no mr ham, you only have the RESPONCABILITY (NOT the right) to make that decision for them UNTIL THEY ARE COPITANT TO MAKE IT THEMSELVES
the law uses 16 as a rough guide but also agnologes that its not an apsolute, that the day perfore you turn 16 you unable to make that choice and the day after you cant which is why it puts the responcability on medical proffessionals to determine if they are compitant in a paticular situation
this is in general determined as:
1) are they capable of understanding whats being proposed, the alternitives and the conquences of both?
2) are they capable of acting in there own best interests?
the second one isnt to say they SHOULD act in what someone determines is there best interests but are they capable of making that decision
If yes to both then it doesnt matter how old they are or what there parents want they have that right.
Orleander, what about if your child was 18 and the doctors wanted to remove his prostate? should he be alowed to say no or is his suffering less important than YOURS?
the law uses 16 as a rough guide but also agnologes that its not an apsolute, that the day perfore you turn 16 you unable to make that choice and the day after you cant which is why it puts the responcability on medical proffessionals to determine if they are compitant in a paticular situation
this is in general determined as:
1) are they capable of understanding whats being proposed, the alternitives and the conquences of both?
2) are they capable of acting in there own best interests?
the second one isnt to say they SHOULD act in what someone determines is there best interests but are they capable of making that decision
If yes to both then it doesnt matter how old they are or what there parents want they have that right.
Orleander, what about if your child was 18 and the doctors wanted to remove his prostate? should he be alowed to say no or is his suffering less important than YOURS?