Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Hello, good luck and half fun FlamingDog0047 My value for this debate will be ethical egoism My criterion will be self autonomy 1) My opponent will be arguing for paternalism, an encroachment on ones autonomy with an attempt to act in their best interests. The best interests of someone is a delusion because only said person knows their bests interests. Bests interests are defined by the person because they know cognitively what is best. One may argue they do not know what is best for themselves, but that is where your subjective morality fails. What is best for yourself might not be best according to the objective and cognitive ability of others. If people coherently and genuinely believe that medicine X will not work, that is their perspective from their best interests. How can one make the argument that they know what is best for others? How do we know they know what is best for them. And if they don't know whats best for them, why should their consequences fall on other individuals, in this case, adolescents. 2) Lets say that I have Cancer and that the only way of surviving this cancer was chemo-therapy. Lets also say that parents did not want chemo-therapy because it was against their religious beliefs. Should I be left to die. I mean think about it. My opponent will argue that parents know best but this falls into subjective morality which indicates that all morals are fabricated by ideals of unknowing individuals. Rather, objective morality lets individuals reach their maximum autonomy and lets them exercise free will accordingly. 3) Under the resolution, if con wins, then adolescents cannot choose their health insurance provider, their doctor, whether or not they should take basic generic over the counter medicine and etc. For example putting a bandaid on a cut is a medical choice. An adolescent would not be allowed to willingly put a bandaid on a cut. Under topicality if their was no adult present and their was a medical emergency, an adolescent could not act. Under the resolution lifeguards for example would have to be over the age of 25, the age in which the frontal lobe stops developing, because they would have to perform medical duties to a person. But under topicality they cannot because that would be autonomous of them. If an adolescent is alone with an elderly person and that person falls down and there needs to be immediate assistance the adolescent could not act. In fact calling the hospital or an ambulance would be an autonomous medical decision. If an adolescent aspired to be a doctor or someone in the medical field when they grew up, the could not think about this autonomously because that would not fall in the Con of the resolution. The topicality of the resolution is worded so that adolescents cannot act individually for any reason in any medical choices 4) Allowing adolescents to make medical choices maximises autonomy. Its that clear and simple. If you vote pro then you create more autonomy. If you vote con you take away less autonomy. 5) My opponent might argue that adults know more about chemo-therapy and other medical treatments more than children. But do they really? If adults know so much about chemo-therapy for example, then they obviously know about: alkylating antineoplastic agents, nitrogen mustards, nitrosoureas, tetrazines, aziridines, cisplatins, N-Nitroso-N-methylurea, carmustine, lomustine, semustine, fostemustine, streptozotocin, temozoloide, diaziquone, antimetabolites, Trifunctional purine biosynthetic protein adenosine-3, mercaptopurine, sinopodophyllums, topoisomerase inhibitors and etc. If you are telling me that an adult knows all of this stuff over an adolescent, then you yourself ought to have someone making autonomous decisions for you.