[ralfd]

> The idea was that a parent faced with the possibility of their child dying painfully couldn't possibly refuse the treatment and therefore couldn't give informed consent.

Well ... I get the idea, but I am not sure this is rational. If I have the choice between pizza and no pizza, and of course everyone would choose the pizza, my choice is not uninformed, just because it is too good of a deal.

[true_religion]

The idea is that they would agree to anything, including things which has low likelihood of success and could be traumatic to the child simply because the known downside was too great.

People aren't very good at comparing a terrible known condition A, to a merely potentially terrible known condition B.

[Symmetry]

It strikes me not so much as irrational as that it's the sort of thing an evil mustache twirling bureaucrat would say in a Hollywood movie.