Children and Medical Descisions

[The Ninja]

Should minors be aloud to make their own medical descisions or atleast intervene if they don't agree with what there parents decide.

So go ahead, debate.

[Amnesiac]

Should minors be aloud to make their own medical descisions or atleast intervene if they don't agree with what there parents decide.

So go ahead, debate.

Kids should always have a say in medical decisions involving them. It's their body. Still, they're not fully responsible enough to make every decision until they're teenagers (let's say 14).

[Jess]

they should have a say....basically Commander Awesome said it all for me :S

[Sith Lord 13]

Reasonable say in proportion with age, with full rights kicking in at 18.

[Korashk]

Yes, unless said child has given medical power of attorney to his or her parents.

[Sith Lord 13]

Yes, unless said child has given medical power of attorney to his or her parents.

To what degree should they have control? Should a kid be able to refuse vaccines because they don't like needles?

[Korashk]

To what degree should they have control? Should a kid be able to refuse vaccines because they don't like needles?
Complete. Yes.

[Sith Lord 13]

Complete. Yes.

Care to give reasons?

[Korashk]

Care to give reasons?
Children are individuals, and as individuals should be afforded the rights given to individuals, such as being able to make choices for themselves, however stupid those choices may be. As of now children are basically slaves until the age of 17/18 or legal emancipation. Slavery isn't something that would be allowed by my personal ideology.

[Sith Lord 13]

Children are individuals, and as individuals should be afforded the rights given to individuals, such as being able to make choices for themselves, however stupid those choices may be. As of now children are basically slaves until the age of 17/18 or legal emancipation. Slavery isn't something that would be allowed by my personal ideology.

Should an unconscious person not receive medical treatment for fear of them having preferred not to receive it? Current medical ethics dictate making decisions based on what someone with the best functioning cognition would choose. Children don't have the best functioning cognition. When they're an adult, they're gonna be thankful for those shots.

[Hockeyplayer1]

Children should be allowed to have the final say on elective procedures. Anything that is life threatening should be left to the caregiver.

[The Ninja]

To what degree should they have control? Should a kid be able to refuse vaccines because they don't like needles?


If two divorced parents dont agree on a medical treatment for their child they can argue it out in court. So if the parents don't agree with what the child is saying, the same should apply. A judge should decide whether the medical descision is good or bad, like you were saying about the vaccines, if the child doesn't want the vaccine do to fear of needles a judge should rule in favor of the parents because there is no rational reason for the child not to get the vaccine.

[Amnesiac]

If two divorced parents dont agree on a medical treatment for their child they can argue it out in court. So if the parents don't agree with what the child is saying, the same should apply. A judge should decide whether the medical descision is good or bad, like you were saying about the vaccines, if the child doesn't want the vaccine do to fear of needles a judge should rule in favor of the parents because there is no rational reason for the child not to get the vaccine.

One could even argue that a child not accepting a vaccine puts the public in danger of catching whatever disease it protects against. That's a valid fear — when a person crosses the line into infringing the rights or health of others, they must comply for the good of the community.

[The Ninja]

One could even argue that a child not accepting a vaccine puts the public in danger of catching whatever disease it protects against. That's a valid fear — when a person crosses the line into infringing the rights or health of others, they must comply for the good of the community.

Just like it violates the rights of the people around that person it also violates the right of the person who refuses the vaccine. The way I see it though, if you have the vaccine you're not going to get sick even if you're around someone who doesn't have the vaccine. In other words your safe if you have the vaccine, but if you don't you will have a higher chance of getting sick.

[Amnesiac]

Just like it violates the rights of the people around that person it also violates the right of the person who refuses the vaccine. The way I see it though, if you have the vaccine you're not going to get sick even if you're around someone who doesn't have the vaccine. In other words your safe if you have the vaccine, but if you don't you will have a higher chance of getting sick.

Well, let's set up a hypothetical situation. There's a new disease going around, and the government mandates everyone to get vaccinated to prevent it from spreading. A whimpy kid uses this newfound legal power to deny a vaccination. Do we let him get away with his pathetic fear of needles, putting the lives of people around him at risk, or do we vaccinate him by force? In my opinion, when the lives of others are at risk because of the decisions of one person, that person must give in to protect those around him/her.

[Sith Lord 13]

Well, let's set up a hypothetical situation. There's a new disease going around, and the government mandates everyone to get vaccinated to prevent it from spreading. A whimpy kid uses this newfound legal power to deny a vaccination. Do we let him get away with his pathetic fear of needles, putting the lives of people around him at risk, or do we vaccinate him by force? In my opinion, when the lives of others are at risk because of the decisions of one person, that person must give in to protect those around him/her.

Kid dies, everyone who got the vaccine is fine.

[Deathwingo0o]

Rules are made to be ignored when there are lives at stake.

[Sith Lord 13]

Rules are made to be ignored when there are lives at stake.

While your intent is admirable, no. Rules are more important in that time. Rules are generally designed to promote health and safety. Rules prevent us from panicking and making the wrong decision.

[The Ninja]

Well, let's set up a hypothetical situation. There's a new disease going around, and the government mandates everyone to get vaccinated to prevent it from spreading. A whimpy kid uses this newfound legal power to deny a vaccination. Do we let him get away with his pathetic fear of needles, putting the lives of people around him at risk, or do we vaccinate him by force? In my opinion, when the lives of others are at risk because of the decisions of one person, that person must give in to protect those around him/her.

Kid dies, everyone who got the vaccine is fine.

Sith Lord 13 said pretty much what I said, if the kid contracts the disease he will die (supposing it is life threatening :P) along with anyone around him who has refused the vaccine, but those around him who have the vaccine will be fine (that is the point of vaccines).

I have no idea why the fuck im arguing with you though I mean I did pretty much agree with you that there is no rational reason for the kid not to get the vaccine, unless of course there is a possible side-effect, so a judge would more than likely rule favorably towards the parents. This is supposing the parents are challenging the childs descision. If they agree with no vaccination I think its there right not to get the kid the vaccine, unless of course the kid wants the vaccine. In which case he would challenges his parents in court.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
If two divorced parents dont agree on a medical treatment for their child they can argue it out in court. So if the parents don't agree with what the child is saying, the same should apply. A judge should decide whether the medical descision is good or bad, like you were saying about the vaccines, if the child doesn't want the vaccine do to fear of needles a judge should rule in favor of the parents because there is no rational reason for the child not to get the vaccine.

[Church]

Really depends, a child may not understand fully and if he refuses it can have consequences down the road, so in cases a parent should have control over it. If they had right to completely refuse treatment then kids wouldn't get shots etc.

A kid may not want to get sliced up to get the cancer out but its for the best.

[shalmedsimm]

Minors must not be allowed to take medical decisions. Their are various drawbacks. I don't think we need to list the drawbacks. It is just understood.

[Korashk]

Should an unconscious person not receive medical treatment for fear of them having preferred not to receive it? Current medical ethics dictate making decisions based on what someone with the best functioning cognition would choose.
When dealing with those able to make decisions that are currently unable to make decisions, yes.

Children don't have the best functioning cognition. When they're an adult, they're gonna be thankful for those shots.
While true, doesn't matter.

[Fiction]

I think that adults should legally have the choice of the treatment of their child, although I think that the age that turns a child into an adult in this case is not 18. I know that in the UK for non life saving treatment, you have to sign to say you agree to having the treatment from the age of 12. I think that parents should discuss treatment with their children and make a decision together although unfortunatly this wouldn't always happen.
Basically I think it totally depends on the situation and maturity of the child.

[Dunce]

A child should always have a say, definitely, but not be able to make a full decision. They're just not old enough to know or understand whats best for them.