Of Two Minds A Bit On This One....

[Ravenshire]

If you're sane and well informed, I believe the decision is up to you, not some meddling bastard, who knows nothing about you that isn't in your case file, sitting a bench in some court room.

I absolutely 100% agree, but here's the thing:

Do we let a sane, well-informed 5-year-old decide not to get chemo?
A sane, well-informed 9-year-old?

I've said earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again, that I think 18 is too high an age at which to start letting people make their own medical decisions.

But the age can't be 4, can it? So, again, I ask, how do we deal with it?

Because if the answer is "in a certain age range, it's on a case-by-case basis," then the "meddling bastard sitting on a bench in some court room" is going to have a much greater say in far more cases.

I tend to side with the parents when they are sane and well informed. In this case, that is not the case.

If my children were ever stricken with this type of disease, I would hope the state would recognize that I am in my right mind and was making well informed decisions even if that meant allowing them to die to avoid otherwise unavoidable, pointless suffering. Otherwise the state may as well tell all parents that every decision they ever make about their children is subject to scrutiny by the courts and their children will be taken from their care at any time with or without notice.

I agree that no 5-year old can make sane informed life and death decisions and there is a place for state intervention. However, it's the parent's job. As long as the parent is sane and well informed, the state needs to stay the fuck out.