Because there is no logical reason why an 18-year-old should be allowed to make this decision, but a 17-year-old should not. Not one person arguing in favor of forcing treatment in these cases has presented one.
Regardless of WHY she is making a bad decision, her being 17 is not the issue. You are claiming that her parents are the reason, but her parents are decades beyond the age where this would even be an issue and have still not "grown" enough to see reason, thus undermining your argument.
Jimmy Higgins said:
The teen wants to live. The teen made that decision.
So, if she were one year older and refused treatment because she "wants to live," is the court allowed to force her to accept treatment because that'll achieve her desired outcome?
You can keep dodging the question if you want to. I'm not going to stop asking it.
Davka said:
So where do we draw the line between minors and adults?
There should not be an arbitrary line here. Given the implications of forcing medicine into someone's body against their will, there should be a process in place for these questions to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
That process exists to some extent, and did not rule in the patient's favor for reasons we don't know much about. But some here appear not to think that process should exist at all.