I don't have a link for this, but the question was put in my head a while back via some radio show on NPR. I think most of the people on this forum agree that when parents deny their children proven modern medicine due to religious reasons or whatever, the parents should get a good slap upside the head. But as medicine progresses and we can fix/cure more and more ailments, where should we draw the line for the common man to decline the treatment? For instance, let's say in 2050 we find a cure for blindness or deafness. Should we require parents to get this for their children? Assume cost is not an issue, simply the decision to fundamentally alter the child from their born state to a more "average person" state. If it seems to you that we should, let's pretend in 2100 (I'm moving medicine fast!), we can now guarantee that your child will maintain an IQ of 100 or more, or some social trait that is desired (hard worker for instance). Should a procedure of that nature be mandated. Feel free to not hang on my specific scenarios as they are just examples. At what level do we find it immoral to require (or strongly suggest such as with vaccinations) a parent impose a procedure on their child? At what point do we go from making life better to making life average? I don't have an answer, simply soliciting views. As stated before, we're not so much worried about cost... you can presume that it's affordable for all as that's not the core issue. We can also assume that the procedure has to be done by the age of 2 or so, therefore it cannot be an eventual decision by the child.