Not Old Enough for a Credit Card but Old Enough for Medical Consent?

As societal views on gender identity evolve, medical interventions like puberty blockers and sex-change surgeries are increasingly being offered to minors. These treatments can be devastating for some, and have been found to lead to increased suicide rates. They also raise important questions about a child’s ability to provide informed consent for such substantial medical decisions.

What is Informed Consent?

Informed consent is a cornerstone of medical ethics, requiring that a patient fully understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a medical procedure or treatment before agreeing to it. While adults are generally considered capable of such decision-making, the situation becomes more complex when it comes to minors.

Statutory Laws and Consent: The Rationale

Statutory rape laws provide a relevant framework to discuss the concept of consent when minors are involved. These laws exist to protect young individuals who may not possess the emotional or cognitive maturity to fully understand the implications of sexual activities. Even if a minor verbally consents, the law presumes that they may lack the capacity to make such a significant decision responsibly. The rationale behind these laws is to safeguard minors from potential exploitation and from making choices they are not equipped to handle.

Age Restrictions for Other Activities

It’s worth noting that society imposes age restrictions on a range of activities presumed to require a certain level of maturity and understanding. For example, in many jurisdictions, you cannot smoke until you’re 19, drink alcohol until you’re 19-21, drive until you’re 16, or vote until you’re 18. Yet, medical interventions like puberty blockers or sex-change surgeries, which have irreversible effects, are permitted for minors. This discrepancy raises questions about the consistency in how society assesses a minor’s ability to make significant life choices.

The Debate

Medical professionals, ethicists, and policymakers continue to wrestle with the ethical implications of permitting—or prohibiting—minors from undergoing irreversible medical treatments. One argument is that early intervention is essential for the mental health and well-being of transgender or gender-nonconforming youth. Yet, countless children in the past grew up without such interventions. While some of them were indeed different, that difference was accepted. The prevailing sentiment seems to be shifting: no longer do individuals need to accept themselves or find contentment in their bodies. Instead, there’s a rush to change, and many seem all too eager to facilitate this transformation. Children and adolescents, however, may lack the cognitive capacity and life experience to fully grasp the long-term consequences of these medical decisions.

Cognitive Capacity and Decision-Making

Children’s brains are still developing, especially the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for complex planning, decision-making, and moderating social behavior. If you believe that a child has the ability to make these kinds of significant decisions, I challenge you to let your child manage your household finances for six months and grant them full control.

Concluding Thoughts

The issue is clear-cut: if we don’t let minors drink, smoke, or vote due to their lack of maturity and decision-making capacity, should we allow them to make irreversible medical decisions like taking puberty blockers or undergoing sex-change surgery? These are life-altering choices that could have long-term implications. As society debates this, we must consider existing laws and cognitive development research. A child’s well-being is at stake, and we must proceed with caution.