Evidently you do not.
The
mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so.[1] . . . .
Jurisdictions may codify an age of medical consent, accept the judgment of licensed providers regarding an individual minor, or accept a formal court decision following a request that a patient be designated a mature minor, or may rely on some combination. For example, patients at least 16 may be assumed to be mature minors for this purpose,[3] patients aged 13 to 15 may be designated so by licensed providers, and pre-teen patients may be so-designated after evaluation by an agency or court. The mature minor doctrine is sometimes connected with enforcing confidentiality of minor patients from their parents.[4]
en.wikipedia.org
Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.
The standard is based on the 1985 judicial decision of the House of Lords with respect to a case of the contraception advice given by an NHS doctor in
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority.[1] The case is binding in England and Wales, and has been adopted to varying extents in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.[2][3] . . . .
As a matter of law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed. — Lord Scarman[1]
en.wikipedia.org
Of particular interest - since they seem a little extreme -
as of 2013:
Perhaps the reasoning in those "regardless of age" cases was that if the child (regardless of capacity) agreed to the treatment and the doctor as an informed, responsible adult considered it appropriate, allowing it to be blocked by a generally less-informed parent against their child's wishes would be ethically dubious? Subject to the doctor still being liable for malpractice if the treatment really wasn't in the child's best interests and hence a reasonable presumption of good faith on their part, there's a case to be made that even those extreme-looking statutes are not
entirely unreasonable. Still, it would seem safer to have more moderate standards such as a refutable presumption requiring parental consent for preteens and statutory requirement for the doctor to ascertain the mental competence of teenagers and affirm the unreasonableness of acquiring parental consent.
On the other hand, your apparent belief that under-18s have no capacity to give informed consent is even more extreme and absurd than those "regardless of age" statutes! Kids are not property or animals or slaves. The right to self-determination is not based on an IQ test, it's based on the ability and desire to choose - even poorly - and should be limited
as little as possible. Allowing medical consent to teenagers isn't going to destroy society or drastically increase crime or disease or death rates (more likely the opposite), so it seems that most jurisdictions have wisely recognized that it's not an area where self-determination rights should be unilaterally abridged.
