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

Rebuttals: Pro says “Justice requires that adolescents have the right to make autonomous medical decisions.” He comes to this conclusion saying “Adolescents can act autonomously because they are decisionally capable, meaning that they can understand information and make decisions on the basis of information that they learn.” I will ignore the fact that “decisionally” is not a word. (1) Indeed this debate hinges on whether adolescents are capable of making rational decisions medically. More on this later. Pro says “CON made some pretty weak rebuttals... they didn't really work, though.” Do you always start your rebuttals with Ad homiem statements? Pro says “First, being able to understand something complicated like calculus shows that on a certain level adolescents are capable of abstract and complex reasoning, which shows that at least those adolescents who take and succeed in academic classes that involve complicated reasoning skills are decisionally capable and thus can act autonomously.” This is obviously and empirically false. “Teen brains are particularly good at learning and remembering new things -- much better than the adult brain. The teen brain's ability to absorb its environment is one reason teens are so influenced by their environments and interested in so many new things. These learning and retaining skills are present for both boys and girls.”(2) Ergo Teens may be able to master calculus. However, “The part of the teen brain not yet fully developed is the frontal lobe, which is the part of the brain that manages impulse control, judgment, insight, and emotional control. So when teens engage in risky and/or foolish behavior, it's not just that they don't have life experience to know better, but that their brains have difficulty assessing consequences. Basically, teens have less myelin (the fatty coating that surrounds nerve cells). Nerve cells need myelin to send signals throughout the brain. So in teen brains, the synapses that are supposed to connect the frontal lobe to the rest of the brain are not working as well as they should. As a result, teens can't access those skills based in the frontal lobe easily.”(2) Pro says “talking calculus is certainly not the "end all" of decisional capacity -it's one example of a kind of "marker" that would let us know that a person can acquire new information, critically consider it and make decisions accordingly.” Sorry bud, but clearly being able to do calculus serves as no such marker…. As such this comparison does absolutely nothing to support pro’s argument. Pro says “It is absurd that a 16 year old can get pregnant and could be legally required to make medical decisions for her child, because in order for that to happen, the law would have to recognize that the same 16 year old is sufficiently capable of making medical decisions in "for others" but not "for herself." I agree that it is absurd, both that 16 year olds are pregnant and that the current law would deem capable the incapable. Pro says “In the same respect, the law recognizes adolescents as adults in some cases but not others -so, again, we've got another contradiction in the status quo.” As I mentioned last round. These examples are the exceptions to the norm, not the norm itself. My arguments show that such exception’s should not be made. On balance, society does not hold adolescents to the same degree of accountability as adults. Pro says “no matter how well developed adults' pre-frontal cortexes are, that doesn't mean that adolescents are not sufficiently mature enough to make those kinds of decisions for themselves.” I have shown and will continue to show that adolescents are not sufficiently mature enough to make those kinds of decisions. Pro concedes that adults are more mature stating… “adults are "more" mature than adolescents (obvious),” Pro goes on to say “that doesn't mean that medical decisions that affect adolescents should be the exclusive province of adults because adolescents are "mature enough" Evidence given in this debate shows this not the case. Pro says. “Liberty is "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." That is *actually* beyond the scope of this debate, because we're only talking about *autonomy within the context of medical choices* -which is narrower than liberty.” Merriam-Webster defines liberty as “the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely”(3) Compare this to the definition of Autonomous in round one. Clearly the principle of Liberty is exemplified in the word Autonomous. Saying that adolescents ought to have the autonomy to make medical decisions is synonymous with saying that adolescents ought to have the liberty to make medical decisions. As such, Both Mill’s quote and Locke’s quote are highly applicable as they both share the truth that liberty, or in other words autonomy, is a right for those who “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.” To give adolescents the liberty to make medical decisions is “To turn him (or her) 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" Adolescents are “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…” This is true medically. Pro says “I'm really glad that CON agrees that 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. I'm especially glad that he went so far as to concede that justice requires this.” I still agree with the above statement, pro continues to say “The reason is because adolescents, who are people just as much as adults are, are decisionally capable and thus their right to make autonomous medical choices should be respected.” As shown repeatedly in this debate, and as the evidence supports this is not the case. Clearly there is scientific proof that children are less capable then adults. Our society has deemed 18 year olds as adults. Perhaps the age at which people should be referred to as adults would be a good topic for a separate debate. In spite of the PFC not being fully developed until 25, it is developing continuously. This means that we can conclude that the PFC of 18 year olds is more developed than that of a 14 year old. Ergo we can conclude that 18 year olds are more capable of capable of reasoned thinking, making choices between right and wrong, predicting outcomes, good judgment, regulating behavior, or inhibiting inappropriate behavior then those younger than them. More importantly we can easily and indisputably conclude that adolescents so defined in round one are not capable of making reasoned decisions medically and should therefore not have medical autonomy. This is a clear win! Vote Con! (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://health.howstuffworks.com... (3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...