Should_Children_Have_the_Right_to_Participate_in_Decisions_That_Shape_Their_Lives_or_Should_They_Be_Protected_from_Decision_Making

Option 2 Should children have the right to participate in decisions that shape their lives or should they be protected from decision making' Children although need the protection and guidance of adults also deserve to be treated with the respect we all deserve, to play a part in key decisions that affect their lives. Although children aren’t as mature or responsible as adult’s they still have their own opinions and I believe that when it comes to decisions about choices that shape lives they should be consulted on a level that is appropriate to their age and level of maturity. The United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child Act goes some way to outlining and trying to ensure this is implemented for all children, but provides a universal view whereas many factors: cultural, social and economic factors influence the enforcement. The act tries to encourage the four P’s- provision, prevention, protection and participation all of which are affected by these factors. There are many arguments for and against children participating in decisions that affect their lives, from an enforcement perceptive a local view needs to be in place to meet the cultural needs that effect a child whilst maintaining a basic needs for the child to have right’s. Children are human beings and therefore should have rights, but until they reach an age of maturity and adulthood the scope for decision making should be guided and protected by an appropriate adult. The declaration of human rights 1948 and since then adapted, sets out rights applying to all humans as equals to assert basic rights. Although the Declaration applies to all a further Act for the rights of children was developed- The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). This act tries to ensure the children’s rights to specific needs as they are a vulnerable group of humans due to their age, size and immaturity, for these reasons they need the protection of adults. . The Act tries to create a universal approach to protecting children and insuring all children have basic needs both food and shelter and basic educational needs met. The act also tries to ensure that children’s views and choices concerned with their own lives are taken into account (Lansdown 2003). The problem with this act is it treats children universally and not on a more individual basis in relation to their culture and thus has received many criticisms (Burman, 1996). In the case study of Maya, a mother in Bangladesh who eloped at the age of 15 years old and who is now a mother herself. Maya wishes to carry on her education but her husband will not allow this and wishes her to remain at home with their child, this is going against the Children’s Right Act but this is the cultural expectations of a female once married in Bangladesh. Maya is now a mother and therefore has a new role and although she is still a child herself in her culture this is irrelevant. The Act has no flexibility for individual cultural, social and economic differences (Understanding Childhood, 2003. Pg. 156). In many African communities children are not seen as individuals but as part of a family network and as such decisions are made for the child based on what is best for the whole family and not necessarily what is best for the child. (Iheaoma Obibi, pg.158). Both these examples of how children are treated demonstrate that the Children’s Rights Act appears to be based on Western culture and ideology. Due to the cultural restraint of the Act many countries who have signed the agreement- America and Solomania being the only 2 who haven’t, have devised their own regional charters. These Regional charters interpret the Child’s Act into a policy that is workable within their cultural needs and expectations (Understanding Childhood, 2003. Pg.159). The African Charter dealt with relevant concerns for the regions of Africa, covering issues that affected children within their regions. The UNCRC is a policy worthwhile as we need to protect those most vulnerable in our world and children are vulnerable but the Act could do with some adaption to allow for cultural differences to be included and thus making it more relevant to all. The Act can be interpreted too far the other way and lead to people such as aid agencies trying too hard to protect children and not allowing for the child’s wishes to be taken into consideration. In the case study of Hiep- a street boy in Vietnam at the age of 14 who had been living on the streets for 2 years. Hiep had come to the city from a rural life to try and support himself and provide himself with an education whilst still managing to send some money home to help his family. The Vietnamese government set up a program to return children to their place of birth as they feel this is what is best for him, supported by an International aid agency. Hiep wished to stay where he was he was supporting himself and managing to provide himself with an education which he wouldn’t have if he was sent home to his parents. The agencies involved aren’t consulting Hiep in this decision although he has proven himself to be extremely mature and responsible for himself and it would appear that his long-term and short-term prospects are better where he is. The well meaning aid workers along with the Act are trying to protect children without consulting them in these life altering decisions, Hiep could prove he had a better quality of life on the streets, not a great quality but within the remits of his country’s economic standing and culture a better quality than some yet this wasn’t taken into account at all (Understanding Childhood 2003, pg 145 & 146) When looking at Children’s Rights following the 4 P’s is a way of ensuring the child’s health and well-being and rights are looked after. The 4 P’s are: Provision Rights- encompasses basic rights to food, drink and shelter, Prevention Rights-rights to privacy and prevent of abuse, Protection Rights-protecting against abuse and exploitation, and Participation Rights-Enable children to play a part in decisions that affect them. The 4 P’s include practical right’s of a child the food and the shelter but also look at the protection of a child, protection from abuse and harm and also protection from exploitation and also the right for every child to have freedom and within freedom the right to play apart in making decisions that affect their lives. I believe the 4 P’s create the right balance that should be evident in every child’s life, the rights aren’t complex they are simple and allowing a child to have a safe, healthy balanced life in preparing them for adulthood. Being able to have some level of decision making in their lives is important for children, if a children was adamantly against something imposed upon them it could have a detrimental effect on the rest their lives. The UNCRC directs adults to play a guiding influence on children’s lives by acting in the best interests of the child. Children should be based on individual level of competency. The competency of a child causes much debate as many argue “is there any point claiming rights for children that they cannot understand”, (Understanding Childhood 2003, pg. 149), this however goes back to the point that the decision should only be made if the question is appropriate to be asked of an individual children at their particular age and level of maturity. Holt & Farson argue that a child should be free to make decisions on things that are in their capabilities to carry out. They use the example of a baby not having the capability to be able to vote, so this is not a decision that is relevant to their capability to answer (Understanding Childhood 2003, pg. 149). This perspective on the ability for child to make decisions is a difficult one to define a precious answer, as all children’s level of capability is different. However as in the example Holt & Farson state with the baby and voting or even driving it is about an adult defining what a reasonable option is for a child. Also I feel it is very hard to define in a policy such as the Child’s Right’s Act a clear definition it should be dealt with on an individual case basis and where possible go with what’s in the child’s best interest. It may not be the case that the child is able to make a decision that affects their life but the expression of what they would like should be taken into huge consideration. Holt & Farson feel child do not have the freedom that every human is initialled too and that they are prisoners of childhood. By giving children rights which the Child Right’s Act does will allow children of the world to be free. In conclusion I feel that every child has a right as introduced in the Child Right’s Act and outlined in the 4 P’s to play a part in making decisions which affect their own lives. To what extent they play a part should be decided on a case to case basis, as every child is an individual. The child’s age, level of maturity and the level of decision they are making are all appropriate levels of assessment to determine if the child is capable of making an informed decision. As discussed although The Child Right’s Act is incredibly important to ensuring every child has a certain quality of life and rights concerning their own life it is a policy based on an Western ideology and doesn’t take into consideration the cultural differences within the world. Culture is very important within in all countries and should be respected where not detrimental to the well-being of a child. By enabling children to have right’s in particular the right to make decision about things that shape their lives gives them a freedom which every living person should be initialled too. References: Book 1 Understanding Childhood, Chapter 4- The Open University, 2003