Originally Posted by claire

The Right to Refuse Medical Treatment

I've been thinking about the rights of minors and health care since my parents forced me to receive the gardasil vaccine. I'm a little divided since I think a very young child is not competent enough to make a decision regarding health care. But who's to say that a parent or the state knows what is best for the child. I also believe that I should have been able to refuse the gardasil vaccine because I am old enough and competent enough to make the decision. (or at least I think so )

When kids are very young it should be the parents who make the decisions on their behalf, not the state, who are simply quoting a rule book, but once they get to be teenagers, in most cases at least, their own views and opinions should certainly be taken into consideration, increasingly so as they get older. I do agree with you Claire, the age of majority is really irrelevant in things like this.

Not sure how it is in the US Claire, but over here its 18 to make medical decisions without a parent/guardian, although there is no real reasoning for this. Why we assume that on a person's 18th Birthday they are suddenly capable of things they couldn't wrap their head around the day before is beyond me. It should be 16, considering the access to information available nowadays, most younger people are more knowledgable than their parents anyway. Another outdated law that should change with the times.

Originally Posted by Midas

When kids are very young it should be the parents who make the decisions on their behalf, not the state, who are simply quoting a rule book, but once they get to be teenagers, in most cases at least, their own views and opinions should certainly be taken into consideration, increasingly so as they get older. I do agree with you Claire, the age of majority is really irrelevant in things like this.

I'm surprised at this view from you, Midas. What happens with religious parents who disallow their children from having life-saving treatment? Even if the child agrees with them, they will likely have been brainwashed by the parents anyway, which is where the state (or rather, a handful of doctors) should step in.

Originally Posted by DougieG

I'm surprised at this view from you, Midas. What happens with religious parents who disallow their children from having life-saving treatment? Even if the child agrees with them, they will likely have been brainwashed by the parents anyway, which is where the state (or rather, a handful of doctors) should step in.

I don't see where your surprise comes from Dougie! I was talking about the general rule of things rather than the exceptions. The number of parents who make decisions which are adverse to their children's welfare, such as withholding potentially lifesaving medications or surgical procedures on religious grounds, is really very small and these can be dealt with on a case by case basis where necessary. By and large most parents will make the most appropriate decision regarding their own children's health.

Originally Posted by Midas

I don't see where your surprise comes from Dougie! I was talking about the general rule of things rather than the exceptions. The number of parents who make decisions which are adverse to their children's welfare, such as withholding potentially lifesaving medications or surgical procedures on religious grounds, is really very small and these can be dealt with on a case by case basis where necessary. By and large most parents will make the most appropriate decision regarding their own children's health.

Perhaps. The problem comes in where you define decisions adverse to the child. I know someone whose mother is a homeopath, and she believes, basically, that water can cure cancer. Now, she disallowed him to take the MMR and TB jabs on the basis that they were going to give him the diseases, which demonstrates an entire lack of scientific understanding, and has put him and people around him in danger. He's not allowed to visit certain countries. Neither of these vaccines have any evidence to show that they are dangerous. I'm not sure what the argument is for allowing this - the guy is always feeling ill and gets colds etc constantly, while his mother withholds any real treatment. I know that, again, it is a relatively extreme example, but they are a normal family and I do know several other people in the same position. I hate to resort to personal example too, but I can't think of a better one. That woman has no right to damage her son.