Age of Consent to Die?

How old is old enough to decide for yourself?

  • 13

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • 14

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 15

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 16

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • 17

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Other (_____)

    Votes: 8 61.5%
  • Total voters
    13
Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
It's not exactly coffee, is it?

At what age is a child old enough to govern his own life and death?

A 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness sick with leukemia has the right to refuse a blood transfusion, even though doing so might kill him, a judge ruled today.

Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer denied a motion by the state to force Dennis Lindberg, of Mount Vernon, to have a blood transfusion. The judge said the eighth-grader knows "he's basically giving himself a death sentence."

Doctors diagnosed the boy with leukemia on Nov. 6 and began treating him with chemotherapy at Children's Hospital in Seattle, but stopped a week ago because his blood count was too low, the Skagit Valley Herald reported. The boy refused the transfusion on religious grounds.

However, his birth parents, who do not have custody and flew from Idaho to be at the hearing, believe their son should have the transfusion and suggested he has been unduly influenced by his legal guardian, his aunt, who is also a Jehovah's Witness.

(Seattle Times)
Click to expand...

My issue has nothing to do with his religion. This one strikes right at the heart of age discrimination in legal policy. Youth protects one against being executed in this country. Youth prevents one from voting or giving sexual consent. Where, in all of that, does, say, death enter into the equation? Or, at least, the severely escalated risk thereof?

After all, 'tis true that God might actually exist and might actually reach down and pluck the disease from this one boy's body. 'Tis also true that the boy might recover enough without the transfusion to continue chemotherapy, and eventually live through this.
 
13 is old enough in my book, but I also think that 13 is old enough for sex, alcohol, etc.

Whatever about god. The boy might recover enough, but he will suffer; if he doesn't want to suffer, it's his choice.
 
If a person of any age wants to take their own life through suicide then

that person can choose to do so at any age. It is up to their family and

friends to prevent that from taking place and if no one prevents it then they

will die alone.
 
I voted "other". I do not think there can be a set limit. Some 12-year olds are mature enough to make such decision; some 22-year olds are patently not. But then, I also do not think fixed age cutoffs for drinking, voting, sex, etc. make any sense either.

Unfortunately, there is no scientifically defensible way to determine objectively whether someone is mature enough to vote -- or to decline a lifesaving treatment. Not yet, anyway.
 
shorty_37 said:
You would be fine with 13 yr old kid doing all those things?:bugeye:
Click to expand...

I did most of those things at 13. Almost everyone I know started smoking in 6th grade, tried alcohol around that time, tried drugs around that time. We all made our choices and turned out fine. It's better to try new things while you're young and don't have much responsibilities, it's easier to bounce back and correct mistakes. Adults are less prone to change their lifestyles, so they're less likely to bounce back; it's too late to learn by then.
 
Why no 18 or 21 on your poll? Eighteen is the age of legal adulthood for most purposes, except, of course, drinking beer. So I'd say 18.
 
Dennis Lindberg is dead

Dennis Lindberg is dead.

Dennis Lindberg, of Mount Vernon, died around 6 p.m. at Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center in Seattle, according to KING-5 television. As a Jehovah's Witness, Lindberg objected to receiving blood. Doctors had said he needed it to survive his cancer treatment ....

.... His doctors at Children's supported the boy's decision, Meyer said, although one doctor told the judge earlier that the boy's blood count was so low he could die overnight. The case came to court after officials at Children's reported it to the state, which went to court to force the transfusion ....

.... After the judge's ruling, Jim Nelson, chairman of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Seattle Hospital Liaison Committee, said Lindberg was a "very responsible young man who knows his mind and was very clear. He's a very brave young man, and he's standing firm for what he believes in."

Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible prohibits transfusions of blood, in part because blood is sacred, Nelson said.

And it doesn't mean the faith is "antimedicine," he added. "Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a death wish. We're not arguing a right to die."

(Ostrom)
Click to expand...

This latest adds a new twist: How are they not arguing a right to die?

• • •​

On Edit: Duh. Of course. My bad. The difference is quite clear.
 
Last edited:
There should be no age of consent on death. Once a person is able to recognize their own mortality and what that means..for it to have been given to them...or to have it taken away and what the consequences of either is (as we know it). Then they should have the right to make those decisions.
 
Orleander said:
Unless they have family, right? Do they have an obligation to not die?
Click to expand...

That is up to them. I can not determine for someone else their obligations or what should be considered their obligations. One of the consequences of them taking their own life or refusing treatment or whatever else could lead to their death IS the impact it would have on their family. If they recognize that impact and still follow through with that decision, then that is their choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top