Graduate studies at Western
Ethics and Education 6 (2):109-123 (2011)
|Abstract||The Dutch government has decided to intervene in parents? role in bringing up their children by imposing compulsory parenting support. As such an intervention has to be legitimatised as being ?in the interests of the child?, it is important to take a closer look at this concept. First it is shown that it is not evident that the government has the right to intervene in this way. Within the ?child?parents?government? triangle three protective shells of self-determination can be distinguished. One of these three shells protects the freedom of childrearing of the parents. Second, ?the interests of the child? are seen from a pedagogical perspective. This concept is explored within the framework of the so-called ?pedagogical relationship?, a core concept in the continental tradition of educational theory. It is shown that the pedagogical relationship is indeed completely ruled by the interests of the child. Third, the question is raised why the Dutch government is so eager to intervene in the parents? role given the fact that the UNICEF overview of child well-being shows that the Netherlands leads the world ranking and scores in the top 10 of all measured dimensions. These philosophical and empirical arguments are apparently not considered to be convincing. Hopefully, the decision of the Dutch government will be reconsidered seriously if the results of the interventions prove unsatisfactory in the coming years.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Archard (1990). Child Abuse: Parental Rights and the Interests of the Child. Journal of Applied Philosophy 7 (2):183-194.
Stefan Ramaekers & Bert Lambeir (2007). The Terror of Explicitness: Philosophical Remarks on the Idea of a Parenting Contract. Ethics and Education 2 (2):95-107.
Bert Lambeir & Stefan Ramaekers (2007). The Terror of Explicitness: Philosophical Remarks on the Idea of a Parenting Contract. Ethics and Education 2 (2):95-107.
Roger Marples (forthcoming). Parents' Rights and Educational Provision. Studies in Philosophy and Education:1-17.
Douglas Diekema (2004). Parental Refusals of Medical Treatment: The Harm Principle as Threshold for State Intervention. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (4):243-264.
Emily A. Bishop, A Child's Expertise: Establishing Statutory Protection for Intersexed Children Who Reject Their Gender of Assignment.
Helen Watt (2004). Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Choosing the “Good Enough” Child. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 12 (1):51-60.
Ferdinand Schoeman (1985). Parental Discretion and Children's Rights: Background and Implications for Medical Decision-Making. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (1):45-62.
Kristin Savell (2011). Confronting Death in Legal Disputes About Treatment-Limitation in Children. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (4):363-377.
Larry A. Herzberg (2007). Genetic Enhancement and Parental Obligation. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (2):98-111.
Jonathan Todres, Birth Registration: An Essential First Step Toward Ensuring the Rights of All Children.
Paul Smeyers (2010). Child Rearing in the “Risk” Society: On the Discourse of Rights and the “Best Interests of a Child”. Educational Theory 60 (3):271-284.
Carol van Nijnatten (2010). Children's Agency, Children's Welfare: A Dialogical Approach to Child Development, Policy and Practice. Policy Press.
Jessica Masty & Celia Fisher (2008). A Goodness-of-Fit Approach to Informed Consent for Pediatric Intervention Research. Ethics and Behavior 18 (2 & 3):139 – 160.
Added to index2011-12-09
Total downloads6 ( #155,249 of 751,029 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #62,995 of 751,029 )
How can I increase my downloads?