Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

Just to clarify, Con said in the comments sections that I could ignore all the specifications regarding this being an "LD debate". Treat it as a normal debate with shared burden of proof. I must show that adolescents ought to have a right to make autonomous medical choices, whereas Con must show that adolescents ought *not* to have such a right. Onto my constructive case! It will take the form of the following syllogism --P1: All rational human beings ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choicesP2: Adolescents, in general, are rational human beingsC1: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices This syllogism is logically valid, so an affirmation of the two premises will lead to an affirmation of the conclusion. P1: Right to Bodily AutonomyAll rational human beings have ownership over their bodies. This is intuitively obvious -- since you are the sole user and occupier of your own body, you are the only one who can exert any sort of authority or control over it. Denying self-ownership results in a performative contradiction because simply the act of denying it (via speaking/typing) requires you to exercise your faculty of self-ownership. Thus, it is established that all human beings have a right to bodily autonomy, which, by extension, translates to a right to make autonomous medical decisions (because medical procedures are carried out on the body). P2: Adolescents are RationalI think my opponent will concede that adolescents are human beings. The question, then, is whether or not they are rational (i. e. capable of utilizing reason to independently make informed decisions). A large number of medical case-studies on the issue have concluded that adolescents are, indeed, rational, and that there is no significant difference in decision-making capacity between adolescents and adults:"Existing literature related to adolescent decision-making capability for medical care suggests a level of decisional capacity not presently presumed by law. In fact, several studies reveal that adolescents decide on their medical care with an intentionality and thoughtfulness not usually attributed to them. Particularly, commentators have found 'little evidence that minors of age 15 and above as a group are any less competent to provide consent than are adults'" [1]. "Most studies have involved healthy children who were asked to make decisions about hypothetical medical situations (Lewis, 1980, 1981; Weithorn & Campbell, 1982). The most creative of these studies (Weithorn & Campbell, 1982) compared decisions of four age groups (9, 14, 18, and 21 years) on outcome measures that were specifically designed to reflect the four standards of competency to consent (evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and inferential understanding). Results suggested that children in the 9-year-old group were less competent than adults in terms of the higher standards of understanding the information provided and rational reasons. .. However, they did not differ from adults in the standards of evidence of choice or reasonable outcome; that is, they still tended to arrive at logical decisions which were similar to those of adults. In terms of all four standards, the 14-year-old group demonstrated the same level of competency as the two 'adult' groups ; they showed a similar level of understanding and reasoning, and made similar choices" [2]. It is evident that adolescents, in general, should be considered "rational" human beings. == Conclusion ==Since both premises have been shown to be true, the conclusion (i. e. the resolution) is affirmed. I look forward to seeing my opponent's case. It is sure to be less straightforward than my own. [1] . http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu...[2] . http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org...