Children Should Be Allowed Legally To Make Their Own Medical Decisions
Prepubescent/pubescent are underrated adults. Since adult independence begins at the age of eighteen, most medical decisions for the children under eighteen are being made by their parents. However, research has shown that children are capable of making 'adult' decisions by the age of eleven (e.g. medical decisions). Children should be allowed legally to make their own medical decision at the age of twelve because they are underrated, they are capable of great thinking at age eleven, and there are many pros that outweigh the cons.
Modern society does not give pubescents or prepubescents any faith. They are put off as people who do not know anything about the Real World and are not capable of making any sound decisions. There are many intelligent …show more content…
twelve year olds such as Charles Wang -- a boy who earned an 800 on his Math II, Biology, and Chemistry subject tests and scored five on the AP Biology, Chemistry, and Calculus BC exams before he turned twelve -- and Jacob Barnett -- a boy in college, IQ higher than Einstein’s, and working on an expanded version of Einstein’s theory of relativity (Davis; Seidl). If twelve year olds are capable of such superior achievements then they are of course more than likely to understand a basic surgery and such. Teenagers over the age of twelve, but under the age of eighteen are also underrated. Dr. Robert Epstein, a Harvard-trained psychologist, argues, “Adolescence is an artificial extension of childhood,” a man-made invention that was created after the Civil War (Wilkins). He argues that adults give teenagers the sense that they have no control over their lives (Wilkins). That adults believe teens are intrinsically irresponsible and risk-prone; that they are essentially incapable (Wilkins). He argues that adults believe that teenagers act a certain way because of underdeveloped brains when in reality, the brain does not mature until age twenty-five (Wilkins; Brain Maturity). If teenagers are allowed to make the decision to smoke -- which causes cancer and other health risks to yourself and other people --, if they are allowed to drive a car at age sixteen --which brings in the risk of causing serious harm to yourself and other people --, if they are allowed to work and make an income at age sixteen -- that can benefit themselves and other people -- , then why are people not allowed to make medical decisions regarding their own bodies at age twelve or higher? Why are teenagers allowed to make decisions that not only affect themselves, but the people around them as well? Dr. Epstein wrote a book named The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen where he wrote about how teens are veritably competent people who are not given enough responsibility—or credit—in modern society (Wilkins). He believes teenagers as young as twelve should be given every right that an adult has, so long as they are able to pass a government administered competency test (Wilkins). If they are able to take a standardized exam that tests them on what they’ve learned throughout the year then they are more than likely capable of taking a standardized exam testing them on their common sense and maturity.
According to Piaget’s Concrete Operational Stage of Development, children age eleven are able to manipulate ideas in their head, without any dependence on concrete manipulation, so they should be able to take a test that will decide whether or not they are mature enough to make at least 70-80% of their medical decisions (McLeod). If they pass the test, then People can assume they are capable of making their own sound decisions with an understanding of the basic medical procedures, if explained right of course. If medical professionals take the time to carefully explain the procedures, the symptoms/side effects, what it will be like, everything and anything regarding that procedure, then the child/teen will understand and make their decisions on what the doctor told them. Of course, the decisions they make should be major ones such as organ transplants, blood transfusions, the such. Of course, if they go to the doctor to get a physical but they do not want to because they do not feel like getting pricked in the finger then that decision should be left to the parent. The child/teen should be able to make the major, drastic decisions that will greatly affect them, not the measly small ones.
In my book, My Sister’s Keeper, Anna states, “The only reason I was born was as a harvest crop for Kate.” (Picoult 21). Anna feels that she was only born to be a living storage of organs for her sister Kate. In the later chapters, the readers find out that she was in fact created to be a harvest crop for Kate because her mother says, “Although I am nine months pregnant, although I have had plenty of time to dream, I have not really considered the specifics of this child. I have thought of this daughter only in terms of what she will be able to do for the daughter I already have…Then again, my dreams for her are no less exalted; I plan for her to save her sister’s life.” (Picoult 119). Sara explains to the reader how she does not see Anna as her daughter, as a human being, but as something that can be what saves Kate. The way Picoult wrote the book -- specifically Sara’s chapters -- makes the reader question her love as a mother, herself as a person. The way Sara omits Anna -- both her person and feelings --, the way she has tunnel vision when it comes to Kate -- it always comes to Kate --, the way she was so oblivious to how reserved and detached Anna appeared at the dinner table or that she even left the dinner table, how she asked Brain on how Kate looked because everything is always KateKateKate. Brian, of course, tells Sara that Kate is fine, but that Anna was not. Sara, of course, does not actually regard it because she only cares for Anna when Kate needs something. Sara neglects Anna until it is too late, until Anna files the lawsuit, until Kate needs a kidney and Anna does not give it up. That is when she “becomes” the loving mother -- even then, just barely --, that is when it is AnnaKateAnnaKate. People are able to get an understanding of everyone’s emotions throughout the book; as the reader continues deeper into the book, difficult questions arise such as Is this what is right?, Does this make them a horrible person?, Does this make me a horrible person for agreeing with them?, Now that I know all sides what is the correct decision?, Is there a correct decision? Picoult made the reader questions what is right and what is wrong, what the fine line between the two is, how everything affects everyone. She made sure to show everyone’s side, the good and the ugly, the pros and the cons. She made sure to help people understand all aspects of the situation that not only happens in the novel, but in real life as well.
There are many valuable pros and many lousy cons to allowing twelve year olds to make their own medical decisions. Pro: they become more knowledgable in the medical field, allowing them to spread their knowledge to other people -- which should be certified because medical professionals should be the only ones allowed to inform them on these issues. Con: some children are not able to comprehend what they are being told due to attention difficulties such as ADHD/ADD. Pro: If they do not pass the government-mandated test then they are not allowed to make serious medical decisions for themselves until they do. Con: Since it is a standardized test, the people who are not good at taking standardized tests but are very mature will find it rather difficult. Pro: trans* people will be able to take hormones if they please. Con: parents will become disgruntled when their child comes home with a higher/lower voice and facial/not much facial hair. Overall, there are not many cons that are majorly serious.
Admittedly, parents will be the ones to ostensibly disagree and go against children becoming medically emancipated.
The parents may question their child’s maturity, their child’s knowledge, and their child’s ability to work under pressure. Parents are the only people to see all aspects of their children. They are the ones that see all their personalities, they see them at their worst as well as their best. They are the ones that see how they behave, how they act under certain situations, how they respond to pressure. Nonetheless, parents are not the ones feeling what their child is feeling. They may believe that they are the “wise” ones regarding medical care, but are they really. How will they know what decision to make if they do not know what the one undergoing their decision feels mentally and physically? Take for example the situation where the little girl and her mother got in a car accident and were rushed to the hospital. The child wanted to live, she wanted a chance at life. Her mother on the other hand, did not want the doctor to make the blood transfusion because of religious purposes. If a person that is under eighteen happens to find themselves in this situation, should not they be the ones to decide what happens to their own body? Should not they themselves be the ones to decide if it is the quality of life that matters, not the quantity? It is their life, they are the ones that have to live in their body, they are the ones that have to live with the possible pain, and they are the ones that understand and feel and experience. They should be the ones to decide what they want for
themselves.
In conclusion, children twelve years and older should be able to make their own medical decisions that will affect their person greatly. Although modern society does not hold faith in pubescents/prepubescents, both Piaget, a famous developmental psychologist, and Dr. Robert Epstein, a Harvard-trained psychologist, have stated that children age eleven/twelve are capable of making great decisions and capable of conducting great thoughts; of course, there are many pros and cons to this, but ultimately the pros outweigh the cons. People believe that many children would not feel the need to be medically emancipated from their parents if their parents listened to them. A great suggestion: do not just hear a child, listen to them.
Modern society does not give pubescents or prepubescents any faith. They are put off as people who do not know anything about the Real World and are not capable of making any sound decisions. There are many intelligent …show more content…
twelve year olds such as Charles Wang -- a boy who earned an 800 on his Math II, Biology, and Chemistry subject tests and scored five on the AP Biology, Chemistry, and Calculus BC exams before he turned twelve -- and Jacob Barnett -- a boy in college, IQ higher than Einstein’s, and working on an expanded version of Einstein’s theory of relativity (Davis; Seidl). If twelve year olds are capable of such superior achievements then they are of course more than likely to understand a basic surgery and such. Teenagers over the age of twelve, but under the age of eighteen are also underrated. Dr. Robert Epstein, a Harvard-trained psychologist, argues, “Adolescence is an artificial extension of childhood,” a man-made invention that was created after the Civil War (Wilkins). He argues that adults give teenagers the sense that they have no control over their lives (Wilkins). That adults believe teens are intrinsically irresponsible and risk-prone; that they are essentially incapable (Wilkins). He argues that adults believe that teenagers act a certain way because of underdeveloped brains when in reality, the brain does not mature until age twenty-five (Wilkins; Brain Maturity). If teenagers are allowed to make the decision to smoke -- which causes cancer and other health risks to yourself and other people --, if they are allowed to drive a car at age sixteen --which brings in the risk of causing serious harm to yourself and other people --, if they are allowed to work and make an income at age sixteen -- that can benefit themselves and other people -- , then why are people not allowed to make medical decisions regarding their own bodies at age twelve or higher? Why are teenagers allowed to make decisions that not only affect themselves, but the people around them as well? Dr. Epstein wrote a book named The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen where he wrote about how teens are veritably competent people who are not given enough responsibility—or credit—in modern society (Wilkins). He believes teenagers as young as twelve should be given every right that an adult has, so long as they are able to pass a government administered competency test (Wilkins). If they are able to take a standardized exam that tests them on what they’ve learned throughout the year then they are more than likely capable of taking a standardized exam testing them on their common sense and maturity.
According to Piaget’s Concrete Operational Stage of Development, children age eleven are able to manipulate ideas in their head, without any dependence on concrete manipulation, so they should be able to take a test that will decide whether or not they are mature enough to make at least 70-80% of their medical decisions (McLeod). If they pass the test, then People can assume they are capable of making their own sound decisions with an understanding of the basic medical procedures, if explained right of course. If medical professionals take the time to carefully explain the procedures, the symptoms/side effects, what it will be like, everything and anything regarding that procedure, then the child/teen will understand and make their decisions on what the doctor told them. Of course, the decisions they make should be major ones such as organ transplants, blood transfusions, the such. Of course, if they go to the doctor to get a physical but they do not want to because they do not feel like getting pricked in the finger then that decision should be left to the parent. The child/teen should be able to make the major, drastic decisions that will greatly affect them, not the measly small ones.
In my book, My Sister’s Keeper, Anna states, “The only reason I was born was as a harvest crop for Kate.” (Picoult 21). Anna feels that she was only born to be a living storage of organs for her sister Kate. In the later chapters, the readers find out that she was in fact created to be a harvest crop for Kate because her mother says, “Although I am nine months pregnant, although I have had plenty of time to dream, I have not really considered the specifics of this child. I have thought of this daughter only in terms of what she will be able to do for the daughter I already have…Then again, my dreams for her are no less exalted; I plan for her to save her sister’s life.” (Picoult 119). Sara explains to the reader how she does not see Anna as her daughter, as a human being, but as something that can be what saves Kate. The way Picoult wrote the book -- specifically Sara’s chapters -- makes the reader question her love as a mother, herself as a person. The way Sara omits Anna -- both her person and feelings --, the way she has tunnel vision when it comes to Kate -- it always comes to Kate --, the way she was so oblivious to how reserved and detached Anna appeared at the dinner table or that she even left the dinner table, how she asked Brain on how Kate looked because everything is always KateKateKate. Brian, of course, tells Sara that Kate is fine, but that Anna was not. Sara, of course, does not actually regard it because she only cares for Anna when Kate needs something. Sara neglects Anna until it is too late, until Anna files the lawsuit, until Kate needs a kidney and Anna does not give it up. That is when she “becomes” the loving mother -- even then, just barely --, that is when it is AnnaKateAnnaKate. People are able to get an understanding of everyone’s emotions throughout the book; as the reader continues deeper into the book, difficult questions arise such as Is this what is right?, Does this make them a horrible person?, Does this make me a horrible person for agreeing with them?, Now that I know all sides what is the correct decision?, Is there a correct decision? Picoult made the reader questions what is right and what is wrong, what the fine line between the two is, how everything affects everyone. She made sure to show everyone’s side, the good and the ugly, the pros and the cons. She made sure to help people understand all aspects of the situation that not only happens in the novel, but in real life as well.
There are many valuable pros and many lousy cons to allowing twelve year olds to make their own medical decisions. Pro: they become more knowledgable in the medical field, allowing them to spread their knowledge to other people -- which should be certified because medical professionals should be the only ones allowed to inform them on these issues. Con: some children are not able to comprehend what they are being told due to attention difficulties such as ADHD/ADD. Pro: If they do not pass the government-mandated test then they are not allowed to make serious medical decisions for themselves until they do. Con: Since it is a standardized test, the people who are not good at taking standardized tests but are very mature will find it rather difficult. Pro: trans* people will be able to take hormones if they please. Con: parents will become disgruntled when their child comes home with a higher/lower voice and facial/not much facial hair. Overall, there are not many cons that are majorly serious.
Admittedly, parents will be the ones to ostensibly disagree and go against children becoming medically emancipated.
The parents may question their child’s maturity, their child’s knowledge, and their child’s ability to work under pressure. Parents are the only people to see all aspects of their children. They are the ones that see all their personalities, they see them at their worst as well as their best. They are the ones that see how they behave, how they act under certain situations, how they respond to pressure. Nonetheless, parents are not the ones feeling what their child is feeling. They may believe that they are the “wise” ones regarding medical care, but are they really. How will they know what decision to make if they do not know what the one undergoing their decision feels mentally and physically? Take for example the situation where the little girl and her mother got in a car accident and were rushed to the hospital. The child wanted to live, she wanted a chance at life. Her mother on the other hand, did not want the doctor to make the blood transfusion because of religious purposes. If a person that is under eighteen happens to find themselves in this situation, should not they be the ones to decide what happens to their own body? Should not they themselves be the ones to decide if it is the quality of life that matters, not the quantity? It is their life, they are the ones that have to live in their body, they are the ones that have to live with the possible pain, and they are the ones that understand and feel and experience. They should be the ones to decide what they want for
themselves.
In conclusion, children twelve years and older should be able to make their own medical decisions that will affect their person greatly. Although modern society does not hold faith in pubescents/prepubescents, both Piaget, a famous developmental psychologist, and Dr. Robert Epstein, a Harvard-trained psychologist, have stated that children age eleven/twelve are capable of making great decisions and capable of conducting great thoughts; of course, there are many pros and cons to this, but ultimately the pros outweigh the cons. People believe that many children would not feel the need to be medically emancipated from their parents if their parents listened to them. A great suggestion: do not just hear a child, listen to them.