In the examination procedure of the People's Advocate for Children's Rights, there was the case of the child who due to his health condition needed a surgical intervention, and the child's mother did not allow the medical procedure. The duality and complexity of the situation occurred due to the fact that the medical workers and the persons responsible for the protection of the child's rights, involved in the examination of the given case, interpreted the norm established in Art. 4, para. (4) of the Law indicated from a narrow perspective, stating that it applies only in situations of extreme necessity and when the child is "between life and death". The Children's Ombudsman considers this interpretation erroneous and narrows the effect of the law or, Art. 4, paragraph (4) of Law no. 338/1994 on children's rights clearly provides “... refuses medical care for the sick child ...”, without making a distinction on the seriousness of the problem. In this regard, the People's Advocate for Children's Rights presents her opinion on the conflict of interest regarding the consent of parents / legal representatives to medical care for sick children and indicates that, although in accordance with international and national standards, the strength of the child's opinion has a lower weight than that of his parents, the child's opinion can not be neglected. There are several good reasons for this presumption, to keep the parents this autonomy and family confidentiality. Firstly, because most parents care for their children, they will usually be better placed than others to understand their children's unique needs, to be aware of what is best for their children and they will take decisions that are beneficial to them. Secondly, the interests of other family members may sometimes be in conflict and some family members may be subject to harmful pressures as a result of these decisions. Parents are often better placed than others outside the family to weigh the child's competing interests in making a final decision. Thirdly, parents should be allowed to raise their children according to their own chosen standards and values and pass them on to their children. Finally, the family must have sufficient space and freedom of intrusion from third parties. However, parental authority is not and cannot be absolute and when a parent takes action contrary to the best interests of a child, the State can intervene. The "parens patriae" doctrine156 states that the State can act as a "surrogate parent" when necessary to protect the lives and health of those who cannot take care of themselves, especially children. By acting for the purpose of protecting the general interest in the welfare of the child, the State as "parens patriae" may restrict the discretion of the parents in order to protect the best interests of the child. 156 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2005.00643.x 87