional… Expand on the post to about 500 words, based on additional readings, and new ideas. POST:This week’s content was focused primarily on autonomy, and whether or not a child’s autonomy should be respected when potential conflict arise when parents and children disagree. Buchanan and Brocks argument highlighted both sides of the argument and was easier to follow than Jansen and Wall’s article. For example, in Buchanan and Brocks book, in section H, they toyed with the idea of goals and values. A parents role gives them a unique position to shape a young person’s values and goals to align with their family. I say young person because in some cases they are a foster parent, a stepparent or not a biological parent, but serve as a parental role none the less. Each parent has this opportunity to shape the child’s values but failed to do so. An example given was regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. If a child wants a COVID-19 vaccine and the parent does not this could be seen as a parent missed their chance to influence or shape their goals. On the other side of the argument the parents think that they are acting in the best interest of their family and representing their family values. Another point that was made was the age at which we rationalize the ability to make decisions for your self. Children ages 0-9 year old is pretty hard to demonstrate confidence. With children ages 9-14 we do not automatically assume they will be confident, but it should be fairly easy for them to demonstrate this to an adult. For children ages 15-17 we can assume that they can demonstrate confidence in making their own decisions with little to no demonstration. In the US when a person turns 18 years old they are able to make their own health care decisions and not have to inform their parents. What is the difference of a year? Or six months? What makes an 18 year old child more confident then a 17 year old child. A counter argument made to this was that the set age is because children can not make the best decisions for themselves because lack of age, experience, and knowledge. This being said adults don’t always make the best decisions for themselves all of the time. Nor do they always display measurable ways to make decisions. An example of this is Driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Although the parent must bare the consequences and cover the cost of medical procedure and raising the child, the child bares the principle consequences of the choice and so the child’s choice should be considered. In Jansen and Wall’s article they focused primarily on paternalism. Some examples focused on the how to distinguish between hard and soft paternalism. Soft paternalism can be seen when another person acts on another person for their own benefit or if a mistake has been made. For example, if a person drives onto the train tracks and a person makes them leave their car because a train is coming. The person willingly drove onto the tracts because they thought there wasn’t a train coming. Hard paternalism can be seen in a smoking ban, or seat belt law. The individuals who are against these regulations usually say that they don’t care about any consequences later down the line, but it can be argued that they would care about them, they just aren’t thinking about them. Arts & Humanities Philosophy PHIL 302 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)