MEDRADSC 3Y03 - Parents and Children NEW

Who argues that the 'best interests' standard is inappropriate for overriding parental decisions and proposes a 'harm threshold' instead?

Douglas Diekema.

According to Douglas Diekema, parental authority should be limited by a _ threshold, not a 'best interests' standard.

harm

Diekema proposes that intervention is legitimate if parental decisions expose a child to a significant risk of what?

A serious and preventable harm.

What is the name for the growing consensus, influenced by Diekema, that a harm threshold should limit parental authority?

The 'harm consensus'.

What is Ben Saunders' primary criticism of Diekema's proposed 'harm principle'?

He argues the standard for intervention does not necessarily coincide with the threshold for harm.

What alternative standard does Ben Saunders propose instead of the 'best interests' standard or the 'harm principle'?

A sufficiency threshold, distinguishing between 'good enough' and 'substandard' parenting.

According to Kopelman's non-literal interpretation, the 'best interests' standard does not require what is literally best, but rather requires us to do what?

Focus on the child and select wisely from alternatives, considering how lives are woven together.

What is Diekema's key point about the practical application of the 'best interests' standard in legal and clinical settings?

The standard actually used for intervention is not a true best interest standard but some other threshold.

What pragmatic reason does Coggon give for retaining the phrase 'best interests'?

It emphasizes the high level of concern we should have for vulnerable children, and any alternative might diminish protection.

Why does Birchley argue that the term 'best interests' is preferable to 'harm'?

He claims it is seen as less pejorative by the courts.

Saunders argues that paying lip service to the 'best interests' standard, when it's not applied literally, can distract from what?

What is really in the interests of the child in question.

One critique of Diekema's harm principle is that, shorn of Mill's _, it lacks moral grounding.

utilitarianism

How does Saunders counter the critique that Diekema's harm principle lacks moral grounding without utilitarianism?

He distinguishes between logical and epistemic grounding, arguing we can be confident in a principle without first identifying its ultimate moral theory.

According to Saunders, do people need to accept J.S. Mill's wider moral theory to accept his harm principle?

No, the content of a principle is distinct from one's reasons for accepting it.

What is the primary purpose of John Stuart Mill's harm principle?

To preclude certain justifications for coercive interference, particularly interference for the agent's own good.

According to Mill, 'the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to _.'

prevent harm to others

Does Mill's harm principle state that society must interfere whenever an action causes harm to others?

No, it states that harm to others is the only valid reason, not that it always justifies interference.

Saunders argues that it is not apt to characterize Mill's harm principle as a liberty-limiting principle, but rather as one that identifies what?

The minimum freedom that should be protected for all competent adults.

Whose version of the harm principle is Diekema's proposal actually closer to, according to Saunders?

Joel Feinberg's.

Why does Saunders prefer to describe Diekema's proposal as a 'harm threshold' instead of a 'harm principle'?

To avoid the misleading association with J.S. Mill's very different principle.

According to the presentation slides, what is a key problem with both the 'best interest' and 'harm principle' standards?

Determining what counts as 'best interest' or 'harm' is a value judgment.

The presentation slides state that the harm principle justifies intervention when a parent's decision significantly increases the likelihood of _ occurring.

serious harm

How does Saunders respond to critics who claim 'harm' is as indeterminate as 'best interests'?

He argues 'best interests' must be at least as indeterminate because it incorporates harms plus the additional indeterminacy of benefits.

The logical error of thinking that a combination of two things (harms + benefits) is less indeterminate than one of its parts (harms) is similar to what fallacy?

The conjunction fallacy.

What example does Saunders use to show a parental decision can be harmful but may not license intervention?

Relocating for work, which disrupts the child's life but still leaves them very well off overall.

Saunders argues that intervention might be justified even without harm if parents fail in their positive duty to _ their children.

benefit

What is the problem if we define 'harm' simply as 'that which justifies intervention'?

The concept of harm becomes circular and loses its explanatory power for justifying intervention.

The alternative to a literal 'best interests' standard, which demands the optimal outcome, is a standard focused on what is '_'.

good enough

What is the name of the standard Saunders proposes, which focuses on a threshold between adequate and inadequate parenting?

A sufficiency threshold.

Under a sufficiency threshold, intervention is justified only when parental decisions fall below a threshold of _ or acceptability.

adequacy

Even if not used as an intervention threshold, what role could 'maximally promoting a child's interests' play in a sufficiency model?

It could serve as a guiding ideal for parents.

The presentation slides reject the 'best interest standard' because it is hard to determine and could lead to what negative outcome?

Government micromanaging all aspects of parenting.

What 'tunnel vision' might physicians have when assessing a child's best interest, according to the slides?

They may have a medicalized understanding, focusing on survival over a broader quality of life.

According to the slides, what 1944 Supreme Court ruling limits the right to practice religion freely?

The right does not include exposing a child to communicable disease, ill health, or death.

What is Diekema's argument regarding the actual standard used for intervention, even when it is called 'best interests'?

He argues it is not truly a best interest standard but rather a harm-based standard in practice.

Diekema's proposed harm threshold is not simply about any harm, but about a significant risk of a and harm.

serious; preventable

A key difference between Mill's and Diekema's principles is that Mill's is a principle that precludes interference, whereas Diekema's provides a reason for interference.

negative; positive

What is Saunders' conclusion about the relationship between the threshold for justifiable intervention and the threshold for harm?

There is no reason to assume they coincide; any overlap is merely a coincidence.

The presentation slides note that parents tend to promote their children's well-being and are often the best judge of what is good for them as a reason why the state should generally not ____.

interfere with families

According to Saunders, the indeterminacy of 'harm' is not a unique problem for the harm threshold because the 'best interests' standard is _.

similarly indeterminate

What does Saunders argue is a key flaw in Diekema's argument after he rejects the best interests standard?

Diekema wrongly assumes the only alternative is a harm-based standard, creating a false dichotomy.

Term: Literal 'Best Interests' Standard

Definition: A standard requiring evaluation of all options to select the one providing the absolute best outcome for the child, ignoring other considerations.

Term: Harm Threshold (Diekema)

Definition: A standard permitting intervention in parental decisions only when they expose a child to a significant risk of serious, preventable harm.

Term: Sufficiency Threshold (Saunders)

Definition: A standard permitting intervention when parental decisions fall below a level of 'good enough' or 'adequate' care, regardless of whether it aligns with the definition of harm.

What is the irony Saunders points out in Diekema's proposal?

Diekema complains that 'best interests' is misleading terminology, yet his own proposed 'harm principle' invites confusion with Mill's principle.

One of the four questions from the slides for applying the harm principle asks if the proposed intervention is of _.

proven efficacy

According to Saunders, the search for an alternative to the 'best interests' standard should lead to standards of _ parenting, without assuming these coincide with harm avoidance.

adequate (or 'good enough')

In the debate over parental authority, does Saunders ultimately agree or disagree with Diekema's negative point that our actual standard for intervention is not literally the 'best interests' of the child?

He agrees with the negative point.

Why is the indeterminacy around 'benefits' a problem for the best interests standard but not the harm threshold?

Because the best interests standard considers both harms and benefits, inheriting indeterminacy from both, while the harm threshold only considers harms.

The presentation slides show that applying Principlism to a case like a blood transfusion refusal can be co-opted by different views to support different conclusions, illustrating a problem with what?

Finding a 'tie-breaker' or objective standard.