The issue of when the state can countermand the medical decision of a parent is back on Capitol Hill, but it is not expected to generate the controversy it did a year ago.

Sen. Dave Thomas, R-South Weber, is back with a version of his 2004 proposal, protecting parental choice in health care decisions made for children.

This time, SB83 — up for discussion today in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee — contains enough compromises to earn the cautious support of state child welfare officials.

As introduced, the measure would safeguard certain rights of parents if they come under scrutiny of the state Division of Child and Family Services for allegations of medical neglect or abuse.

Among other things, the bill would:

• Grant the right to a second medical opinion.

• Provide that the state must show by "clear and convincing" evidence the decision by the parent is not reasonable or prudent.

• Allow parents to pursue treatment options for a child with disabilities provided the option is "reasonable" and in the best interest of the child.

Adam Trupp, policy analyst for DCFS, said while the bill remains under close review, Thomas has worked with the agency over the summer and listened to their concerns.

"It creates a reasonable standard that people can understand and that is great."

This differs from the controversial measure last year in that Thomas was pushing to have a parent presumed competent to make a medical decision for their child unless the state could prove otherwise "beyond a reasonable doubt."

That legal standard — typically reserved for criminal proceedings — is the highest evidentiary threshold of proof in the judicial system.

State DCFS officials last session said that such a threshold would flip the agency's attention to the parent to assess competency, rather than deal with the welfare of the child.

Thomas was willing to lower the evidentiary standard in SB83 and also established the "reasonable and prudent" measurement that parents and officials can look to.

"It sets a standard that lawyers can understand and the public and parents can as well," Trupp said. "What it does is clearly state where the burden lies. . . If you are behaving reasonably and prudently as a parent and caring for your child in a way you believe to be appropriate, the state will not intervene."

If the decision is not deemed reasonable or prudent, the state can get involved, he added, and the question will be settled by the courts.