17 year old Cassandra, a minor from Connecticut who suffers from Hodgkin lymphoma, can legally be forced to undergo chemotherapy after she explicitly expressed that she does not want the treatment. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that she was to have no say in the decision. A minor’s right in a medical decision is a controversial issue in today’s society. Many states have laws that allow minors to make their own medical decisions, while others are strictly against it. Minor decision advocates argue that if the minor seems to have a full understanding of their decision, then it should be carried out. Critics of minors being in charge of their decision argue that they do not have the ability to make complex decisions because they lack the …show more content…
Critics of this issue believe that minors should not have the right to make their own medical decisions. As Kathryn Hickey states, “Adolescents may lack the moral responsibility, judgement, and experience to understand the outcome of their actions and decisions” (101). Because of the fact that minors are under the age of 18, they do not have enough experience to know the future effects of a certain treatment or other medical choice. This puts them in a lot of danger because one wrong not thought out choice from them could cause great harm to them. Minors do not have enough mental capacity to make a logical decision that puts into account future effects of the treatment they choose. “Because young children are not able to make complex decisions for themselves, the authority to make medical decisions on behalf of the child usually falls to the child’s parents” (Diekema 1). Sometimes it’s not that the child is will not make the most logical decisions, it’s just that parents are generally more cautious and think things through more. “Parents generally are better situated than others to understand the unique needs of their children, and to make appropriate, caring decisions regarding their children’s health care” (Diekema 1). Although the critic side presents many valid thoughts, the advocate side also presents thought-provoking statements that make the issue …show more content…
Advocates of this issue believe that minors should have the right to be in charge of their medical decisions. Dr. Eric Kodish believes that decisions made by teenagers on the older side who are able to make a righteous decision should be carried out. “I think the ethics of modern American life suggest that if people have the capacity to make a decision, they should be free to refuse treatment” (Shute 1). Advocates of minors being able to make their own medical decisions believe that if the minor shows enough maturity understanding of their desired action, then it should be respected and carried out. Dr. Eric Kodish uses what he calls “The Rule of 7s” to determine when a child should be allowed to make the decision. “From ages 0 till 7, there's no voice of the child. From 7 to 14, there's assent; the voice of the child should be integrated into decision-making, but it's not determinative. And above age 14, kids should be able to make their own decisions” (Shute 1). While Kodish believes that his heart would agree with the court’s decision of forcing Cassandra to undergo chemotherapy, his head would question it (Shute 1). But was Cassandra an exception? The laws across the country state that there are some minors who can be exempt from the law if they fit the conditions. Perhaps Cassandra fit the criteria to become an
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
...who reflects on his or her own teenage years: Young teens lack the maturity, independence, and future orientation that adults have acquired” (Stevenson, 2014, p. 268). Bryan tries to explain this to the court as a way to prove that trying children as adults is unethical.
In pediatric cases, the parents/guardians are initially given the right to make decisions for their minor
In America, the legal age to sign off on any medical consent is 18 years of age. Seventeen year olds should be able to compose their own medical decisions, and sign off on their own medical consents. Power should land in their hands, accompanied by the professional advice of a doctor. It is your body, be compelled to fabricate a decision without having to have your parent’s signature.
Each day Americans make decisions that affect the outcomes of their lives. Some choices are easily made, while others require intense thought. The consequences of actions, nonetheless, are known from as early on as childhood. For example, a small child knows immediately that he or she can thrust their hand in a fire and feel the consequences. However, Mr. Raeburn states, “teenagers cannot be held fully responsible for their actions because all the wiring to allow adult decision making isn’t completed yet” (517). Still, teenagers can be held responsible for operating a vehicle, and be held accountable to obey traffic laws. These illustration...
How can a child make the decision for the life of another child by themselves? In this paper I will outline the mental, physical, and safety issues of minors (age 18 and under) having an abortion and why it is so important that they need to get parental consent before making this life long decision.
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
In his essay, “The Refutation of Medical Paternalism,” Alan Goldman discusses his argument against differentiation in the roles between physicians and patients. He says the physician may act against a patient’s will in order treat the patient in their best interest. Goldman makes his whole argument around the assumption that a person’s right to decide his or her future is the most important and fundamental right, saying, “the autonomous individual is the source of those other goods he enjoys, and so is not to be sacrificed for the sake of them.” His claim is that most people agree that they are the best judges of their own self-interest and there is an innate value in the freedom to determine their own future. On these principles, Goldman starts by discussing conditions under which paternalism may be justified.
Another ethical debate could be the ability to give informed consent. It can be argued that a child cannot fully be aware of what is happening until they reach a certain age (in South Australia, the age of medical consent is 16 years old) and therefore they cannot express their full informed consent for medical procedures until the age of 16 (MIGA, 2011). In any medical procedure, the patient must be informed about any risks and possible complications that may arise during the procedure and must be able to understand these risks and possible
Where should we draw the line when it comes to parental decisions regarding children? Is it acceptable to refuse medical treatment for a child because of religious reasons? This has been a bioethical dilemma in the health care field for many years. If you were a parent and your child was dying and needed medical treatment, would you have strong enough faith to believe that prayer alone could cure your child? Should anyone be willing to gamble ones life on faith when there are clear alternatives?
A. A. The "Best Possible Child" Journal of Medical Ethics 33.5 (2007): 279-283. Web.
Would you like to know what your teen goes through or would you like to be in the dark? Many teen girls in the US go through pregnancies. Some girls have miscarriages, others give birth and the rest have abortions. One reason why there should be an age limit is because it is an emotional process for young teens and a parent should be aware of what their child is going through. This is why there should be a parent aware on what their child is doing, and this is why there should also be an age limit on abortions.
As we see in the world today many teens are becoming mothers before they finish high school or before they turn 18. Although some teens are on birth control already many are not because they are afraid to tell their parents which may lead to their parents thinking they are sexually active. Moreover, teens usually find themselves in a professional clinic trying to seek different options of birth control but they are derailed by having parental consent or notification. Many clinics have a policy were teen needs to have parental consent to receive birth control. Many parents feel that teens should be able to make the choice by themselves if they are having sex or just being careful. But the one question many parents are unable to agree upon is should teens be allowed to receive birth control without parental consent.
The idea of “the child” is constantly evolving, and children appear to be maturing more rapidly each year. As a response, laws pertaining to minors have had to keep up with these social changes. In the health care context, the competency of children is constantly scrutinized and challenged. Accordingly, reforms to past laws that deemed minors lacked decisional capacity have resulted in the “mature minor” doctrine. Although this doctrine allows minors a degree of independence in the decision-making process it maintains many grey areas. The age of consent is inconsistent across provinces and territories, and the guidelines used to assess competence are vague and sometimes arbitrary. With such inconsistency in the measuring of adolescent competence, it brings me to question the competence granted freely to adults. To rightfully judge competence there must be a prototype, something that I and others can form a explicit definition around. With what I have collected, since individuals gain decision-making autonomy when they reach the age of consent, than the defining characteristic of comp...
o There is also a conflict between the parents and themselves/the doctor. They want to go along with the doctor because they know he must check, but they do not want force or hurt their daughter in order to get her to submit.