The decision is in - 13 year old Laura Dekker will not be allowed to attempt her solo sail-around-the-world. So the Netherlands court has decided. She will be allowed to remain with her father, but a Social Services agency will be watching, pending another hearing in a couple of months.
There are several interesting ethical questions here. When is a person old enough to make decisions for her / himself? It depends on the nature of the decision ... but then, who has the authority to decide which decisions are "age-appropriate"? Is a parent in a better position to do that than a court?
In the case of Ms. Dekker, should the possible cost to society be included in the conversation? That is, should she embark on her quest to be the youngest person to circumnavigate the globe solo in a sailboat and run into trouble, needing to be rescued - is her father willing to bear the burden of the financial cost of the operation?
Along with the boundaries between adolescent pre-maturity and adult maturity (a nebulous boundary indeed), and the boundary between the authority of parents over against the courts in the life of a child, what about the boundary between adventure and foolishness? Where lies that line? Could Laura's project be put in the class of "Extreme Sport"?
As is often the case with ethical dilemmas, all the peripheral circumstances come to play to make this a most difficult situation. And, as is also true with dilemmas of this sort, there isn't a "right" answer. There is only "the best answer we can come up with for the moment".
As is often the case with ethical dilemmas, all the peripheral circumstances come to play to make this a most difficult situation. And, as is also true with dilemmas of this sort, there isn't a "right" answer. There is only "the best answer we can come up with for the moment".
Situations like this make me wonder: How many times do we make "right" or "wrong" judgments about circumstances that can only be given "the best we've got at the time"?
No comments:
Post a Comment