Court forcing 16 yr old with cancer into chemo

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I think what disturbs me sometimes is how "minors" are perceived. Under legal age does not mean someone is incapable of making an adult decision about their own life. I believe a 16 year old can be of mature mind *and* body when deciding to have sex with someone, even if they are a minor. I believe a 16 year old can be of mature mind *and* body (sound, etc.) when making a medical decision. And regardless of whether chemo really is the best course of action, he has a right to decide whether he wants to be put through the treatment again. If it was so horrible an experience that he'd risk his own life to pursue alternative (and very likely less effective) treatments, he should have that right. If he'd rather chance dying than live through chemo again, I respect that.

My mother's boss died of colon cancer because he decided that his quality of life would be so degraded after the surgery, he'd rather die than live. He was an older man and so had the legal right to make that decision. I think a mature 16 year old, rational and sane, should be able to make a similar decision. I think I believe that freedom to choose how one lives his life is more important than life itself. And I believe in the right to have some say in how I fight to live or how I choose to die if there's a potential expiration date in clear sight.

If he lives, he'll probably be grateful to those who forced him to undergo the chemo. Maybe someday I'll eat my own words. But I still think it's a horrible thing to do to someone. 16 isn't 6, after all.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

I think what disturbs me sometimes is how "minors" are perceived. Under legal age does not mean someone is incapable of making an adult decision about their own life. I believe a 16 year old can be of mature mind *and* body when deciding to have sex with someone, even if they are a minor. I believe a 16 year old can be of mature mind *and* body (sound, etc.) when making a medical decision. And regardless of whether chemo really is the best course of action, he has a right to decide whether he wants to be put through the treatment again. If it was so horrible an experience that he'd risk his own life to pursue alternative (and very likely less effective) treatments, he should have that right. If he'd rather chance dying than live through chemo again, I respect that.

My mother's boss died of colon cancer because he decided that his quality of life would be so degraded after the surgery, he'd rather die than live. He was an older man and so had the legal right to make that decision. I think a mature 16 year old, rational and sane, should be able to make a similar decision. I think I believe that freedom to choose how one lives his life is more important than life itself. And I believe in the right to have some say in how I fight to live or how I choose to die if there's a potential expiration date in clear sight.

If he lives, he'll probably be grateful to those who forced him to undergo the chemo. Maybe someday I'll eat my own words. But I still think it's a horrible thing to do to someone. 16 isn't 6, after all.

The law has to apply to all equally, not to just the mature 16 year olds. So where do you draw the line between adult and child? Can an exceptional 10 year old be mature? I certainly know people over 18 who should not be making life changing decisions for themselves. As a society we have to pick some point as the age of adulthood. Where would you place that mark?

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

The law has to apply to all equally, not to just the mature 16 year olds. So where do you draw the line between adult and child? Can an exceptional 10 year old be mature? I certainly know people over 18 who should not be making life changing decisions for themselves. As a society we have to pick some point as the age of adulthood. Where would you place that mark?

I know 'legal age' is tricky, Moonliner. It's trying to make black and white something that cannot be black and white. And though I understand the need for rules and laws, I think that there has to be room for exceptions and/or flexibility. In this particular case, didn't the parents support their child's decision? Certainly in the case of abortion, I feel that a minor has the right to make that decision for herself because I don't believe a court of law should be able to force anyone to have a baby that's unwanted.

And, yeah, I realize that opens up a much larger can o' worms.

When it comes to who is an "adult" and who isn't, at least when the law gets involved, I think it needs to be reviewed case by case. Drawing a line makes sense, but being completely inflexible about that line just doesn't make sense to me.

[Alex]

Would feelings be the same if instead of "alternative treatments" the boy and his family had decided on no treatment and certain death (leaving aside whether the alternative treatment he is persuing is essentially the same as no treatment)?

Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists have faced this many times over the decades as they, for religious reasons, reject medical treatments that are considered the only death preventative for their children.

Is there a substantive difference between "Being 15 and of reasonably sound mind, I am rejecting this potentially life saving treatment in favor of Dr. (in botany) Hornerminer who is doing amazing things with auras and homeopathy" and "Being 15 and of reasonably sound mind, I am rejecting this potentially life saving treatment because god speaks to me and told me to."

What if the only reason the teenager believes in the alternative treatment is because he trusts his altnernative-believing parents more than doctors?

Very murky with big problems to either approach. Should ability to receive a driver's license be handled as part of a case-by-case review so that a precocious 14 year old can drive? Should I have to go through a competency exam to prove that at 23 I'm mature enough to drink legally? A political literacy test to show that I should have been allowed to vote at 15 but my coworker should still be deprived of the franchise at 32?

However, I consider suicide to be an acceptable rational decision and that in most cases the parents rather than the state should be the final arbiters. So while I think that family's decision is wrong I generally think it is their choice to make it while also believing that almost no 16 year old is sufficiently mature to truly make such decisions on their own.

I also find it interesting that they call it Abraham's Law and not Starchild's Law. (I'm sure the kid goes by Abraham but I tend to think that even if he hadn't it would still be Abraham's Law or something else.)