Neg Case

My partners and I negate the resolution: This house believes that important decisions about
children's health should be made by medical professionals and not by their parents.
Before we begin, we would like to offer the following definition
Medical Professional: a person who helps in identifying or preventing or treating illness or
disability.
Contention 1: Parents, as family, have an inherent right to decide how a member of the family is
treated.
A recent Canadian Supreme Case ruling determined that Doctors cannot end life support
of a patient without the consent of his/her family. This is an obvious example of the family, or
the parents, getting the right to make the most important medical decision concerning life or
death of a family member. Legislative bodies are not the only parties that stand in opposition to
the resolution. According to the Journal of Ethics of the University of Washington School of
Medicine, a childs parents are the persons who care the most about their child and know the
most about him . . . parents have the responsibility and authority to make medical decisions on
the behalf of their children. We stand in clear opposition of resolution because parents should
make important medical decisions for their children WITH the advice of Medical Professionals.
We are advocating for the collaborative effort between parents and doctors.
Contention 2: Doctors may be pressured by outside factors, while parents are less likely
Doctors may not always base their choices towards the action of utmost benefit to a child.
A doctor may choose an action that costs more money to a parent or less cost on the
hospital. Furthermore, health care fraud is on the rise in the United States. From the FBI:
[Health care fraud is] a rising threat, with national health care spending topping $2.7 trillion and
expenses continuing to outpace inflation. Recent cases also show that medical professionals
are more willing to risk patient harm in their schemes. The FBI has been receiving more and
more cases of health care fraud, with more than 2,700 cases in 2011. Additionally, according to
the Grant & Flanery Law Firm, 80,000 deaths occur each year partly as a result of medical
malpractice.
Parents on the other hand, are almost certainly going to act in the best interest of the
child. Parents have emotional investment, making them act towards the betterment of their
children. There is also a scientific basis for naturally altruistic parental behavior. The Public
Library of Science published a study that reported finding a region in the brain responsible for
parental instinct. This region, as in other animals, triggered an altruistic impulse that played a
part in determining parental behavior. Several other more renowned scientists, such as Charles
Darwin have said that that there is something about children which prompts adults to respond to
and care for them which allows our species to survive, a trait resulting from many years of
evolutionary instinct.

Contention 3: Upholding the client-service provider relationship

We must not forget what hospitals are. They are businesses. They provide a service in order to
gain profit. If we allow medical professionals to make decisions instead of a childs parents, we
effectively allow hospitals to dictate how a patients family spends their money. This presents
two major problems in the healthcare industry. Firstly, it would become extremely easy for a
hospital to force a family to go through unnecessarily complex and expensive treatment. In this
scenario, the family would have no other choice but to pay for treatment because of the
authority granted to medical professionals, who take directive straight from the hospitals.
Hospitals, like all businesses, are susceptible to corruption and questionable behavior.
Secondly, should hospitals possess this power, parents would have a disincentive to take their
children to hospitals. Hospitals would force expensive procedures, as well as a long, expensive
follow-up care. A family would have to make a choice between either financial strain, or medical
complications. Families with insufficient insurance would be buried by egregiously costly
medical bills. The proposed motion threatens the status of the patients family as client and
consumer. It disables the familys ability to choose the preferred plan of action, and even
prevents a family from refusing treatment in order to get a second opinion or visit another
hospital. As a paying client, a family should have a decision in how their money is spent. It is
unjust to force a client to pay for treatment that they do not desire or are uncomfortable with.
For these reasons, we strongly urge opposition of the motion
Contention 4: Excludes parental involvement in all cases
We have to realize that in the pro world, doctors are basically acting as the parents, and the
input of the parents is set aside. Parents, whether good or bad, will have no decision on how
their child is affected. Doctors, who are ultimately driven by profit, will be the ones who control
the lives of children. It is simply not worth excluding all parents in order to address situations
involving with a miniscule percent of the parental population, much of which do not even involve
a medical professional in the first place. Additionally, the government will be taking on a
paternalistic role, meaning that decisions will be made on what the government thinks is best
for the child, when in reality, the best decision can only be made by utilizing all resources in the
decision making process - doctors AND parents. The parents know the specific wants and
needs, the intricacies and anecdotal data that doctors simply cannot and will never acquire.
The best decision for a child cannot be made by doctors alone. They must be made with the
input of both parents and doctors.