When Children Refuse Medical Treatment: Role of Government and Assessments; a Standardized Test to Assess a Child's Maturity and Understanding Would Help Judges in Their Solomonic Roles to Render More Uniform Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A standardized test to assess a child's maturity and understanding would help judges in their Solomonic roles to render more uniform decisions THE ROLE and responsibility of government and a child's maturity level and understanding of medical were two issues raised in three Canadian cases decided in the 1990s-Walker (Litigation Guardian of) v. Region 2 Hospital Corp.,1 Re Dueck,2 and Re Y (A.).3 These concerns are relevant to the most significant issue of how to protect children while respecting their wishes when they refuse medical treatment. Evident in these cases is the lack of consistency in determining whether a child reasonably the grave consequences of not receiving medical for a terminal illness. A standardized test such as a mandatory psychological analysis or evaluation would provide a consistent method for courts to determine a child's maturity level and understanding of the consequences of rejecting medical treatment. Such a refinement would clarify the jurisdiction of parens patriae and help government to establish more firmly its role in dealing with children who refuse medical treatment. INFORMED CONSENT A. Significance In general, consent refers to an agreement given freely by one individual or entity to another. In a medical setting, consent is qualified by the word informed. Before medical practitioners can treat a patient, they must provide that individual with information about the nature of the medical procedure and any risks inherent in it. A doctor's failure to disclose this information to a patient can vitiate the patient's consent to receive and opens the door to a world of problems for the provider. Without valid permission from a patient, any type of direct contact by a doctor to a patient could result in a tort action of battery or in a criminal charge of assault.4 Thus, informed consent can have an enormous impact on the entire medical community. Patients who provide informed consent for medical must be competent; they must be able to understand the nature and consequences of and be of reasoning a decision. A mentally competent patient also can refuse medical even if the is necessary for survival. A doctor may not agree with a patient's decision to reject medical attention, but as long as the person is of making that decision, the doctor must respect it. B. Children The specific age for a person to enjoy certain rights as an adult varies throughout the Canadian provinces depending on the provisions of particular legislation. New Brunswick's legislation permits a minor rather than an adult guardian to consent to medical treatment. The Medical Consent of Minors Act provides that any child under 16 years of age who is capable of understanding the nature and consequences of a medical treatment can provide consent for the administration of medical treatment.5 British Columbia has a similar provision stating that a child who understands the nature and consequences and the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of healthcare can consent to treatment.6 These statutes concur with the Canadian common law doctrine that any child who is mature and the nature of medical procedure can consent to such treatment.7 MATURITY AND UNDERSTANDING These statutes, common law doctrine and various literature concerning a child's ability to consent to medical all focus on the same question: Is the child mature and able to understand the nature of the and the consequences of refusing it? This question was significant in the cited cases, which were decided by courts in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland. A. Dueck - Saskatchewan Re Dueck concerned a 13-year-old boy named Tyrell who endured chemotherapy to treat cancer. Toward the end of the treatment, Tyrell stated that he neither wanted to undergo any further chemotherapy treatment, nor have surgery on his leg. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".