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

Rebuttals:1: The Status Quo of Adolescents" Right to Autonomous Medical ChoicesPro says “I think that as a general rule, if a kid can master the mysteries of calculus they can probably understand information relevant to their medical care -and an adult may not even be able to pass a high school calculus class.”This is a poor comparison and certainly not a general rule. Mastering calculus does not require the same capabilities as decision making. This is like saying a 300 pound defensive linemen in football is, “as a general rule” capable of running a marathon. Obvious physical prowess in one field does not imply prowess or capability in another. This is true with the brain as well. While some adolescents may be capable of doing calculus, this is no indication of maturity of the brain in general. As such this comparison does nothing to support pro’s argument. Certainly adults, on balance, are more capable of making medical decisions then the adolescents who rely on adults to survive. Pro says “that while a 16 or a 17 year old girl who gave birth could be legally required to make medical decisions that relates to the care of her child, that same 16 or 17 year old girl could not, in some jurisdictions, receive birth control from her doctor without parental consent.”This is an interesting point. The uniqueness of this circumstance is beyond the scope of this debate. As I may argue that adolescents should not have autonomy in regard to medical choices it would be beyond this debate’s subject or purpose to argue that society could stop teens from getting pregnant. Likewise it is beyond this debate to argue who should make medical decisions for the fetus in the body of a 13 year old. However, it is in scope of this debate to discuss whether a 16 year old girl is capable of reasonable electing to take prescription medicine for birth control. I will address this in my counter argument. Pro says “Alternatively, in almost all jurisdictions a fifteen year old boy could be charged as an adult for committing a crime like robbery or murder and punished as an adult on the premise that the boy had the mental acuity to appreciate the gravity of his decision to perform that crime, but the law might at the same time regard him incompetent to consent to or refuse certain medical care as a result of a sexually transmitted disease he could contract while incarcerated.”Like the example previous this is an interesting point. Though, again, outside the scope of this debate. I will say that the charging of a fifteen year old boy as an adult is not the norm and on balance does not happen. There are times where exceptions in society have been made. The arguments I will hereafter may quite possibly show that such an exception should not be made. As much as I am tempted to engage this example, I fear doing so will lead me off track. It suffices me to say that a child being tried as an adult is the exception not the norm. On balance, society does not hold adolescents to the same degree of accountability as adults.As far as the status quo, it is clear that on balance society recognizes that adolescents are not as capable as adults in decision making and as a result are not held accountable to the same degree. Also as a result, they are restricted from participating in society in many ways. 2: Justice requires that adolescents have the right to make autonomous medical decisions.Pro says “If justice requires that individual autonomy be respected, then to the extent that someone is capable of acting autonomously (in this case, being decisionally capable) that right ought to be respected. “Perhaps justice requires capable individuals autonomy be respected. As such, it should be respected. What of children?John Stuart Mill in his work "On Liberty" said this:"It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine (of liberty) is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury… Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion."(1)John Locke said“The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free" (2)Pro says “As a basic rule, if people can understand facts that are presented to them and they can make decisions on the basis of those facts, they should have a right to make choices for themselves about those facts.”No contention there. Justice calls for such. Pro says “And the science here supports the notion that adolescents are decisionally capable; adolescents are, as a general rule, capable of understanding facts presented to them and making choices on the basis of those decisions.”I am entirely unable to verify my opponents source as I do not own the book. However, I will present sources that contradict what pro has shown in my counter argument. Finally pro appeals emotionally to those who are on this website saying “There are a lot of teenagers on this site, and they seem like they’re decisionally capable, so it seems proper that they should be afforded the right to make decisions that pertain to their medical care for themselves with or without the involvement of their parents.”A very clever inclusion as for me to refute will likely alienate some voters. Perhaps that is unavoidable in this debate.Counter Argument: As pro presented the status quo, There are many good reasons not to allow adolescents medical autonomy. The main one I would like to present is as follows. Within the human brain is the Prefrontal cortex. "The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is located in the very front of the brain, just behind the forehead. In charge of abstract thinking and thought analysis, it is also responsible for regulating behavior. This includes mediating conflicting thoughts, making choices between right and wrong, and predicting the probable outcomes of actions or events."(3)"The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is located in the very front of the brain, just behind the forehead. In charge of abstract thinking and thought analysis, it is also responsible for regulating behavior. This includes mediating conflicting thoughts, making choices between right and wrong, and predicting the probable outcomes of actions or events."(3)"Since the PFC controls intense emotions and impulses, it is sometimes referred to as the seat of good judgement. As such, a properly functioning prefrontal cortex inhibits inappropriate behaviors " including delaying gratification of needs, for things like food or sex " while encouraging wise, acceptable choices. In part, this occurs because it works to allow humans to balance immediate reward with long-term goals."(3)"Medical studies have shown that the PFC is the last section of the brain to mature. In other words, while all other brain regions are fully developed early in life, its development is not complete until around age 25."(3)"A damaged PFC can negatively impact a person's ability to assess situations or perform tasks, particularly those of a moral or ethical nature."(3)"As a number of researchers have put it, "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car."(4)Both of these sources suggest the age of PFC maturity is 25. It is quite clear that adolescents on balance, do not have the mental capability to effectively think abstractly, or rationally, or "to balance immediate reward with long-term goals," due to this scientific truth. This lack of mental capability is generally accepted as a justifiable reason to not allow adolescents to make autonomous medical decisions. Conclusion:The status quo supports my argument. Society on balance recognizes that adolescents are less capable of making rational decisions. Science supports such an understanding of an underdeveloped brain. As a result autonomy of minors is justly severely limited. Justice demands autonomy of those who are capable. Justice demands that such autonomy is not intended for those not yet able to govern themselves. Due to what has become obvious in this debate, Adolescents ought NOT to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.Sources:(1) http://www.bartleby.com...(2) http://www.constitution.org...(3) http://www.wisegeek.org...(4) http://hrweb.mit.edu...