I mean yeah, when say, a 4 year old, requires a dangerous but potentially life saving medical intervention you would still be required to get their parents' consent. I dare say most people would agree that is probably rightly so.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/overriding-parental-decision-withhold-treatment/2003-08 The central question before the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, was whether parents have a legal right to deny their child urgently needed life-sustaining medical treatment. ...
On this issue the court reasoned that the Texas legislature had expressly given parents a right to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment, urgently needed or not, for a child with a certifiably terminal condition, but it did not extend that right to the parents of children with nonterminal impairments, deformities, or disabilities. Thus, the court concluded that the Millers had a right to withhold life-sustaining treatment for Sydney only to the extent that her condition was certifiably terminal and unless it was certified terminal that right could not be exercised. ...
The court explained that in a situation where the medical treatment proposed for a child is not life-saving or life-sustaining, a court order is needed to override a parent's refusal to consent to the treatment. By contrast, the court explained, where the need for life-sustaining medical treatment is an emergency, time constraints will often not permit resort to the courts. ...
The third competing interest is that of the state. The court explained that the state, under the rubric of parens patriae (the parents' role), can act to guard the well-being of minors, even if doing so limits the freedom and authority of their parents. "Although parents enjoy the right to make decisions concerning their children's care, their decisions must yield to state intervention if they fail in their legal duty to provide reasonably necessary medical care for their children" [5]. The court explained that in Texas, the rights of a parent are subject to court orders, including an order granting a governmental entity authority to consent to a child's medical treatment initially refused by the parents.
Also, Potter Stewart’s concurrence in
Roe v. Wade borders upon giving states the ability to ban abortion in some circumstances, in the interest of protecting the unborn life:
The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential future human life within her. These are legitimate objectives, amply sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions as it does other surgical procedures, and perhaps sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions more stringently or even to prohibit them in the late stages of pregnancy.