In the US and many other countries, the freedom of children to participate in medical decisions has repeatedly been overlooked.
(Huntington and Elizabeth 178). The state has completely authorized and charged their parents with the responsibility of making decisions regarding their children's health rather than allowing the adolescents to do so. (Huntington and Elizabeth 178). None of the federal or state governments make an effort to promote and safeguard the health of young people or to ensure that they are not deprive of any rights or freedoms.
While parents and the elderly are free to make their own decisions regarding the prescription of medicines and the direction of health care, the privileges are not accorded to the adolescents.
(Baines 120). Although specific provisions are awarded to the older minors like family planning without the conscience of the parents and families, the medical rights of the juvenile are seriously infringed (Huntington and Elizabeth 179). This paper takes a categorical stand that the teenagers should be allowed to make a personal verdict on health matters without intimidation or strictness for assistance by their paternities.
Reasons for Allowing Making of Medical Decisions for Themselves
Baseless Arguments on the Reasons for Denying Adolescents the Right to Medical judgments
The desire to give parents full authority to undertake medical decisions on behalf of the teens root from various assumptions,
first that parents are more experienced, mature, and endowed with more capable of making a sound judgment on health as compared to the adolescents (Debora and Grisworld 327). The second aspect is that the natural bond of affection between the parties prompts the parentages to act on the interest of their children and finally, the minors are ever loyal and have never resisted the implementation of the rule allowing the paternities to have full authority in the judgment of health issues for their teens.
From the assumptions, it is clear that the reasoning was too general without considering the existence of mature minors who can make sound medical decisions for themselves
(Huntington and Elizabeth 183). Based on the family law perspectives, a mature child is the one who is a 'grown up and capable of understanding as well as internalizing the nature and consequences of therapies or lack of treatments' (Debora and Grisworld 326). However, the suppositions of the court on juvenile's medical issues in many states have neglected the existence of mature minors.
Mature minors are fully informed and aware of the reasons for accepting or rejecting particular medical decisions and treatments that are most effective to them
(Debora and Grisworld 325). For instance, a reckon of a scenario where a parent insisted that his daughter would undergo the menstrual test having seen an irregularity in the menstrual cycles explains this situation. Because the child had initially received a medroxyprogesterone acetate injection to control birth, the pregnancy test was automatically negative (Debora and Grisworld 326). The case makes it apparent that the daughter was aware of the outcome of the medroxyprogesterone acetate injection as it would delay her pregnancy for some period. As a result, there should be a complete change of attitude to restore the liberty of adolescents to make self- medical judgments.
The Adolescents, Just Like Adults need to Have a Full Freedom of Medical Choice
It is very clear from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)'s policy statement that all the patients should be allowed to take part in decision making that is relating with their development while providing individual assents where possible (Debora and Grisworld 326). Also, the parents are restricted from barring and excluding the adolescents from health decision-making unless it is for severe substantive and persuasive reasons for doing so. Moreover, the AAP committee of bioethics affirms that there should be an agreement and consultation of the teens especially on the matters of their health (Debora and Grisworld 326). Further, the AAP argues that the minors especially from fourteen years old and above have got fully established decisional skills just like adults that would enable them to make sound healthcare decisions.
The Move to Deny The Adolescents Chance to Participate Medical Decisions Appear Biased
Notably, the parents are given a full mandate to accept or reject the type of treatment to be administered to their children, and the practitioners seek their conscience as the priority (Debora and Grisworld 327). However, sometimes the teens are deprived such privileges as their parentages are left to be involved in such practices on their behalf (Baines 124). The same idea is being opposed by the AAP in its policy statement that parents' permission is insufficient for involuntary of the older mature adolescents (Debora and Grisworld 328). Taking note that old adolescents would be informed on the effects of individual health treatment programs, it is fair to uphold and consider their assent and input before such performances.
Allowing Parents to Have Full Control of Adolescent's Medical Decisions Would Create an Ethical Dilemma
Sometimes, the authority given to the parents to have full responsibility for championing and controlling the medical judgments would compromise the whole upholding of the health ethos and its standards (Baines 123). For instance, the notion would jeopardize the privacy rights of the minors, an example that is highly condemned by the healthcare laws. In reminiscence, a typical case occurred when a Haitian-American father decided to visit a clinic with his sister together with his fifteen-year-old daughter (Debora and Grisworld 327). Keen to note, Haitians were made up of Catholics origins who were cautious with the virginity aspects. Therefore, he had visited the clinics for a pelvic examination to ascertain the virginity of the daughter since he believed that a man who was staying in his home would have had intercourse with his spawn.
The issue appeared tempting and critical to handle since the daughter had denied the father's accusations, terming them as baseless (Debora and Grisworld 327). Hence, the attending practitioners were in an extreme situation of a dilemma. In case the doctor would proceed to conduct the pelvic examination for virginity assessment in the presence of the father as he commanded, the girl's privacy would be compromised since the father had promised to be there during the exercise together with his sister (Debora and Grisworld 328). Under ethical and legal principles, the doctor could not perform the activity in the presence of the father, an instance that created a moral dilemma of upholding the confidentiality of clients.
In the Criminal Justice Systems, the Adolescents are Treated Almost in a Similar Manner as the Adults; hence a Similar Instance Should be in Healthcare
In the criminal justice system, there is almost a similar treatment of the old and the minors (Debora and Grisworld 325). For instance, the existence of juvenile justice system performs a similar role of incarcerating the offending youths just like the adult prisons, courts, and custody. Also, the juveniles have the same safeguard process as the old people irrespective of the juries trial while persistently offending adolescents are being waived to the adult's courts and treated as grown-ups (Debora and Grisworld 325). At some point, capital punishments are bestowed on the young criminals that are leading to the death sentence.
Just as it appears in the criminal justice systems, the healthcare sector should allow the teenage to exercise their right of choosing their preferred medical judgment. Furthermore, the bottom line of detaining the youths is that they have been in a position of identifying annoying characters, hence subjected to a real hardship and experience that would make them avoid their misconduct (Debora and Grisworld 326). The same notion should apply in the Medical pronouncement scenario.
Sometimes, Parents May Make Medical Decisions That Hinder the Interest of the Adolescents
Under the particular circumstance, the parentages would show partiality in their judgments and finally forcing the teens to abide by the decisions. In reckon, the Texas phenomenon introduces a case where a sixteen years old lady became pregnant out of her wish (Goldbas 79). Conversely, the parents were against the move and hesitated to force her to have an abortion. Fortunately, the lady on the court case since she intended to acquire the baby. Even though the law requires that whenever a minor purports to have an abortion that she has to seek for the permission and authority of the paternities, this was a particular instance where it was the parents demanding for an abortion contrary to the child (Goldbas 80). Therefore, were it not for the court injunction, the lady's desire to have a baby would be ruined. As a result, the young individuals should be left at liberty to make independent health judgments.
The Medical Rights of the Adolescents are Complicated
Eminently, the medical rights of teens appear complicated in different countries (Goldbas 81). In the US and many other states, for instance, individuals of below 18 years and above are considered juvenile and are deprived of making medical decisions (Goldbas 82). However, in the cases such as STDs, drug abuse, and emotional problems, the US has expanded the years in which the youths make their personal medical decision. The bottom line is that adolescents cannot obtain medical attention in the absence and exclusion of their parents. Under such circumstances, the freedom of the significant minors to make a sound choice of their treatment is subverted.
The Adolescents are Transitioning to Adulthood and Make Their Personal Decisions
Often, adolescents are concerned with making individual decisions, especially when transiting to adulthood. A study conducted by Pyke-Grimm on 15-25-year-old teens who were within cancer diagnosis period and were prone to the medical judgment by parents like surgery unearthed that the adolescents are sometimes disinterested with their parentages who suggest treatment techniques for them (Austin, n.p). In this essence, the minors are striving to act independently.
Overall, the adolescents should be included in the critical medical decisions affecting them.
Among the reasons for maintaining their assents is the existence of baseless arguments on the reasons for excluding the teens on medical decisions and also the juveniles have a freedom of preferred medical choice just like adults. There are biases in the move to barre children from participating in their medical judgments, the possibility of creating an ethical dilemma if parentages are left to intervene, and variability in treating the teenagers between criminal justice system and healthcare sector. Under specific scenarios, parents make decisions that conflict the interests of the juvenile, a complicated nature of children's medical rights, and the urgency to create an independent judgment while the teenagers are transitioning to adulthood. Therefore, it is highly paramount for the court system and clinics to value the freedom of adolescents to enable them to have a stake in their medical pronouncements.
Work Cited
Austin, Diana. "How can adolescents and young adults with cancer make treatment decisions?."Science of Caring, 2017, p. 1. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.tru.ca/login? url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=124458734&site=edslive.
Baines, Paul Bruce. Making medical decisions for children: ethics. Diss. University of Birmingham, 2016.
Goldbas, Abbie. "Whose body is it anyway?." International Journal of Childbirth Education 28.2 (2013).
Griswold, Deborah P., and David B. Griswold. "Minors' rights to refuse medical treatment requested by their parents: Remaining issues." Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners 12.8 (2000): 325-328.
Huntington, Clare, and Elizabeth Scott. "Children's health in a legal framework." The Future of Children 25.1 (2015): 177-197.
