• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

At what age should a person be allowed to refuse medical treatment?

At what age should a person be allowed to refuse medical treatment?


  • Total voters
    22
A person should be allowed to refuse (or accept, for that matter) medical treatment at whatever age they can reasonably be said to be fully aware of all the possible consequences of their decision.

Obviously this means that there are many people under the age of 18 (and sometimes as young as 12) who fall into this category, and also many over that age who do not, such as the severely mentally disabled.
 
This is actually a difficult question. I think the age limit should be gradual so that you had to be 18 to deny life-saving treatment while younger children might be perfectly capable of deciding on less serious treatments.

I also think that parents should not be able to deny life-saving care for their children. Parents are guardians and stewards of their children, not owners, and by denying necessary care they fail their role.
 
That doesn't mean that you have no rights whatsoever, and are incapable of deciding anything at all for yourself until you turn 18. In the United States (at least in most states), we have granular age restrictions depending on the subject at hand. For something like this, somewhere between 14 and 16 seems appropriate IMO.

Who said they have no rights what so ever and are incapable of deciding anything? I certainly didnt LOL

Dont be dramatic, the bottom line is they are a minor and the parents get to make the call especially since the decision could involve live or death. now if you want to decide on which issues, have at it but 9 times out of 10 its up to the parents and or guardian as the child may not realize what his decision means just like about everything else
 
So, what are everyone's suggestions as to how to enforce life saving treatments on a 16 year old? Do you tie him/her down in order to administer chemotherapy? Do you have a guard in the room to ensure he/she doesn't escape?
 
So, what are everyone's suggestions as to how to enforce life saving treatments on a 16 year old? Do you tie him/her down in order to administer chemotherapy? Do you have a guard in the room to ensure he/she doesn't escape?

if thats whats needed, this is ALREADY done to adults found to have a unsound mind although most times they are sedated but this already goes on with adults and parents already do this to children in other ways already. 18 is the age unless they have separated themselves from their parents under which ever laws cover this.
 
I feel two ways about this: in theory and in principle, I believe adolescents are basically adults and should have a lot more rights than they currently have, attaining them gradually throughout adolescence rather than having none on their 17th birthday and then being slapped with all of them on their 18th.

As a mom of young adults who were recently teens, however, I'm aware that teenagers can be both ignorant and full of bravado. Sometimes they do not fully comprehend why a particular medical treatment is necessary, or what the consequences of refusing it might be.

I found that when my kids were being medically noncompliant and all my pleading was merely making them more stubborn and obstinate, they would listen to a doctor (or a nurse, or any medical personnel), and would then comply with whatever treatment was being recommended.

If that hadn't been the case, however, and even doctors had been able to persuade them to comply with treatment... then I don't know. It's a really tough situation, much more complex than it seems, on the surface.
One would hope that when it's a potentially life-threatening matter, teens could be somehow persuaded to follow medical recommendations. I'd hate to see them forced. Whether I'd support forcing them would really depend on what their reasons were for refusing.

With things like metastatic cancer, it's a different matter.
Many adults refuse treatment as well, as the odds of a complete cure are extremely negligible.

But if it's something like a teen who has cut himself on rusty metal refusing a tetanus shot... I'd almost be inclined to advocate force, if they were refusing only out of defiance, bravado, or a belief that they were immortal and nothing bad could ever happen to them.
 
if thats whats needed, this is ALREADY done to adults found to have a unsound mind although most times they are sedated but this already goes on with adults and parents already do this to children in other ways already. 18 is the age unless they have separated themselves from their parents under which ever laws cover this.

I seriously doubt that you could enforce this on a teenager. You are incorrect regarding the most likely scenario for a teen, which would likely be cancer treatments. Obviously, if they're unconscious and on life support, someone else will be making that decision for them. If the teen is an inpatient and refusing a procedure, seriously, I can't envision the healthcare team strapping down a post pubescent young person.
 
I seriously doubt that you could enforce this on a teenager. You are incorrect regarding the most likely scenario for a teen, which would likely be cancer treatments. Obviously, if they're unconscious and on life support, someone else will be making that decision for them. If the teen is an inpatient and refusing a procedure, seriously, I can't envision the healthcare team strapping down a post pubescent young person.

Like i said this is already done in some cases now so no im not incorrect.
No whether it should be done? we can debate that of course but it is in fact done alread to children and adults alike.
 
Like i said this is already done in some cases now so no im not incorrect.
No whether it should be done? we can debate that of course but it is in fact done alread to children and adults alike.

Provide a link to show me a case where a teenager was forced to take chemo against his or her will. I'd like to see how they managed to enforce that.
 
18, as others have said. I believe that parents should be able to refuse treatment at any age. If a doctor believes treatment necessary, however, the parents should have to sign a waiver indicating that they are opening themselves up to prosecution if their child dies or is permanently harmed by their refusal.
 
18, as others have said. I believe that parents should be able to refuse treatment at any age. If a doctor believes treatment necessary, however, the parents should have to sign a waiver indicating that they are opening themselves up to prosecution if their child dies or is permanently harmed by their refusal.

And do you support the medical community's current policy of conveying pseudo-adult status upon minor parents (those under the age of 18), and allowing them to refuse/ dictate the course of treatment both for themselves and for their children?
 
And do you support the medical community's current policy of conveying pseudo-adult status upon minor parents (those under the age of 18), and allowing them to refuse/ dictate the course of treatment both for themselves and for their children?

That's another hairy situation. Yet, on the other hand, for some reason the law gives full adult status to any pregnant girl, no matter how young, in deciding to abort her baby. That is a glaring inconsistency IMO.
 
That's another hairy situation. Yet, on the other hand, for some reason the law gives full adult status to any pregnant girl, no matter how young, in deciding to abort her baby. That is a glaring inconsistency IMO.

It goes far beyond that.
A girl in labor, of any age, makes her own labor and delivery plan.
It's not like her parents can intervene and say, "Nope, no Demerol for her. No episiotomy. No epidural."
After her child is born, she- not her parents- must make decisions about circumcision, etc.
And all future medical decisions, from there on out, for herself and her child. Future contraception for herself, if any. Immunizations for the child. Etc.
 
Last edited:
And do you support the medical community's current policy of conveying pseudo-adult status upon minor parents (those under the age of 18), and allowing them to refuse/ dictate the course of treatment both for themselves and for their children?

I don't know enough about how those cases are handled to give you an intelligent answer. If you know where I can find some information I'd appreciate it.
 
18, as others have said. I believe that parents should be able to refuse treatment at any age. If a doctor believes treatment necessary, however, the parents should have to sign a waiver indicating that they are opening themselves up to prosecution if their child dies or is permanently harmed by their refusal.

Prosecuting the parents isn't going to bring the child back to life. Why should the state wait for a tragedy to occur before it prosecutes criminal negligence?
 
Provide a link to show me a case where a teenager was forced to take chemo against his or her will. I'd like to see how they managed to enforce that.

LMAO did I say chemo, I said treatment in general, its done to both kids and adults sorry you dont believe this fact but its true none the less LOL. Ive also seen it done and it was also done to my uncle once he tried to commit suicide in the hospital, after that all rights were given to my mom his sister as he wished in time of unconsciousness etc., and he was always monitored and forced the drugs his sister wanted for him even though he was aware but deemed unsound as he was trying to kill himself instead of get well.
 
LMAO did I say chemo, I said treatment in general, its done to both kids and adults sorry you dont believe this fact but its true none the less LOL. Ive also seen it done and it was also done to my uncle once he tried to commit suicide in the hospital, after that all rights were given to my mom his sister as he wished in time of unconsciousness etc., and he was always monitored and forced the drugs his sister wanted for him even though he was aware but deemed unsound as he was trying to kill himself instead of get well.

We did have a big debate over an incident that happened a few years ago: a construction worker in New York was bumped on the head and went to the ER with a possible concussion.
The staff wanted to give him a rectal exam, for some reason.
I think they said it had something to do with the vertebrae in his neck and back; they wanted to see if he had any injuries to the spine before moving him (don't ask me how they could tell that via a rectal exam).
He refused. They restrained him, sedated him against his will, and did it anyway.
He was suing the hospital.
The hospital's excuse for their actions was that they thought he might be disoriented from his concussion, and therefore incapable of giving informed consent to treatment, so they just went ahead and administered the examination against his will.
I never heard what the resolution of this case was (actually, I may have; I believe the patient lost his suit).

Anyway, that shows that it is a dicey legal area.
Hospitals can administer unwanted treatment, if they don't think the patient is mentally competent to refuse or consent to it.
But if the patient feels they were in error to do so, he has grounds for legal action against them.
 
We did have a big debate over an incident that happened a few years ago: a construction worker in New York was bumped on the head and went to the ER with a possible concussion.
The staff wanted to give him a rectal exam, for some reason.
I think they said it had something to do with the vertebrae in his neck and back; they wanted to see if he had any injuries to the spine before moving him (don't ask me how they could tell that via a rectal exam).
He refused. They restrained him, sedated him against his will, and did it anyway.
He was suing the hospital.
The hospital's excuse for their actions was that they thought he might be disoriented from his concussion, and therefore incapable of giving informed consent to treatment, so they just went ahead and administered the examination against his will.
I never heard what the resolution of this case was (actually, I may have; I believe the patient lost his suit).

Anyway, that shows that it is a dicey legal area.
Hospitals can administer unwanted treatment, if they don't think the patient is mentally competent to refuse or consent to it.
But if the patient feels they were in error to do so, he has grounds for legal action against them.

I agree its a "grey area" I was just letting that other person know that his example already happens and it does

Its a grey area but i believe parent should always have the right to decide for minors and if you are deemed of unsound mind then treatment can be forced but when doing so if the patient has NO ONE else to speak for them, that deeming process should be of the hospital and a objective outside source unless of course in immediate life and death situation
 
Back
Top Bottom