Teenage girl wins right to die

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.

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.

someone else quoted me and responded to your post above, maybe quote them and ask them.

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

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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

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.