Our children are the future of society and will flourish in future endeavors if given proper education, guidance and support. Children should be given a chance to succeed, for example Joe Weinstein is an 11 year old boy with Down syndrome who needs immediate corrective surgery and his parents refuse him consent for such surgery. If Joe were to outlive his parents, they feel that resources are insufficient and fear that Joe would become a burden to their other non-disabled children. Without Joe's corrective surgery, he would not live longer than the life expectancy of 30 years. As a physician, I would proceed with the corrective surgery if Joe agreed to the procedure against his parents' wishes due to Joe's autonomy and low paternalism. I will also say that I would strongly recommend that Joe consent to the surgery because the overall benefits outweigh the risks. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In order to consider performing surgery on Joe, it is my duty to consult with the patient, as well as his parents/guardians. if he is under 18 years old to consent to surgical operations. I would need to assess Joe's competence, in order to ensure his autonomy. Joe shows signs of adequate motor and manual skills, cognitive awareness, and can communicate verbally with his peers. Moreover, under Brock and Buchanan's understanding of competence, Joe would also be presumed competent to accept the potentially life-saving treatment that is relatively risk-free, but incompetent to reject it. Except that we don't know Joe's choice but what his parents decided for him. In the eyes of Brock and Buchanan, his parents would be judged incompetent if they refused the operation. It could be said that Joe cannot be independent because he has Down syndrome and it affects his skills, and he is not able to understand the severity of his situation based on his age. My argument is that even though Joe is only 11 years old, and approaching the prime age of puberty, he should have a say in what might affect his life. Since the principle of autonomy is the principle of self-determination, this means that we should encourage others to make decisions and choices that benefit them. His parents prevent Joe from being independent because they make the decision without his consent. One argument could be that his parents have full authority to make the decision for him, as Joe would not completely understand the concept of life at that age. However, I would argue that his parents are choosing to prevent Joe from living a much longer and more promising life. Furthermore, Savulescu and Momeyer argue that being autonomous requires having rational beliefs and conducting rational deliberations. Joe's parents would have irrational beliefs to the extent that they fail to have a belief that responds to the evidence. Joe's corrective surgery ensures that Joe will live past age 30 without undergoing abrasive, life-threatening surgery. But his parents' belief that insufficient resources and fear that Joe would become a burden to his siblings outweigh the evidence demonstrates irrational deliberation. Furthermore, concluding without evidence of these potential consequences calls into question the rationality of one's parents' beliefs and deliberations. Parents want to do what's best for their children, even if it means interfering with their actions and decisions. In the.