Should adolescents be allowed to refuse life-saving treatment? (Specify reasoning)

I said no. Reason being that, as an adolescent, I know how we over dramatize things. If something happened to where we would need life saving treatment, there are some girls who would just want to die because they had to cut off all their hair or something of the like.
In addition, I think the parents should be involved until they're legal adults.

RESPECT LIFE
SMILE EVERY DAY
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa

I said yes. Quite frankly, one's body is one's body - it doesn't belong to anyone else and no one should be able to tell you what you can and can't do with it. If you'd like to refuse treatement, refuse treatment. It doesn't cause me any grief.

-acertainsaint-

I said yes. Although I don't what the poll means by "life saving treatment." If that refers to being put on a respirator for the rest of my life, I certainly don't think I should have to do that. But if it's a one and done operation, of course I'd consent. Respectlife does bring up a valid legal point though- as minors, are adolescents allowed to make such a decision without parental consent?

I agree with A Certain Saint. One's own body is their own. Yeah, some adolescents are stupid. If they decide to do something stupid, it's their fault. End of story. At least that stupidity won't be passed on to the next generation, thus continuing that stupidity and stunting our evolution.

Besides, contrary to popular belief, teenagers AREN'T all stupid.

I hate to stereotype people, but adolescents do the dumbest things and are capable of making horrible decisions. They can't vote, they can't drink, they can't smoke, they mostly can't drive, but they should have the right to end their lives? The reason adolescents are under the care of their parents is because as a society we realize they're just not capable of handling their own lives, regardless of how mature they think they are. Some can, but most can't and it's only when they're older that they can look back and think how much more mature and rational they are now. How many kids would have never made it to adulthood if they controlled their own lives?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I suppose I do not see the problem if the person happens to be facing his/her fifth round of chemo. and has all the facts and a bit of rationalism. Should the parents have the right to pro long suffering in this manner? I do not see this as ending their life but as being an adult for a few minutes.

How would this even be regulated for?

There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin

1) Not all adolescents are stupid.
2) My parents should not be able to decide what happens to my body. They're obviously going to be fighting to the end for my life, but if I'm really on the edge of death, it would seem to me to be an act of maturity to say 'no, this is enough. I'm ready to die'. Death isn't a horrible thing... it's just a natural phase of life. Some people can accept that, and others can't.
3) In the end, it probably doesn't make a difference one way or the other. Doctors can force a treatment onto someone by getting two (medical) opinions that the person was not of sound mind. If an adolescent is making the decision, and neither the doctors, nor the parents, agree, something can be done to reverse that decision.

~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!

I don't think adolescents are mature enough to make such a decision.

*~*~*~*~
I need some more input from y'all here in this forum topic: A ProgressiveU Radio Show/Podcast

I think this is an idea that can improve the ProgressiveU community and add a new dimension to t

I said "other," because I think it's really situational. Not only does it depend on what's considered "life-saving treatment," but it also highly depends on the person in question.

A superficial person would "just die" without so-and-so or such-and-such, and may even play up the whole matter (regardless of age) if they don't fully understand the weight of the matter at hand.

On the other hand, most people understand the weight of the matter when told "you will die if you don't get this treatment." And if the person is enduring enough pain and suffering and there's no prospect of getting better even with the life-saving treatment, then I think the option should be left open.

Like mvenus said, a lot of parents will fight tooth and nail to keep their child alive (as the saying often goes, "parents shouldn't have to bury their babies"). In some (many?) cases, the parents' fight for their child's life may completely disregard the child's quality of life. Yeah, you're kid's alive, but she'll never be able to live on her own and will require help just to take a piss for the rest of her life because she'll no longer have the mental or physical capacity to do so on her own.

Like others have said, I agree that one's body is their own and no one else's. That being said, there is a limit. I don't think people younger than 13 should be allowed to make those decisions, but from 13-18, it should be allowed.

http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/srhs-bandchic
^^^^ Take a peek ^^^^

If an adolescent wish to make the choice about life ending treatment then they need to be emancipate and leave on their own so they can make those decisions. Other then that I believe until 18 they need to fall under their parents directions and with any luck the parents will talk to their kids that have horrible life saving treatment that will prolong death but not return the child back to normal.

"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein

"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749

...because of the fact that it is possible (though admittedly rare) for an adolescent to emancipate from his or her parents, and may be a afforded the rights of a legal adult at an earlier-than-usual age.

If you are a minor, then any major medical decision rightly belongs to and should be made by your parents or legal guardians. If you are of the age of majority, however, then that decision should be yours to make, alone.

TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

When I went through all the medical stuff as a teenager, treatment decisions were my decisions. My mother and grandmother stood by those choices when I made them because it was my health we were dealing with and they knew I would make the decision I felt were best for me. Certainly they could have negated my decisions at any time, but at the end of the day, it was my health in question and they wanted it to be my decision as much as it could be. I still think I made the right decisions for me and appreciate that I was given the chance to make those decisions myself.

When it's your life or health in question; you should have a say so long as you're making those decisions realistically (ie: deciding not to have brain surgery because you don't want to lose your hair would not, to me, qualify as realistic). For most people, teenagers included, when you find out there's something that could be potentially fatal you aren't thinking in terms of the superficial but about the realities of what that can mean. You want to know the risks of treatment, the risks without treatment, etc. You may be upset about potential hair loss or the like... but that's not typically what sways you to one side or another. Contrary to popular belief, when it comes to life or death decisions, teenagers aren't complete morons. They deserve a little more credit than that.

-----
"Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence" - Amiel

"The beginning of thought is in disagreement -- not only with others but also with ourselves" - Hoffer
-----

When i was 14 i was very ill, and in fact was dying. The doctors wanted to do a spinal tap and drain the excess cerebro-spinal fluid out of my spine. I knew the risks of permanent paralysis. I was in a lot of pain. For weeks the only words that came out of my mouth were, "I want to die." the pain had altered my level of consciousness, and I was not able to really process. All i knew was they wanted to hurt me more and I might not ever be able to walk again. I begged them not to do it. My mother signed the consents and they did it anyway. I remember sobbing and shaking while they did it, them telling me to stay still (if I moved too much, the chances of paralysis were much greater). I couldn't be still. I was in pain.

Anyway, it saved my life, i was cured and healed. In that instance, had it been my choice, i would have died.

In other instances, such as long term treatments for terminal illnesses, I think the issue gets cloudy. Why should a child be forced to have chemo or surgery, especially if the prognosis is not clear, or the treatment is only buying time, and not likely to cure the person?

In essence, I like Fallon's answer. I see it really as a family decision, and I would hope that most families would take the feelings of the child into consideration, and not prolong suffering if the person is tired of it. I think it might be necessary sometimes to bring in a counselor in order to dig through all the complex facts and emotions that go along with having a long-term, life threatening illness.

If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!

I don't want to go into details

“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
http://pakistaniat.com/2008/01/01/heer-ranjha-the-story-of-punjabs-first...

I said yes because all people have the right to decide their own life. When any "life-saving" treament is performed, it is that person, regardless of age, who has to deal with any complications or consequences of the situation. I am aware that minor encompasses all under the age of 18 in the U.S., however, we all have a right to consult our parents/guardians and give consent according to whaat we understand and believe is right.

... but I guess what i really mean to say is that i don't think any treatment should be forced on a person, no matter what their age. Some parents will do anything, try any experimental treatment to save their child, and this is understandable: no parents want to bury their child. In the grand scheme of things, it's just not natural. If you're child doesn't want to be poked, prodded and in constant pain, let them have some sort of dignity. That being said, I have to agree that sometimes, teens are not the most rational. I don't think that anyone, no matter how old, would choose their hair over their life (if this is the case, then i would consider them mentally incompetent to make the decision either way); I have found that when people are faced with life and death situations, they tend to think a little more clearly. Do I think a 7 year old should be able to choose-- probably not, but then again, it's really about maturity. You'd be surprised what some 7 year olds know about their world. The point is, the question really comes to down to the individual, but I cast my vote on the assumption that the adolescent in this hypothetical is a mentally aware, relatively mature person. If this is the case, then yes. What happens to your body is your decision.

Why should a parent be allowed to make a decision that will impact the rest of their lives? Maybe in certain cases if it is a young child the parent should make the decision, but if the person is over sixteen they should be allowed to make their own decisions. If they are old enough to drive why can't they make life decisions. If a parent makes a life changing decision and then the child turns eighteen it could be to late to reverse that decision.