Response to Students Choice

Should We Recognize a Child’s Right to Refuse Vital Medical Care?                                                  

The first article is about what age child should be deemed as able to make decisions concerning their right to refuse medical treatment. The article talks about a 13-year-old girl named, Hannah who won the right to refuse a heart transplant. Her story involves the support of her parents and a social worker who evaluated her, however and doesn’t speak to children who are parentless or whose parents disagree with their children. The article describes that there must be written consent to perform medical procedures and that when a consensus cannot be reached, parents, guardians, and in some cases, the courts perform medical procedures.
The second article pushes for the need for children to have rights at any and every age, allowing them to have the right to decide whether they want medical treatment at any age. It is a British article that explains that children should provide consent before medical procedure is done and that in some instances a child may be more competent than a parent. It talks about a 16-yr-old who refused to eat and had to be force-fed until her 16^th birthday.  
I believe that children, as individuals possess rights and liberties and its important that their rights be protected and respected. With that said, children have a lower mental capacity than adults and therefore there are laws that need to be in place in order to ensure that safety and well-being of children. Children under the age of 13 should be completely, and extensively informed, along with their parents, of any medical action being taken by medical authorities in any situation that is not a state of emergency. Children under the age of 13 should not be allowed to refuse medical treatment unless the parents or guardians of the child agree, or unless an extensive evaluation is performed that determines the child’s competence and true understanding of the affects of refusing treatment. In the case of a child that is under the age of 13 and has no legal guardians, if the child refuses, they should receive an extensive evaluation to determine if they are competent enough to understand the decision. If the child under 13 is deemed capable of making that choice, then the child along with the parent or legal guardian and if applicable, should be informed and explained in detail of the procedure and what it means to refuse the procedure. If a child is between 13 and 17, the child, along with their parents or legal guardians or lack there of should be explained in detail of the planned medical procedure. If the child refuses, then they should not be required to have the medical procedure, even if that means the child may die. If a child 13-17 does not have parents or a legal guardian and they refuse medical treatment, they should not, be required to receive medical treatment. The one exception to this rule is that any child 13-17 who refuses medical treatment must undergo an evaluation that determines whether they suffer from any mental illness. If there is no detected mental illness then they don’t have to receive the treatment.                                                                                                        I say the ages 13-17 because 13 is the age when we begin to charge children as adults in crimes, which means that it is acknowledged that persons of this age can make competent decisions that are usually made by adults. Likewise, they should be able to make decisions regarding their lives. I feel the cutoff age should be 17, because 18 is the age our country has determined is appropriate to defend a country and fight in war, so that should be an age where you are able to decide if you want to have a medical procedure performed without any intrusion from anyone.