Teen girl and mother fight the state over right to refuse chemo cancer treatment

[F4lconF16]

83. That's a little disingenuous.

There's a big difference between a life-threatening emergency and an accident that (clearly, in your case) does not merit hospitalization. No one would treat that as a suicide attempt, because you're not going to die.

I do agree with the general principle that no one should be forced to receive treatment if they do not want it, provided they are 18. Otherwise it should be the parent's decision, except if the parent's decision will lead to the death or injury of the child. I don't like what the state is doing, but I do think that there is a good legal basis to do so in this case and as the law stands at this time, as the teen is not yet an adult, and the decision will almost certainly lead to her death.

We need to have a discussion about at which age we give people legal control over their own bodies. In my opinion, that age should not be 18; there are many medical decisions that should be left to the patient. I think 16 is a reasonable age for this, as by then, most are old enough to understand of the consequences of refusing medical treatment. While I would like to give everyone full autonomy over what is done to them, younger children should still remain under the authority of their parents, because a 12- or 13-year-old is not going to be able to fully grasp medical situations the majority of the time.