[Lawtonfogle]

>Suggesting that we imprison (because that's what you're calling for) people who have no committed any crime; who pose no risk of harm to others; and who lack capacity over one small aspect of their life is fascistic.

This is largely how we treat children. For the extreme cases, look at those re-education camps parents can send their teens to, often with a 'transporter' that would by any other name be called a kidnapper. And if the child runs away and claims abuse... the police will be right there to send them back.

Is it wrong that the child is treated in so many ways as belonging to the parent?

[DanBC]

That's the American experience. It's less the case in any country that has signed up to the convention on the rights of the child.

In the case of children we protect them because they lack capacity. When they develop capacity we reduce the constraints.

Have a look at English guidelines for medical competance: "Gillick competance". This is used to decide whether someone under the age of 16 can consent to medical treatment without their parents knowledge or permission. (The perhaps odd age of 16 is used because that's the age of consent for sex and the name Gillick Competance comes from a case where a mother did not want girls under the age of 16 to be prescribed the contraceptive pill. (16 is the age of sexual consent in England.)

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-sy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

For examples of what this means with real life examples:

14 year old refuses chemotherapy for a highly treatable brain tumor: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0643x61

14 year old with type 1 diabetes is non-compliant with treatment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0499j2f

Can a 9 year old be given treatment her parents don't agree with? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t3z65