It is her body

It's her decision. If she has been sick for a while, she has probably come to terms with her condition and probably just wants to be left alone. I know I would. She sounds like a mature young lady and they should respect her wishes.

this is so sad!
It is her body..but im sorry if it were daughter I wouldn't care what she said at that point!

i think a 13 year old should be able to decide. she's already been through so many surgeries, how much should a person be expected to take?

although i'm sure her doctors mean well, she deserves the right to make her own decision. it's so easy for someone who's healthy to order countless surgeries without thinking twice about it.

There are so many (it depends on) surrounding this issue, you could look at it a dozen different ways. What is her prognosis with a transplant, will she need another in ten years and another years after that? This is up to the parents to sell this to the child and counselors and or spiritual advisers should be involved.

I think it depends on individual State laws but I think in most cases the parents can override the child and act in their best interest. However, this is where it can get dirty because then the medical staff has to then make sure the parents (are) acting in the child's best interest and not just theirs. In this case though since the Dr.'s are pushing it too they probably would be.

It sounds like the girl has given this careful thought and that her parents feel confident that she is capable of making this decision, so I think it's time for doctors to step out. It's not as if they're saying 'once we take that chicken bone out of your throat, you'll live a perfectly normal life'

While this has to be heart-rending for the parents, I think they should honor their daughter's decision to not have the surgery.

At first I thought it was obvious that a 13 year old child should not be allowed to make the decision. But after reading more, I am convinced that her suffering has given her an unusual maturity. Poor angel, it's heartbreaking.

I hope the medical professionals are managing any pain connected to her problems.

I would imagine a heart that fits in her 13-year-old chest doesn't come along everyday, so maybe she felt someone else who doesn't also have leukemia might have a better chance of survival with the transplant. If it were me the prognosis of surviving the leukemia would have a substantial impact on my decision to go ahead with a heart transplant. Certainly the quality of what is left of your life would be of foremost importance.

There are so many factors in this, but ultimately, where do you draw the line? I think children who have lived with cancer most of their lives tend to be more mature and able to make these decisions. Most of them spend their lives in pain, hospitals, and not knowing their fate. Is she old enough? Who really knows... this thirteen year-old might be more mature than some 50 year olds.

I can't fault Hannah for wanting to make this decision. Plus, the strain of the transplant could only further aggravate other problems she is having. I think it comes down to the patient and family's wishes. Hannah has a right to refuse medical treatment (more accurately in this case, her parents do). The physicians cannot force it on her. They took an oath to do no harm... forcing her to have this surgery might not harm her physically, but it could harm her mentally and emotionally.

I'm glad the physicians have revoked their decision to force her to have the surgery. I also hope her parents will abide by her wishes. Either way, I wish Hannah the best because she seems like a brave young woman.

If she is an unemancipated minor, her parents bear the burden of the decision. However, with a child who has a rational and lucid decision, I would hope that they respect her wishes. As a doctor, I would respect the family's opinion.

I feel that the right to decide what is done to your body is just the most basic, fundamental human right.

Yes, she is 13, but I think that as long as the doctors are confident that it is the informed decision of the minor and not a result of pressure from her parents, I think they should be allowed to make that decision. Especially if the surgery is risky, which it sounds like it is.

Poor thing, this is so sad. I agree with everyone that her wishes should be respected. At first I thought it was a little crazy because she has a chance to live if given this surgery, but then again I've never been in her place, and that is the point; the patient should be given the right to choose. I don't know how I'd feel if her parents were opposed to it, but I think that respecting her wishes does make the most sense. 13 is old enough to think these things through- but it is awfully close to where I might consider drawing the line. (10, 11?)

I think this case is pretty clear-cut because the parents agree with the daughter, or at least respectful of her decision.

Out of curiosity (and to make a more interesting discussion) what do you guys think the procedure should be when the parents and child disagree? What if the parents don't want her to have the surgery, but she wants it? Or, on the other hand, should they be able to force her to have a surgery she doesn't want?

Okay Mich, I'll take a stab at it. If the parents disagree, let the minor petition the court for a third party court-appointed legal guardian of some sort, just to handle this issue. I think a social worker who would work with the court, child, parents and doctors would be the best bet. Then the social worker/legal guardian could take the findings to the court and present his/her advice to the judge, and the judge could ultimately decide.

I think this would work both ways- for kids whose parents refuse to let them get blood transfusions on the basis of their religion, also. I don't think a parent's religion or beliefs, if the child doesn't agree, should preclude the child from getting life-saving treatment.

Snowbunny, that's more or less what I think, too. A lot of people are inclined to let the doctors decide, and I think that's a mistake. The courts (and therefore inevitably social advocates) need to be brought in when you have a situation like that. In the case of medical emergencies, though, it gets even more complicated.

It sounds as if she's put a lot of thought behind her decision. She's not taking her decision lightly and because of all that she has experienced in her brief life to date she knows what major surgery entitles including the risks and potential benefits. If she has the transplant for how ever long she lives afterward she will have to take drugs to prevent the rejection of the heart and those meds could conflict with the meds to treat her cancer.

I'm surprised that they want to give a heart transplant to someone who has cancer and is not in remission.

This is like a Jodi Picoult book!

It is her body and her decision.

Her life;her decision.

My child, my responsibility, my decision.

Any opinion on quality of life? What kinds of side effects will this poor girl have to endure from all of the drugs? How much longer will she be guaranteed to live? It's a sticky situation to put it lightly but it does sound like her parents and the patient herself have truly thought things out. Also, I'm not a parent so obviously I don't know what it's like to have a child, but after working in a hospital and seeing parents and their terminally ill children, it's beyond heartbreaking. These kids just want to be normal (can you imagine a 10 year old crying all over you because he just wants to go out and play?) and it's hard to say what you would do if you were faced with certain circumstances with your children.

What a hard decision! It sounds as though this girl really has thought about her choice, but at the same time, 13 is really young. I have a hard time believing that a 13 year old can really grasp the concept of life and death, and as such I don't think someone that young can make an educated decision. However, I'm tempted to agree with Starangel, who said that children who live with cancer who have spent their childhoods in hospitals are forced to mature faster, or at the least would have a more personal view of what death is.

I think it's good they're honoring her decision. Even if you're young, you should still be able to decide what kind and quality (and length) of life you want to lead.

wow I so wanna make a correlation between this and the abortion argument being a child can decide what to do with HER body at 10,11,12. If you agree with that sentiment then you cannot argue this case. I however think it's the parents decision in this case... but since they are on board with her decision, there doesn't seem any reason to argue...

I'm with UnDave.
Children usually incapable of making adult decisions for themselves.
That is why the courts have agreed children are in the care of their parents until they reach legal age.
We as parents are their entrusted caregivers challenged with making decisions on their behalf.
Therefore, if the parents disagreed with the child it should still be up to the parent.
Unless the child is 16-17 years of age (near the age of 18) and willing to petition the court that she is old enough to make her own decisions.
That being said I think it is never up to the doctors do go against the wishes of either the patient or parents.

I think at 13, she has more experience with this than most teenagers her age. She has had surgery after surgery. Based on the article, she seems to understand and appreciate the risks. Again based on the article, she seems to be mature enough to make her own decision. The doctors should respect her wishes.

This really reminds me of "My Sister's Keeper," by Jodi Piccoult

She has all her mental faculties, and if her parents are on board with this I see nothing wrong with it. It would be wrong of the doctors to intervene " first do no harm" and it seems as if the risk of this procedure seeing that Hannah's immune system is already compromised by cancer would do harm. It's funny if Hannah was to refuse for religious reasons (at least in this country) she wouldn't be questioned, but the fact that she's not doing it based on her faith but a though out logical, rationale way and she is being question is just stupid!

" My child, my responsibility, my decision."

"I'm with UnDave.
Children usually incapable of making adult decisions for themselves."

Really? So hypothetically if your religon ( like Christian Scientist/Jehovah Witness etc ) denotes that your child couldn't have a life saving procedure you would not allow the doctors to perform a procedure and allow your child to die? If so you couldn't possible be pro life...right?

im confused a little bastyle on you last comment
... and even if she was in the US and doing so for religious reason, you say she wouldn't be questioned but that is untrue. they have forced minors to have procedures in the US before.

bastyle- I was going to ask the same thing! This is a no-brainer since both the parents and girl agree. But what if the parents were denying their child medical care based on their religious beliefs?

I know UnDave is pro-life, but it isn't consistent to argue that a parent should be able to demand their 13 (or 17 for that matter) year old daughter to die because it is against their religious beliefs to get a blood transfusion, but that a woman wouldn't have the right to end her pregnancy.

"Really? So hypothetically if your religon ( like Christian Scientist/Jehovah Witness etc ) denotes that your child couldn't have a life saving procedure you would not allow the doctors to perform a procedure and allow your child to die? If so you couldn't possible be pro life...right?"

If that was my religion, then as a parent it is my right to decide that for my child. Fortunately for me and my children, we don't subscribe to such nonsense.

Snow - as long as the child is my responsibility, it is my decision that matters, and not my child's. Again, it's fortunate that I don't subscribe to "The child can't have a transfusion" nonsense. I'm all about saving the life, not letting the child die needlessly, unless they are a liberal, then I don't care.

snow, I see it as this, even with all the science in medicine, it still fails an alarming percentage of the time. If these people believe in their hearts that abstaining from a science that has killed many animals,questionably killing the earth, and uses what they determine to be babies(stem cells) in the name of science, why shouldn't they have that right. And if that child wants to abstain from medical treatment as well, why couldn't she? I think it would be hypocritical of you to say that they cannot make that decision and then be ok with abortion. It's THEIR body and if the girl is 13 and can get an abortion, why cant she refuse her own medical treatment.
Where I think it is not hypocritical on our end is this.... that would be a person deciding for themselves (and a parent does have decision rights for their child as well) that they are not harming themselves, where imo abortion is murdering and unwilling child...

I however love medical intervention... so there is no hypocrisy anyway

I didn't say the child couldn't abstain! I said what if the PARENTS denied the child medical attention based on their religious beliefs?

Apparently some of us would give more rights to an unborn fetus than a 13 year old United States citizen... (this being hypothetical and all).

Maybe I'm just confused then snow, because I don't get what you're saying. I think that we should always be on the side of life, wether it be a fetus or a 13yr old. That's why I'm against abortion as birth control, and for providing lifesaving measures for this 13yr old.

Michelin had brought up the question for the sake of discussion, what happens when the child and parent don't agree? Well, what if as a parent you decided that allowing your child to get a life-saving blood transfusion is against your religious beliefs, so your child will die instead? You said something along the lines: "I'm a parent so I get to decide what is right for my child." I had assumed you meant that as a general rule, parents should get to decide what to do for their children, but perhaps I was wrong, and you were only referring to yourself? I understand that you are not against life-saving measures, but I had assumed that the rule you thought should apply to you should apply to everyone.

And for the final time: Pro-choice people are not for abortion as birth control and it is OFFENSIVE AND IRRELEVANT every time you bring it up.

And the abortion thing, I just thought it would be an odd stance if someone were pro-life, but also okay with allowing a parent to refuse their child life-saving measures based on their religious beliefs, just because as parents, it should be their decision.

Thanks for reminding me, but I've not ever said that
pro-choice = pro-abortion as birth control.

I was speaking more for me personally when I said "It's my child, my responsibility, my choice." As to your question about what do you do if life saving measures are against their religious beliefs, my opinion is very similar to the pro-choice group, which is it's their child, their responsibility, and therefore their decision. If it were up to me, I'd do whatever it takes to save the kid, and wrestle with the legal and moral implications with them later. Unfortunately, it isn't up to me to make a decision for them.

Pro-choice people generally see a significant difference between a fetus, 0-3 months and a 13 year old child. I find it interesting that your theory would not allow the fetus to be aborted, but would allow the 13 year old child to die without the blood transfusion.

snow-91% of abortions are birth control abortions. 1% rape/incest, 1% baby was diagnosed with something , 7% mothers health.

I don't see how you are getting that. If the parents want an abortion, it is their choice. Personally, I am against that. If the parents want to keep their child from having a lifesaving treatment performed on their child, that is their choice. Personally, I am against that as well.

Those are very interesting stats Hainan. It goes a long way to show that abortion is being used mainly as birth control. Because I'm sure others will ask, can you provide the source?

wikipedia for the 1% rape/incest
and http://www.bfl.org/IssuesAndAnswers/Abortion/AbortionsforHealth.aspx
for the others

UnDave35
"My child, my responsibility, my decision."

UM NO

your child's body
your child's problem
(your child who will actually experience the treatment as well)
your child's decision.

you have no say in the matter, end of story.

your child could have a cut or be in need of major surgery. in ether case it makes no difference
it is his body
it is his problem
he is the one who has to experience it not you
therefore it is down to him and him alone!

personally i think it is a disgrace that the courts have taken it upon themselves to step in in cases like this.

how would you like it if someone (say your parents) decided that they had a right to decide for you just because you are their son and they case about you?

furthermore if you needed medical treatment and you knew someone else would stick their nose in or even go as far as to say "it is entirely my decision" would it be more likely to encourage you to seek treatment or to keep the matter secret.