1 Appellant disagrees with the Court of Appeal, and contends that parents do not have the legal power to consent to any surgical procedure regardless of purpose, and that the purpose sets the limit upon the parental authority. It is the position of Appellant, that to grant a parent the legal power to consent to a surgical procedure which has no medical purpose is to grant a parent an unlimited license to abuse their children. For example, amputation is a surgical procedure. Appellant finds it impossible to believe that any court would grant to a parent the legal power to consent to the amputation of all the health limbs of a child, making a healthy, normal, child into a quadriplegic. In other words, Appellant contends that there are limits upon the power to consent to surgical procedures, and that the limit should be the power to consent to surgical procedure only for medical purpose.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.
Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possession, and protecting property, and pursuing an obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. General personal rights. The right of safety and privacy must necessarily limit the power of parents to consent to surgical procedures which have a medical purpose. Appellant's individual constitutional right of safety must be paramount to all rights of parents regarding this children. Parental autonomy is not absolute.