Father Knows Best?

There is an interesting case before the Massachusetts courts. A mother is being tried for discontinuing chemotherapy treatments for her nine-year-old son, who later died. There are a million subtleties to this case, including the mother's character and a messy divorce, but the underlying philosophical issue is profound. What rights should parents have to raise children as they please?

According to one report, in the current case the prosecutors simply have to prove that "the mother was so wanton and reckless in her actions that any reasonable person in the same situation would have known that what she was doing — failing to give him his chemotherapy for at least five months — could kill the child."

Similar cases have arisen in the past, including a number involving the right of Jehovah's Witness parents to withhold generally accepted medical treatment from their children on religious grounds.

It is difficult to decide how much rein to give parents. I can't find many arguments, other than emotional and cultural ones, that suggest parents should have anything resembling ownership rights over their children. (This could easily drift into an abortion debate.) On the other hand, government is both unfit and ill-equipped to handle the responsibility.

I do know this: All parents are sadly imperfect. The vast majority teach their children (by example, permission and sometimes precept) habits, practices and principles that will damage their health, shorten their lives and make it difficult for them to develop healthy family and social relationships in the future. The question is, how much of this should society allow. Who could and would do a better job? And which of us has the proper credentials to cast the first stone?