Choice to live

Came across this in the local newspaper today....

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_301022.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7721231.stm

It tells the story of a British girl of 13 years old making her decision to refuse a heart transplant. Details are mentioned in the link above.

So, the issues are of two folds: one, when is a person deemed legally competent to make medical decisions for themselves, and two, how well are patients' wishes regarded.

How old is old enough? I don't have an answer to that. But I know a patient know his/her body the best. I work in medical field, and I often noticed people with high education does not mean they understand their health better, of course until they're sick one day and decided to research into it. We unfortunately live in an age of ignorance. Most of us tend not to espose ourselves to what seems like 'unrelated' topics. Health? Maybe only when I'm more than 40 years old. Therefore, Hannah even at such tender age but due to her frequent encounter with medicals, I bet she's much more competent than most of her carers for knowing her own conditions. I know the side effects of the chemotherapy medicines, but I have no idea how they feel like. Now, that is the difference.

I personally always hold patients' wishes as priority, particularly when I provide my services to them. Because I realise I want to be treated the same way too. I want to be respected of my wishes. Hence, I support Hannah's decision for her to enjoy her remaining days with dignity. Now, do I hear oppositions? Who am I to know when my life will end? I don't, and I don't really care. Regardless how much I have left with, it is important to me that I shall live it the way I want to, not dictated by some medical professionals. In this case, who should bear the responsibility of Hannah's death when the day comes? Hannah or her medical doctors? Who do you think?