Yossarian
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 121
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?