Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crazster)
    Just for starters, "more" of death?? More about death would be English. Or, you know, the words I actually used rather then paraphrasing to try and manipulate the statement to make a point. That you can comprehend it better. "more" in this sense is meaningless.

    You're absolutely right, you need to experience something before you can understand it more.
    There is absolutely nothing that can be understood better by thought and maturity.
    /sarcasm

    You remind me of Sarah Palin supporters, so sure in their belief, so black in white with the "evil" democrats.

    Also, lol at you taking the christian comment like that more lol at you not understand the subtext.

    P.S. Maybe you should consider the famous words "the more you know, the more you realize you don't" rather then being so absolutely sure about our theory =).

    P.P.S I understand what a university is, i'm just wondering if what you put in your profile is credited as a university or is just pretend =) I mean, usually Uni's teach logic - there are exceptions though religious uni's, crap unis etc.
    Oh dear, you're actually beyond help. I've never actually come across someone this bad at debating, or even arguing... even on TSR.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ive read the article and everyone viewpoints and the viewpoints of people on the bbc website.
    Says on the comments on the website

    "Who did these people think they were, trying to force unwanted treatment? They should be sacked for such disgraceful abuse of a patient"

    But then again if there had been underlying reasons like pressure from parents not to have the transplant and they didnt try to go ahead with the treatment. Then how this that doing no harm??

    Here she gave the decision herself with consultation from doctors and with the child protecton team. I think she is very brave and i hope she enjoys every minute of her life with her family.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    She's one brave kid!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the girl has suffered alot in her life...she knows what she is doing and is fed up with living a life of pain.
    she's a brave girl
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "force her to have a heart operation."

    Ew, gross.

    If she has understood the options, the choice is hers. It's her life and her body.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GemmyMonster)
    Now if any of you have seen someone close to you die a slow, horrible death, I'd guess you're the people who think she should be allowed to make this choice.
    fighting for life is good......
    but prolonging pain and suffering just for the sake of a few more months is the worst thing anyone can whitness
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm happy for her.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crazster)
    someone else quoted me and responded to your post above, maybe quote them and ask them.
    I have no idea what you're talking about - could you be more clear? :yep:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brokenangel)
    this is more than a simple heart transplat

    Hannah previously suffered from leukaemia and her heart has been weakened by drugs she was required to take from the age of five.

    has anyone stopped to think that mayhe she is tried of fighting and just wants to enjoy what time she has left without constant medication and intervention.

    She has obviosuly suffered health problems from a very young age and wants that to end and to enjoy herself.

    whats the point of living if you cant enjoy it

    Because she can still enjoy her life IF the operation gors badly and IF she needs medication.

    I think that parents like that shouldn't be allowed to have children.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SiaSiaSia)
    on the page it says this though:

    "Parents 'proud'

    Our reporter said that the girl's parents supported her decision and were "very proud of her".

    "She didn't take the decision lightly, and she had chosen that she wanted to live and die in dignity at home with her parents."

    The Daily Telegraph quoted Hannah's father Andrew, 43, as saying: "It is outrageous that the people from the hospital could presume we didn't have our daughter's best interests at heart.

    "Hannah had been through enough already and to have the added stress of a possible court hearing or being forcibly taken into hospital is disgraceful."

    Hannah previously suffered from leukaemia and her heart has been weakened by drugs she was required to take from the age of five. "



    i'm not really sure what i think. I respect her, but at the same time I think she's too young to really understand what she's doing.
    My original quote was made when the article was a lot shorter and didn't give such in depth detail.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Terryw)
    She is 13, is it not law that the parents make the choice until she is over the age of 16?
    Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority is the leading case on the ability of a child to consent/refuse consent to medical treatment against the wishes of their parents/guardians.

    "As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed."
    While the Gillick case was specifically in relation to the right of a girl to obtain treatment (in this case contraception) without their parent's consent, the precedent applies generally to the right of a minor to decide their own medical needs.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Chrism)
    Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority is the leading case on the ability of a child to consent/refuse consent to medical treatment against the wishes of their parents/guardians.



    While the Gillick case was specifically in relation to the right of a girl to obtain treatment (in this case contraception) without their parent's consent, the precedent applies generally to the right of a minor to decide their own medical needs.
    Gillick allows for a competent minor to consent to treatment but not to refuse it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    Gillick allows for a competent minor to consent to treatment but not to refuse it.
    Its useless discussing Gillick because the principles put forward were very general. Moreover, there has been a big swing away from it.

    The fact is none of us really know what the circumstances of this are. It utterly depends on the circumstances whether the girl would have been forced to undergo treatment by a court, and it utterly depends on the circumstances whether it is right or wrong that the health authority should have allowed her to refuse this treatment.
    Although I don't know this for sure, the implication of the article is that this was a thought through decision made by the girl on the basis of the suffering that the surgery would result in her going through, even if successful. Which seems a decision she is entitled to make to me.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Its useless discussing Gillick because the principles put forward were very general. Moreover, there has been a big swing away from it.

    The fact is none of us really know what the circumstances of this are. It utterly depends on the circumstances whether the girl would have been forced to undergo treatment by a court, and it utterly depends on the circumstances whether it is right or wrong that the health authority should have allowed her to refuse this treatment.
    Although I don't know this for sure, the implication of the article is that this was a thought through decision made by the girl on the basis of the suffering that the surgery would result in her going through, even if successful. Which seems a decision she is entitled to make to me.
    I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy of the previous post.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    Gillick allows for a competent minor to consent to treatment but not to refuse it.
    While the case itself specifically regarded the right to consent, if an individual with capacity to consent refuses it then by definition any intervention would surely constitute an assault.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Chrism)
    While the case itself specifically regarded the right to consent, if an individual with capacity to consent refuses it then by definition any intervention would surely constitute an assault.
    No. A child can not refuse treatement. If they refuse treatment, their parent [mother] can over rule them and give consent and theuir refusal means nothing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    No. A child can not refuse treatement. If they refuse treatment, their parent [mother] can over rule them and give consent and theuir refusal means nothing.
    I'm pretty sure (in England) if the child is deemed competent and refuses treatment and the parents disagree, it has to be taken to court. They don't just go with the parents' wishes

    In Scotland a kid can decide whatever they like if they're deemed competent and the parents don't get a say.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by quadruple_twist)
    I'm pretty sure (in England) if the child is deemed competent and refuses treatment and the parents disagree, it has to be taken to court. They don't just go with the parents' wishes
    Yes, they do. In English law a minor is not competent to refuse therefore can never be deemed competent. They can only be deemed competent to consent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    Yes, they do. In English law a minor is not competent to refuse therefore can never be deemed competent. They can only be deemed competent to consent.
    GMC: 0-18 Years: Guidance for all doctors, paragraph 31

    "In Scotland parents cannot authorise a treatment a competent young person has refused. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the law on parents overriding young people's competent refusal is complex. You should seek legal advice if you think treatment is in the best interests of a competent young person who refuses."

    GMC Withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging treatments, paragraph 71

    "The wishes of a child who has the capacity to decide whether to consent to or refuse a proposed treatment should normally be respected. However, the legal position in England and Wales means that, in some circumstances...a person with parental responsibility or the courts may nevertheless authorise treatment"

    Paragraph 75

    "Where there is disagreement between those with parental responsibility and the healthcare team and this cannot be resolved satisfactorily through informal review, you should seek legal advice about obtaining a ruling from the courts"

    So those would suggest it's not as black and white as you seem to think.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by quadruple_twist)
    GMC: 0-18 Years: Guidance for all doctors, paragraph 31

    "In Scotland parents cannot authorise a treatment a competent young person has refused. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the law on parents overriding young people's competent refusal is complex. You should seek legal advice if you think treatment is in the best interests of a competent young person who refuses."

    GMC Withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging treatments, paragraph 71

    "The wishes of a child who has the capacity to decide whether to consent to or refuse a proposed treatment should normally be respected. However, the legal position in England and Wales means that, in some circumstances...a person with parental responsibility or the courts may nevertheless authorise treatment"

    Paragraph 75

    "Where there is disagreement between those with parental responsibility and the healthcare team and this cannot be resolved satisfactorily through informal review, you should seek legal advice about obtaining a ruling from the courts"

    So those would suggest it's not as black and white as you seem to think.
    If you read what you have posted carefully you will see it does not refer to where a child and the parent disagrees.

    It says where the parents and the medical team disagree a court order should be sought. Quite correct, and what led to this case being issued (although not decided) in the first place.

    Whilst the wishes of the child may be respected, they don't have to be, and absent the child getting a litigation friend and challenging their parent's consent on their behalf in court, the parent's consent will always over rule the child's refusal.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.