The problem in the case of teenagers is that no one can seem to agree on what constitutes and "adult" in regards to medical care. In BC, where I live, 14 year old girls can have sex, get birth control and have an abortion without consent or knowledge of their parents. They are considered adults who can make their own medical decisions. This is the basis that Bethany Hubert's case in Alberta was argued on. She was 16, I believe but the judge did not consider her an adult. Teenagers are still under the control and influence of their parents and so need to be protected under the law from the blood transfusion doctrine, I believe. I guess they decide it on a case by case basis. Still, a 14 year old can not vote, get married, drink, etc, as they are not mature enough. Should they be allowed to make "right to die" or "refuse treatment" decisions? I don't think so, but the law disagrees with me here! Dangerous doctrine any way you look at it. In this case, I think the law should err on the side of protecting minors since these are life threatening issues.
Cog