Informed consent is a right of all individuals and no one can force anyone to receive treatment against their wishes. The right to accept or refuse treatment persists in individuals who are incompetent from a legal point of view; this is exercised on their behalf by a third party. Children are considered incompetent to make medical decisions about their own health and their parents or legal guardians are empowered to make those decisions. However, parental authority is not absolute and there are situations where their decisions are not the best, sometimes leading to jeopardizing the well-being and even the lives of their children, forcing the state to intervene on behalf of the best interests of the child. This is the reason why it is necessary to ask the following questions: is it really the child's best interest that moves us to legally intervene when a parent refuses to accept the proposed medical treatment or is the damage done to make this decision? What kind of parental decisions are those that should not be tolerated? After a review of the theme, we conclude that if the decision of the parents regarding a medical decision is considered to be made with maleficence that is harmful to the child, it is justified that the State intervenes. Finally, we exposed four criteria that can be used in making decisions in complex cases where parents refuse treatment for their children.

Medical care in pediatric patients is conditional to parental consent. Parents decide the time and type of treatment they want their children to receive when they are ill. The physician should request parental consent before carrying out the most appropriate therapy. When parents refuse the treatment offered, the physician should seek alternative therapies that may be better accepted by parents and find the most beneficial treatment for children and their families. If physicians and parents are unable to agree on the best therapeutic methods, then the physician becomes involved in an ethical conflict related to the best interests of the child and parental choices. From the above posture, the following questions arise: What should the physician do when faced with this situation? Should the physician use legal measures to force parents to accept treatment? Under what conditions is it justified to force parents and when should the decision be tolerated? What is the role of the Hospital Bioethics Committee concerning this issue? This second part focuses on proposing four practical criteria to be used by the physician and Hospital Bioethics Committee when all alternative therapies and conciliatory options have been exhausted with parents and they continue to refuse treatment. The physician then has to make a decision because the child is placed at risk of harm. This decision focuses on whether there is danger to the minor arising from the decisions of parents and if such harm is avoidable.