You make a good case on a difficult issue. However, the very expression "mature minors" will sound like an oxymoron too many people. I wish we could find another expression for this concept.
I don't think so, because it is important to acknowledge that the person is a minor. Not so for legal purposes as Eric has shown, but for political purposes.
Pierre Poilievre has been quoted as saying that mature minors accessing MAID will not be the law if he becomes the PM. If we call them minors with capacity it becomes more difficult for him to deprive a person with capacity of the right to use that capacity. Also, if there is a test case in court against Poilievre’s government the court will have an easier time of overruling the government if the word “minor” is not preceded with “mature” but followed by “with capacity”. How language is used, and its emotional impact, can be important.
I don't think so, because it is important to acknowledge that the person is a minor. Not so for legal purposes as Eric has shown, but for political purposes.
The fact that a 16-year-old may be capable of deciding to get a life-saving treatment doesn't mean he will be capable of deciding to get a life-terminating treatment. Using your (flawed) logic, we may as well allow 16 or 14 or 12-year-olds to vote, drive cars, or buy firearms, because in principle, they may be capable of doing so.
You make a good case on a difficult issue. However, the very expression "mature minors" will sound like an oxymoron too many people. I wish we could find another expression for this concept.
I'm open to suggestions!
How about minors with capacity.
I don't think so, because it is important to acknowledge that the person is a minor. Not so for legal purposes as Eric has shown, but for political purposes.
Pierre Poilievre has been quoted as saying that mature minors accessing MAID will not be the law if he becomes the PM. If we call them minors with capacity it becomes more difficult for him to deprive a person with capacity of the right to use that capacity. Also, if there is a test case in court against Poilievre’s government the court will have an easier time of overruling the government if the word “minor” is not preceded with “mature” but followed by “with capacity”. How language is used, and its emotional impact, can be important.
Person with capacity? Just drop the minor part.
I don't think so, because it is important to acknowledge that the person is a minor. Not so for legal purposes as Eric has shown, but for political purposes.
The fact that a 16-year-old may be capable of deciding to get a life-saving treatment doesn't mean he will be capable of deciding to get a life-terminating treatment. Using your (flawed) logic, we may as well allow 16 or 14 or 12-year-olds to vote, drive cars, or buy firearms, because in principle, they may be capable of doing so.
I think this is such an important point that I included whole paragraph on this in the article. You can read it—evidently for the first time—above.