Here is another interesting spin: http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=de7b5dca-6b93-46d9-8363-2b7af69576b3
 | Wednesday » July 8 » 2009 | |
Age alone is not the measure of maturity
The Supreme Court of Canada has granted adolescents a say in serious medical decisions that affect them - provided they demonstrate the necessary level of maturity. The judgment, in a decision announced last week, is part of a trend in Canada: The state is agreeing to allow adolescents greater personal responsibility, under carefully-circumscribed conditions.The 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act signalled Parliament's desire to treat teens as individuals in criminal matters, assessing ability to assume responsibility on a case-by-case basis. This new ruling extends the principle to medical treatment. Until this Supreme Court decision, the level of maturity required for medical treatment decisions had been determined by age alone - an admittedly arbitrary measure made worse because it varied from province to province. Quebec's age of consent was 14; Saskatchewan's was 18. The Supreme Court decision means that age alone can no longer be used as a cutoff. Instead, judges must now weigh age and maturity "on a sliding scale," setting them against the seriousness of the threat to the youngster's health and well-being. Making these assessments will not be simple, but the principle is sound. In 2006, a 14-year-old Manitoba girl, a Jehovah's Witness, argued that she was competent to refuse a court-ordered blood transfusion that doctors had determined was necessary to treat bleeding associated with Crohn's disease. (Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible bans the "ingestion" of blood.) Three psychiatrists found she was not mentally ill, nor in thrall to her parents. Yet because 16 was the age of consent to medical treatment in Manitoba, the government was able to order her to accept transfusions. The Supreme Court held that when an adolescent is found capable of making a "truly mature and independent decision," the young person can be allowed to make even a decision with potentially very serious consequences. At the same time, the court said the state has an undeniable duty of care toward youngsters and must recognize that there are limits to their developing maturity. The ruling properly takes a nuanced approach to the rights and responsibilities of young Canadians. It is wrong, on the basis of age alone, to deny a young person any say in what happens to him or her. Maturity can develop early - or late - in adolescence. This Supreme Court decision is a new step along the way to conferring on mature teenagers the right to exercise informed choice. It is a step in the right direction. © The Gazette (Montreal) 2009 | ||
 | ||
 |
 |
| Copyright © 2009 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc. . All rights reserved. |