Teens-Cancer-Informed Consent: E.G. and C.C. A Tale of Progressive & Nebulous Legal Theories

[Procrustes Stretched]

Teens-Cancer-Informed Consent: E.G. and C.C. A Tale of Progressive & Nebulous Legal Theories

mature minor rule or the mature minor doctrine​

There is a thread in this forum (Law and justice System). In the Opening Post we have this statement by drifter: "In one instance she is allowed to do what she wants with her body ( as in abortion), but in another instance she is not allowed to seek a medical alternative if she wants to." which is basically what a large segment of the posts in that thread are arguing and debating. You also get a few legal discussions, more than a few political and ideological rants, and some just plain world-wide-web stuff. In that atmosphere, many fine and well thought out arguments get lost. Fine as in excellent and/or first rate

Court Denies Teen’s Wish to Refuse Cancer Treatment

But are these arguments legal arguments?

I'd like to see if others understand and wonder about the legal concepts as well as the political and ideological repercussions of the legal arguments. An example of what Dante is wondering is do people who argue drifter's original position if a minor has a right to an abortion "based on it being her body her choice, she should have the right to choose her medical care." know they are mimicking a progressive legal argument? A progressive legal argument I would say is considered by consensus of medical and legal professionals to be at best -- nebulous. As a legal concept it is at best, nebulous.

Isn't supporting the mature minor doctrine, tantamount to supporting activist courts?

At first glance, if principle is to rule the day, arguing for a minor to be judged to be cognitively mature enough to truly understand the consequences of their choice, their actions, demands consistency, but...

I'll go further f there is genuine interest in the legal concept and what it all means.

and E.G.? Ernestine Gregory: Exploration for physicians of the mature minor doctrine. - PubMed - NCBI https://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2006/(DM)MatureMinor.pdf Teen s Religion Raises Life-and-death Questions - Page 2 - Chicago Tribune http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/786.full.pdf

we've been down this road before......................................

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Teens-Cancer-Informed Consent E.G. and C.C. A Tale of Progressive Nebulous Legal Theories US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Michelle420]

The medical field has no right at all to force medicine on an Adults.
A Patient's Right to Refuse.

A. Liberty Interests

The AMA decision is essentially a refusal of medical care. The competent adult patient has the right to refuse care. In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, the United States Supreme Court determined that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest to refuse medical treatment. The court concluded that the U.S. Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse life saving medical treatment including nutrition and hydration.

B. PrivacyThe right to refuse medical treatment may also be based on the fundamental right of privacy found in the state constitutions. For examples see: In Re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990); and In Re Crabtree, No.86-0031 (HA Fam. Ct., April 26, 1990). However the right to privacy may be outweighed by other competing interests.

Patient Safety Risk Management Performance Improvements for Healthcare Professionals.

If a minor in Ct can : Marry with parent consent, once they are married are they considered an adult? If so, then are they suddenly mature enough to decide a legal choice for their body, but perhaps the week before they weren't?

1. The legal age, or age of majority, to marry in Connecticut is 18. Minors ages 16 and 17 can marry with written consent from one parent or legal guardian. The parent or legal guardian must sign a written consent form in front of an authorized state official.
2. A minor can have an abortion without medical liability worries from doctors
3. A minor can join the military

Army

• Be between the ages of 17-34. *
• Have no more than two dependents.
• Pass the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude test. (Minimum AFQT Score: 31)
• Are You Eligible to Join the Military Military.com

Wisconsin
Section 1 of the proposed law stated:

895.50 THE RIGHT TO DIE

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person may request any person 14 years of age or older to terminate the life of the requestor. Any such request may be either oral or written. Any person terminating the life of a requestor, pursuant to a valid request, shall not be civilly liable for his actions and shall not be considered in violation of ss. 940.01 to 940.09.
2. Prior to requesting another person to terminate the requestor’s life, the requestor, if married, shall notify his spouse of his decision. Permission from the spouse shall not be a condition precedent to making a valid request to die.
3. (a) A person under 7 years of age shall not be able to make a valid request to have his life terminated under sub. (1).
   (b) A person 7 years of age or older but under 18 years of age shall notify his parents or guardian, whichever is applicable, prior to requesting another person to terminate the requestor’s life. Permission from such parents or guardian shall not be a condition precedent to making a valid request to die.
4. Assisted Suicide Not for Adults Only Patients Rights Council

 

[Michelle420]

I still believe in consistency.

I hope she gets treatment and gets better and decides to stick with it.

BUT that aside, changes nothing in what I see as inconsistent, it should be her decision.

She is 17 and it's her body her right and in other instances the Law would agree.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The medical field has no right at all to force medicine on an Adults.

we're not talking about adults

 

[Michelle420]

The medical field has no right at all to force medicine on an Adults.

we're not talking about adults

We are talking about why do minors get to make legal choices for their bodies in some instances but not others.

After all, if a 17 in the military goes to war he/she risks dying.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

She is 17 and it's her body her right and in other instances the Law would agree.

What instances and what law(s)?

Her body, her right? What legal concept(s) are you referring to?

 

[Michelle420]

She is 17 and it's her body her right and in other instances the Law would agree.

What instances and what law(s)?

Her body, her right? What legal concept(s) are you referring to?

I posted them already, if you don't want to acknowledge my point say so.

I already know you get my point

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The medical field has no right at all to force medicine on an Adults.

we're not talking about adults

We are talking about why do minors get to make legal choices for their bodies in some instances but not others.

After all, if a 17 in the military goes to war he/she risks dying.

here is what I am talking about:

The "mature minor doctrine" is the common-law rule that allows an adolescent who is mature to give consent for medical care. Ethical decisions regarding consent and confidentiality should be distinguished from legal requirements.

Recent court decisions have altered the law, especially in regard to consent for refusal of life-sustaining treatment.

There are statutory exceptions to the rule of parental consent regarding emergency care, sexually transmitted diseases, drug treatment, mental health care, pregnancy, contraception, and emancipation.

A detailed analysis of the mature minor exception is presented, utilizing court case vignettes. There is minimal legal risk in allowing adolescents older than 14 years of age to give consent for treatments entailing small degrees of risk, when they can make adultlike decisions and demonstrate signs of maturity.

Exploration for physicians of the mature minor doctrine. - PubMed - NCBI​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

She is 17 and it's her body her right and in other instances the Law would agree.

What instances and what law(s)?

Her body, her right? What legal concept(s) are you referring to?

I posted them already, if you don't want to acknowledge my point say so.

I already know you get my point

Your point? "I'll go further f there is genuine interest in the legal concept and what it all means."

But are these arguments legal arguments?

I'd like to see if others understand and wonder about the legal concepts as well as the political and ideological repercussions of the legal arguments. An example of what Dante is wondering is do people who argue drifter's original position if a minor has a right to an abortion "based on it being her body her choice, she should have the right to choose her medical care." know they are mimicking a progressive legal argument? A progressive legal argument I would say is considered by consensus of medical and legal professionals to be at best -- nebulous. As a legal concept it is at best, nebulous.

Isn't supporting the mature minor doctrine, tantamount to supporting activist courts?​

 

[Michelle420]

The medical field has no right at all to force medicine on an Adults.

we're not talking about adults

We are talking about why do minors get to make legal choices for their bodies in some instances but not others.

After all, if a 17 in the military goes to war he/she risks dying.

here is what I am talking about:

The "mature minor doctrine" is the common-law rule that allows an adolescent who is mature to give consent for medical care. Ethical decisions regarding consent and confidentiality should be distinguished from legal requirements.

Recent court decisions have altered the law, especially in regard to consent for refusal of life-sustaining treatment.

There are statutory exceptions to the rule of parental consent regarding emergency care, sexually transmitted diseases, drug treatment, mental health care, pregnancy, contraception, and emancipation.

A detailed analysis of the mature minor exception is presented, utilizing court case vignettes. There is minimal legal risk in allowing adolescents older than 14 years of age to give consent for treatments entailing small degrees of risk, when they can make adultlike decisions and demonstrate signs of maturity.

Exploration for physicians of the mature minor doctrine. - PubMed - NCBI​

Is there very little risk when you join the military during war time? Because that is also a choice a 17 yr old is allowed to make that has more than minimal risk, they could die. There are no guarantees.

https://law.newark.rutgers.edu/files/u/MilitaryRecruitingReportConLitFinal.pdf

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The medical field has no right at all to force medicine on an Adults.

we're not talking about adults

We are talking about why do minors get to make legal choices for their bodies in some instances but not others.

After all, if a 17 in the military goes to war he/she risks dying.

here is what I am talking about:

The "mature minor doctrine" is the common-law rule that allows an adolescent who is mature to give consent for medical care. Ethical decisions regarding consent and confidentiality should be distinguished from legal requirements.

Recent court decisions have altered the law, especially in regard to consent for refusal of life-sustaining treatment.

There are statutory exceptions to the rule of parental consent regarding emergency care, sexually transmitted diseases, drug treatment, mental health care, pregnancy, contraception, and emancipation.

A detailed analysis of the mature minor exception is presented, utilizing court case vignettes. There is minimal legal risk in allowing adolescents older than 14 years of age to give consent for treatments entailing small degrees of risk, when they can make adultlike decisions and demonstrate signs of maturity.

Exploration for physicians of the mature minor doctrine. - PubMed - NCBI​

Is there very little risk when you join the military during war time? Because that is also a choice a 17 yr old is allowed to make that has more than minimal risk, they could die. There are no guarantees.

https://law.newark.rutgers.edu/files/u/MilitaryRecruitingReportConLitFinal.pdf

We are speaking about medical issues. If you want to debate emancipation of teens at a much younger age that is totally different and there is no significant support for such an idea out there in the world.

If you are arguing consistency as it pertains to emancipation you are still speaking of another issue. Not all things are equal. Society will allow young adults one thing and not another for varying reasons. Historically there has \never been support for consistency in the way you are arguing, if only because of how nuanced the real world is

 

[Michelle420]

The medical field has no right at all to force medicine on an Adults.

we're not talking about adults

We are talking about why do minors get to make legal choices for their bodies in some instances but not others.

After all, if a 17 in the military goes to war he/she risks dying.

here is what I am talking about:

The "mature minor doctrine" is the common-law rule that allows an adolescent who is mature to give consent for medical care. Ethical decisions regarding consent and confidentiality should be distinguished from legal requirements.

Recent court decisions have altered the law, especially in regard to consent for refusal of life-sustaining treatment.

There are statutory exceptions to the rule of parental consent regarding emergency care, sexually transmitted diseases, drug treatment, mental health care, pregnancy, contraception, and emancipation.

A detailed analysis of the mature minor exception is presented, utilizing court case vignettes. There is minimal legal risk in allowing adolescents older than 14 years of age to give consent for treatments entailing small degrees of risk, when they can make adultlike decisions and demonstrate signs of maturity.

Exploration for physicians of the mature minor doctrine. - PubMed - NCBI​

Is there very little risk when you join the military during war time? Because that is also a choice a 17 yr old is allowed to make that has more than minimal risk, they could die. There are no guarantees.

https://law.newark.rutgers.edu/files/u/MilitaryRecruitingReportConLitFinal.pdf

We are speaking about medical issues. If you want to debate emancipation of teens at a much younger age that is totally different and there is no significant support for such an idea out there in the world.

If you are arguing consistency as it pertains to emancipation you are still speaking of another issue. Not all things are equal. Society will allow young adults one thing and not another for varying reasons. Historically there has \never been support for consistency in the way you are arguing, if only because of how nuanced the real world is

The only point you are making is that laws have been changed to say that in medical procedures with low risk, kids at 14 deemed mature enough are allowed to give consent for treatment.

So?

You are not interested in the age rights for refusal of treatment?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

we're not talking about adults

We are talking about why do minors get to make legal choices for their bodies in some instances but not others.

After all, if a 17 in the military goes to war he/she risks dying.

here is what I am talking about:

The "mature minor doctrine" is the common-law rule that allows an adolescent who is mature to give consent for medical care. Ethical decisions regarding consent and confidentiality should be distinguished from legal requirements.

Recent court decisions have altered the law, especially in regard to consent for refusal of life-sustaining treatment.

There are statutory exceptions to the rule of parental consent regarding emergency care, sexually transmitted diseases, drug treatment, mental health care, pregnancy, contraception, and emancipation.

A detailed analysis of the mature minor exception is presented, utilizing court case vignettes. There is minimal legal risk in allowing adolescents older than 14 years of age to give consent for treatments entailing small degrees of risk, when they can make adultlike decisions and demonstrate signs of maturity.

Exploration for physicians of the mature minor doctrine. - PubMed - NCBI​

Is there very little risk when you join the military during war time? Because that is also a choice a 17 yr old is allowed to make that has more than minimal risk, they could die. There are no guarantees.

https://law.newark.rutgers.edu/files/u/MilitaryRecruitingReportConLitFinal.pdf

We are speaking about medical issues. If you want to debate emancipation of teens at a much younger age that is totally different and there is no significant support for such an idea out there in the world.

If you are arguing consistency as it pertains to emancipation you are still speaking of another issue. Not all things are equal. Society will allow young adults one thing and not another for varying reasons. Historically there has \never been support for consistency in the way you are arguing, if only because of how nuanced the real world is

The only point you are making is that laws have been changed to say that in medical procedures with low risk, kids at 14 deemed mature enough are allowed to give consent for treatment.

So?

You are not interested in the age rights for refusal of treatment?

Too arbitrary. Too simple. Life isnt that simple. Too many variables. Not all minors are equal in mental acuity, cognitive functions, maturity

 

[Michelle420]

The medical field has no right at all to force medicine on an Adults.

we're not talking about adults

We are talking about why do minors get to make legal choices for their bodies in some instances but not others.

After all, if a 17 in the military goes to war he/she risks dying.

here is what I am talking about:

The "mature minor doctrine" is the common-law rule that allows an adolescent who is mature to give consent for medical care. Ethical decisions regarding consent and confidentiality should be distinguished from legal requirements.

Recent court decisions have altered the law, especially in regard to consent for refusal of life-sustaining treatment.

There are statutory exceptions to the rule of parental consent regarding emergency care, sexually transmitted diseases, drug treatment, mental health care, pregnancy, contraception, and emancipation.

A detailed analysis of the mature minor exception is presented, utilizing court case vignettes. There is minimal legal risk in allowing adolescents older than 14 years of age to give consent for treatments entailing small degrees of risk, when they can make adultlike decisions and demonstrate signs of maturity.

Exploration for physicians of the mature minor doctrine. - PubMed - NCBI​

Is there very little risk when you join the military during war time? Because that is also a choice a 17 yr old is allowed to make that has more than minimal risk, they could die. There are no guarantees.

https://law.newark.rutgers.edu/files/u/MilitaryRecruitingReportConLitFinal.pdf

We are speaking about medical issues. If you want to debate emancipation of teens at a much younger age that is totally different and there is no significant support for such an idea out there in the world.

If you are arguing consistency as it pertains to emancipation you are still speaking of another issue. Not all things are equal. Society will allow young adults one thing and not another for varying reasons. Historically there has \never been support for consistency in the way you are arguing, if only because of how nuanced the real world is

I am not talking about emancipation.

All of the legal acts a 17 yr can do is not based on emancipation, it's just their legal right to do it.

The only thing they seem to not have the right to do is to refuse medical treatment.

It makes no sense. Why would they be allowed to decide all those other things I listed, some even risky decisions.

If the legal argument for forcing medical treatment is because of the state worrying about liability, why isn't that true in abortion?

If the legal argument is mature state of mind to understand the decision to refuse treatment, then why isn't that legal argument there when recruiters are trying to sign up 17 yr old for military (risk being they could die in war)

Anyway, you obviously have some different agenda so, I will let you get to it.


Salute

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not talking about emancipation. All of the legal acts a 17 yr can do is not based on emancipation, it's just their legal right to do it. The only thing they seem to not have the right to do is to refuse medical treatment.

It makes no sense.

Why would they be allowed to decide all those other things I listed, some even risky decisions. If the legal argument for forcing medical treatment is because of the state worrying about liability, why isn't that true in abortion? If the legal argument is mature state of mind to understand the decision to refuse treatment, then why isn't that legal argument there when recruiters are trying to sign up 17 yr old for military (risk being they could die in war)

Anyway, you obviously have some different agenda so, I will let you get to it.
Salute

drifter sorry to say, you ARE doing what you say you are NOT doing: you are arguing about emancipation of minors:

Emancipation of minors
All states have laws dealing with the "emancipation" of minors; that is, laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents for important legal purposes. A complete reference to statutory provisions for all 50 states, pertaining to termination of parental rights, age of majority or emancipation itself, can be found in the LII State Law pages.

Emancipation of minors Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
​

"It makes no sense." Yes it does.

The rest of your post is about who has custody of a minor -- before they are emancipated

 

[Michelle420]

I am not talking about emancipation. All of the legal acts a 17 yr can do is not based on emancipation, it's just their legal right to do it. The only thing they seem to not have the right to do is to refuse medical treatment.

It makes no sense.

Why would they be allowed to decide all those other things I listed, some even risky decisions. If the legal argument for forcing medical treatment is because of the state worrying about liability, why isn't that true in abortion? If the legal argument is mature state of mind to understand the decision to refuse treatment, then why isn't that legal argument there when recruiters are trying to sign up 17 yr old for military (risk being they could die in war)

Anyway, you obviously have some different agenda so, I will let you get to it.
Salute

drifter sorry to say, you ARE doing what you say you are NOT doing: you are arguing about emancipation of minors:

Emancipation of minors
All states have laws dealing with the "emancipation" of minors; that is, laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents for important legal purposes. A complete reference to statutory provisions for all 50 states, pertaining to termination of parental rights, age of majority or emancipation itself, can be found in the LII State Law pages.

Emancipation of minors Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
​

"It makes no sense." Yes it does.

The rest of your post is about who has custody of a minor -- before they are emancipated

Nope!

Sorry but you don't need emancipation to have an abortion, and you don't need it to join the military at 17, and you don't need it for gender reassignment surgery either.

You need a parent's consent for gender reassignment, and for marriage as a minor.

Not for abortion or military.

But you want to argue about the law in regards to minors legal choices on "low risk" medical treatments.

The key word there is low risk, I doubt there is much legal controversy on that.

I am wanting to know why the law allows minors to decide "life altering" decisions in one instance and not the other.

Since this is not what you are interested in Dante I will unwatch this thread because otherwise I would be hijacking your thread into something else you are not interested in and that is not what I want to do.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not talking about emancipation. All of the legal acts a 17 yr can do is not based on emancipation, it's just their legal right to do it. The only thing they seem to not have the right to do is to refuse medical treatment.

It makes no sense.

Why would they be allowed to decide all those other things I listed, some even risky decisions. If the legal argument for forcing medical treatment is because of the state worrying about liability, why isn't that true in abortion? If the legal argument is mature state of mind to understand the decision to refuse treatment, then why isn't that legal argument there when recruiters are trying to sign up 17 yr old for military (risk being they could die in war)

Anyway, you obviously have some different agenda so, I will let you get to it.
Salute

drifter sorry to say, you ARE doing what you say you are NOT doing: you are arguing about emancipation of minors:

Emancipation of minors
All states have laws dealing with the "emancipation" of minors; that is, laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents for important legal purposes. A complete reference to statutory provisions for all 50 states, pertaining to termination of parental rights, age of majority or emancipation itself, can be found in the LII State Law pages.

Emancipation of minors Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
​

"It makes no sense." Yes it does.

The rest of your post is about who has custody of a minor -- before they are emancipated

Nope!

Sorry but you don't need emancipation to have an abortion, and you don't need it to join the military at 17, and you don't need it for gender reassignment surgery either.

You need a parent's consent for gender reassignment, and for marriage as a minor.

Not for abortion or military.

But you want to argue about the law in regards to minors legal choices on "low risk" medical treatments.

The key word there is low risk, I doubt there is much legal controversy on that.

I am wanting to know why the law allows minors to decide "life altering" decisions in one instance and not the other.

Since this is not what you are interested in Dante I will unwatch this thread because otherwise I would be hijacking your thread into something else you are not interested in and that is not what I want to do.

Okay, I see where you are confused. The minor gets permission from the state/adult because they have not reached the age of maturity, emancipation. This is why they "don't need emancipation to have an abortion," and why "they don't need it to join the military at 17," and why "they don't need it for gender reassignment surgery." In place of it they get a waiver that the law allows. Why does the law allow this? Because.

and there is the Age of majority which is enumerated in state laws for specific purposes. If you presented your arguments to the court, saying what you do is not a legal arguments and would change nothing. How would you frame the argument? What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Would you demand all things be consistent. too funny

 

[Michelle420]

I am not talking about emancipation. All of the legal acts a 17 yr can do is not based on emancipation, it's just their legal right to do it. The only thing they seem to not have the right to do is to refuse medical treatment.

It makes no sense.

Why would they be allowed to decide all those other things I listed, some even risky decisions. If the legal argument for forcing medical treatment is because of the state worrying about liability, why isn't that true in abortion? If the legal argument is mature state of mind to understand the decision to refuse treatment, then why isn't that legal argument there when recruiters are trying to sign up 17 yr old for military (risk being they could die in war)

Anyway, you obviously have some different agenda so, I will let you get to it.
Salute

drifter sorry to say, you ARE doing what you say you are NOT doing: you are arguing about emancipation of minors:

Emancipation of minors
All states have laws dealing with the "emancipation" of minors; that is, laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents for important legal purposes. A complete reference to statutory provisions for all 50 states, pertaining to termination of parental rights, age of majority or emancipation itself, can be found in the LII State Law pages.

Emancipation of minors Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
​

"It makes no sense." Yes it does.

The rest of your post is about who has custody of a minor -- before they are emancipated

Nope!

Sorry but you don't need emancipation to have an abortion, and you don't need it to join the military at 17, and you don't need it for gender reassignment surgery either.

You need a parent's consent for gender reassignment, and for marriage as a minor.

Not for abortion or military.

But you want to argue about the law in regards to minors legal choices on "low risk" medical treatments.

The key word there is low risk, I doubt there is much legal controversy on that.

I am wanting to know why the law allows minors to decide "life altering" decisions in one instance and not the other.

Since this is not what you are interested in Dante I will unwatch this thread because otherwise I would be hijacking your thread into something else you are not interested in and that is not what I want to do.

Okay, I see where you are confused. The minor gets permission from the state/adult because they have not reached the age of maturity, emancipation. This is why they "don't need emancipation to have an abortion," and why "they don't need it to join the military at 17," and why "they don't need it for gender reassignment surgery." In place of it they get a waiver that the law allows. Why does the law allow this? Because.

and there is the Age of majority which is enumerated in state laws for specific purposes. If you presented your arguments to the court, saying what you do is not a legal arguments and would change nothing. How would you frame the argument? What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Would you demand all things be consistent. too funny

Because why? (shakes my head)



Age of majority is just a fancy way to say 18 or 19 yrs old legal adult.

1. The "age of majority" is the legal age established under state law at which an individual is no longer a minor and, as a young adult, has the right and responsibility to make certain legal choices that adults make.

State Age of Majority
Alabama 19
Alaska 18
Arizona 18
Arkansas 18 or graduation from high school, whichever is later
California 18
Colorado 18
Connecticut 18
Delaware 19
District of Columbia 18

What Is the Age of Majority in My State


I am not a law student, but maybe Emily will pop in and take that on.

I simply pointed out the inconsistencies of law especially applied to the 17 yr old and wanted to know the reasons why.

The answers people gave me really don't justify the inconsistencies in the laws.

How would you frame the argument? Asserting Your Right to Give/Withhold Consent, The Right to Choose Your Treatment.

Although the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty, this right is not always honored. A refusal can be thwarted either because a patient is unable to competently communicate or because providers insist on continuing treatment. To help enhance the patient's right to refuse treatment, many states have enacted so-called "living will" or "natural death" statutes. We believe the time has come to move beyond these current legislative models, and we therefore propose a Model Act that clearly enunciates an individual's right to refuse treatment, does not limit its exercise to the terminally ill or to heroic measures, and provides a mechanism by which individuals can set forth their wishes in advance and designate another person to enforce them. The right to refuse treatment a model act.

What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Why does it have to show advantages, why not show the disadvantage someone is at who loses their right to their own choices?

Would you demand all things be consistent. Yes, afterall, ------> absolutist

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not talking about emancipation. All of the legal acts a 17 yr can do is not based on emancipation, it's just their legal right to do it. The only thing they seem to not have the right to do is to refuse medical treatment.

It makes no sense.

Why would they be allowed to decide all those other things I listed, some even risky decisions. If the legal argument for forcing medical treatment is because of the state worrying about liability, why isn't that true in abortion? If the legal argument is mature state of mind to understand the decision to refuse treatment, then why isn't that legal argument there when recruiters are trying to sign up 17 yr old for military (risk being they could die in war)

Anyway, you obviously have some different agenda so, I will let you get to it.
Salute

drifter sorry to say, you ARE doing what you say you are NOT doing: you are arguing about emancipation of minors:

Emancipation of minors
All states have laws dealing with the "emancipation" of minors; that is, laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents for important legal purposes. A complete reference to statutory provisions for all 50 states, pertaining to termination of parental rights, age of majority or emancipation itself, can be found in the LII State Law pages.

Emancipation of minors Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
​

"It makes no sense." Yes it does.

The rest of your post is about who has custody of a minor -- before they are emancipated

Nope!

Sorry but you don't need emancipation to have an abortion, and you don't need it to join the military at 17, and you don't need it for gender reassignment surgery either.

You need a parent's consent for gender reassignment, and for marriage as a minor.

Not for abortion or military.

But you want to argue about the law in regards to minors legal choices on "low risk" medical treatments.

The key word there is low risk, I doubt there is much legal controversy on that.

I am wanting to know why the law allows minors to decide "life altering" decisions in one instance and not the other.

Since this is not what you are interested in Dante I will unwatch this thread because otherwise I would be hijacking your thread into something else you are not interested in and that is not what I want to do.

Okay, I see where you are confused. The minor gets permission from the state/adult because they have not reached the age of maturity, emancipation. This is why they "don't need emancipation to have an abortion," and why "they don't need it to join the military at 17," and why "they don't need it for gender reassignment surgery." In place of it they get a waiver that the law allows. Why does the law allow this? Because.

and there is the Age of majority which is enumerated in state laws for specific purposes. If you presented your arguments to the court, saying what you do is not a legal arguments and would change nothing. How would you frame the argument? What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Would you demand all things be consistent. too funny

Because why? (shakes my head)



Age of majority is just a fancy way to say 18 or 19 yrs old legal adult.

1. The "age of majority" is the legal age established under state law at which an individual is no longer a minor and, as a young adult, has the right and responsibility to make certain legal choices that adults make.

State Age of Majority
Alabama 19
Alaska 18
Arizona 18
Arkansas 18 or graduation from high school, whichever is later
California 18
Colorado 18
Connecticut 18
Delaware 19
District of Columbia 18

What Is the Age of Majority in My State


I am not a law student, but maybe Emily will pop in and take that on.

I simply pointed out the inconsistencies of law especially applied to the 17 yr old and wanted to know the reasons why.

The answers people gave me really don't justify the inconsistencies in the laws.

How would you frame the argument? Asserting Your Right to Give/Withhold Consent, The Right to Choose Your Treatment.

Although the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty, this right is not always honored. A refusal can be thwarted either because a patient is unable to competently communicate or because providers insist on continuing treatment. To help enhance the patient's right to refuse treatment, many states have enacted so-called "living will" or "natural death" statutes. We believe the time has come to move beyond these current legislative models, and we therefore propose a Model Act that clearly enunciates an individual's right to refuse treatment, does not limit its exercise to the terminally ill or to heroic measures, and provides a mechanism by which individuals can set forth their wishes in advance and designate another person to enforce them. The right to refuse treatment a model act.

What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Why does it have to show advantages, why not show the disadvantage someone is at who loses their right to their own choices?

Would you demand all things be consistent. Yes, afterall, ------> absolutist

Of course the inconsistencies are justified. You just don't agree with the justifications. The reason states differ is because of the US Constitution: powers reserved to the states.

Minors do not have the Right to Give/Withhold Consent anymore than they have the right to vote or sign legal contracts. You keep confusing minors as equal to adults. Under law, common law, that has never been so.