Medical Age of Consent Act (Law'd)

[Badger]

Well, Fraser only covers contraception and abprtion.

"Although these criteria specifically refer to contraception, the principles are deemed to apply to other treatments, including abortion. Although the judgement in the House of Lords referred specifically to doctors, it is considered to apply to other health professionals, including nurses."

Although the guidelines were laid out in response to a legal challenge regarding abortion, they are clearly applicable to the overall issue we're currently debating.

So, what does the sponsor of this bill think re: codifying the Fraser standard rather than a hard and fast age limit which would both give discretion to immature older teens while taking it away from mature competent younger teens.

Bump.

Anyone? I want to gauge the chamber's feelings on this before potentially offering an amendment.

So, correct me if I'm wrong; it's late and I'm tired, but this would create a panal of people who would decide on individual cases if a person is mature enough to make the decision?
(Sorry, I have a feeling I'm way off on this)

Yep, you are.

No, codifying the Fraser guidelines would give standards for medical professionals to follow. There are already panels like this set up; they're called courts. And as with adult cases, in situations where the pressing need for medical care disallows time for even an emergency hearing, the doctor's best medical decision takes precedence.

[tmthforu94]

Yep, you are.

No, codifying the Fraser guidelines would give standards for medical professionals to follow. There are already panels like this set up; they're called courts. And as with adult cases, in situations where the pressing need for medical care disallows time for even an emergency hearing, the doctor's best medical decision takes precedence.

Looking back, that sure was a stupid post.
Okay, that sounds like a decent plan for me. Doctors (usually) know best, and it would be smart to give them some power in this.

[Badger]

I propose the following amendment:

"The age of consent for a medical procedure or psychological treatment shall be 16. If the custodial parent or legal guardian of a 16 or 17 year old disagrees with their child regarding the application or withholding of medical or psychological care:

1) In all cases in which there is imminent threat to the life of the child, or imminent serious threat to the health of the child, the treating medical care provider shall administer or withhold such aid and/or medical or psychological treatment in accordance with the standard ethical and professional judgment of their field of medicine, regardless of whether such administering or withholding of such care is requested by the child and opposed by the parent or guardian, or vice-versa. A medical caregiver who administers such emergency medical or psychological care under this standard shall not be held criminally or civilly liable for that decision unless the decision to administer such care or the determination of imminent threat to the child's life or health is made recklessly.

2) In all other cases not involving such imminent threat to the child as described above, the child's wishes shall be enforced if a court finds the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

the young person will understand the professional's advice;
the young person has taken reasonable consideration of their parent(s) views on the application or denial of treatment;
unless the young person receives medical or psychological treatment, their physical or mental health, or both, are likely to suffer; OR the imposition of such medical or psychological care against their will is unlikely to have measurable health or psychological benefits; and
In the opinion of treating medical professionals the child rationally and coherently understands the benefits and risks of either accepting or refusing such treatment and that such decision by the child has some reasonable rational basis.

Nothing in this law shall effect current law regarding any medical procedure for which governing law determines to be a constitutional right, nor shall it affect

[MaxQue]

No, I refuse that.

It is saying "that is 18 unless the minor can prove he made a good choice"

I support 16, with what Badger wrote for 14 and 15 years old.

[Badger]

No, I refuse that.

It is saying "that is 18 unless the minor can prove he made a good choice"

But isn't that the point, or at least the overriding goal here? A minor should be protected from making a poor choice for medical care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about 18 with these provisions applying to 14-17 year olds? Off the top of my head personally I'd like to see a slightly higher standard of proof for 14-15 year olds. Maybe "clear and convincing" evidence (which is still less than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") for 14-15 year olds, and a mere preponderance (i.e. majority--50.1% likely) of the evidence for 16-17 year olds?

[MaxQue]

No, I refuse that.

It is saying "that is 18 unless the minor can prove he made a good choice"

But isn't that the point, or at least the overriding goal here? A minor should be protected from making a poor choice for medical care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about 18 with these provisions applying to 14-17 year olds? Off the top of my head personally I'd like to see a slightly higher standard of proof for 14-15 year olds. Maybe "clear and convincing" evidence (which is still less than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") for 14-15 year olds, and a mere preponderance (i.e. majority--50.1% likely) of the evidence for 16-17 year olds?

Well, someone there is not a medical decision who is better than the other choice, so, your plan is not applicable. Also, I know nobody who made a wrong medical decision as a 14 to 17 year old person. They are not stupid.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

At what point do patients in Atlasia cease to fall under paediatrics?

[afleitch]

At what point do patients in Atlasia cease to fall under paediatrics?

From dealing with peadiatricians IRL some are happy to be involved up to 18, others 16, others are more hazy and a few refuse to be the only medical specialist involved if patients are in puberty.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If nothing is to come from this by tomorrow I shall open a final vote.

[Badger]

If nothing is to come from this by tomorrow I shall open a final vote.

On my proposed amendment, I assume?

[Badger]

No, I refuse that.

It is saying "that is 18 unless the minor can prove he made a good choice"

But isn't that the point, or at least the overriding goal here? A minor should be protected from making a poor choice for medical care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about 18 with these provisions applying to 14-17 year olds? Off the top of my head personally I'd like to see a slightly higher standard of proof for 14-15 year olds. Maybe "clear and convincing" evidence (which is still less than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") for 14-15 year olds, and a mere preponderance (i.e. majority--50.1% likely) of the evidence for 16-17 year olds?

Well, someone there is not a medical decision who is better than the other choice, so, your plan is not applicable. Also, I know nobody who made a wrong medical decision as a 14 to 17 year old person. They are not stupid.

I'm not sure I understand your first comment re: applicability.

The issue isn't teenagers being "stupid", Max. It's about them lacking the same maturity and life experience as adults. I specifically wrote this amendment thinking: "OK, if Max had a medical decision to make and his guardians were foolishly counteracting his wishes, what legal standard would allow Max to prove he is mature and collected for his age and probably knows better than his parents as to what's in his best interests".

The problem is, Max, I guarantee that most 14-17 year olds are as mature and together as you and your friends. I know that sounds hella patronizing, but you know as well as I do it's true. If you're seeking that all 14 year olds--or even all 16-17 year olds--be given absolute free reign over medical decisions in lieu of their guardians without any evidence the minor is acting in the best interests of their health and welfare and in accordance with their doctors' advice, I just think that's going to open the door to some absolute tragedies.

I realize that on a forum where the median age hovers around 19-20 that this is not a popular sentiment, but I curmudgeonly stand by it.

Is there truly a problem in requiring 14-17 year olds making some proof of competency and maturity to make such important decisions over their parents wishes?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I propose the following amendment:

"The age of consent for a medical procedure or psychological treatment shall be 16. If the custodial parent or legal guardian of a 16 or 17 year old disagrees with their child regarding the application or withholding of medical or psychological care:

1) In all cases in which there is imminent threat to the life of the child, or imminent serious threat to the health of the child, the treating medical care provider shall administer or withhold such aid and/or medical or psychological treatment in accordance with the standard ethical and professional judgment of their field of medicine, regardless of whether such administering or withholding of such care is requested by the child and opposed by the parent or guardian, or vice-versa. A medical caregiver who administers such emergency medical or psychological care under this standard shall not be held criminally or civilly liable for that decision unless the decision to administer such care or the determination of imminent threat to the child's life or health is made recklessly.

2) In all other cases not involving such imminent threat to the child as described above, the child's wishes shall be enforced if a court finds the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

the young person will understand the professional's advice;
the young person has taken reasonable consideration of their parent(s) views on the application or denial of treatment;
unless the young person receives medical or psychological treatment, their physical or mental health, or both, are likely to suffer; OR the imposition of such medical or psychological care against their will is unlikely to have measurable health or psychological benefits; and
In the opinion of treating medical professionals the child rationally and coherently understands the benefits and risks of either accepting or refusing such treatment and that such decision by the child has some reasonable rational basis.

Nothing in this law shall effect current law regarding any medical procedure for which governing law determines to be a constitutional right, nor shall it affect

A vote is now opened on this admendment, Please vote, AYE, NAY, OR ABSTAIN.

[Badger]

AYE to the amendment.

[afleitch]

Aye.

I like the precise wording. I'm not going to divulge exactly why in case anyone trys to change it

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Hash]

aye

[Fritz]

Aye

[MaxQue]

No, I refuse that.

It is saying "that is 18 unless the minor can prove he made a good choice"

But isn't that the point, or at least the overriding goal here? A minor should be protected from making a poor choice for medical care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about 18 with these provisions applying to 14-17 year olds? Off the top of my head personally I'd like to see a slightly higher standard of proof for 14-15 year olds. Maybe "clear and convincing" evidence (which is still less than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") for 14-15 year olds, and a mere preponderance (i.e. majority--50.1% likely) of the evidence for 16-17 year olds?

Well, someone there is not a medical decision who is better than the other choice, so, your plan is not applicable. Also, I know nobody who made a wrong medical decision as a 14 to 17 year old person. They are not stupid.

I'm not sure I understand your first comment re: applicability.

The issue isn't teenagers being "stupid", Max. It's about them lacking the same maturity and life experience as adults. I specifically wrote this amendment thinking: "OK, if Max had a medical decision to make and his guardians were foolishly counteracting his wishes, what legal standard would allow Max to prove he is mature and collected for his age and probably knows better than his parents as to what's in his best interests".

The problem is, Max, I guarantee that most 14-17 year olds are as mature and together as you and your friends. I know that sounds hella patronizing, but you know as well as I do it's true. If you're seeking that all 14 year olds--or even all 16-17 year olds--be given absolute free reign over medical decisions in lieu of their guardians without any evidence the minor is acting in the best interests of their health and welfare and in accordance with their doctors' advice, I just think that's going to open the door to some absolute tragedies.

I realize that on a forum where the median age hovers around 19-20 that this is not a popular sentiment, but I curmudgeonly stand by it.

Is there truly a problem in requiring 14-17 year olds making some proof of competency and maturity to make such important decisions over their parents wishes?

There is no problem in that, except than this assume than the parent is always right, but the procedure is too heavy with judges and lawyers. I would like something simple like: if the teenager agrees with the doctors, why involve a judge?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye

[MaxQue]

Aye

[Badger]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has passed, debate resumes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am opening up a final vote on this. Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.

[Hash]

Yes, you are.

AYE