You’ve probably experienced something like this before: You asked your parents for something that the proverbial “cool kid” in your class could do - something small, like staying out late, or something bigger, like getting your own car - and you were decisively told no. Afterwards, you would walk outside, fist outstretched, and yell at the sky “why me?!”

Okay. Maybe that last part wasn’t true. But you’ve likely always wondered why you couldn’t make such decisions for yourselves, and you’ve likely also challenged the notion of “why not” many times. Most recognize this turning point, or the age at which you can make most decisions, to be at 18 – where in most countries, you’re recognized as an adult and can enter a world where you have few restrictions on what you want to pursue and do.

But how valid, really, is this age? It’s scientifically proven that this age, to be frank, means close to nothing when it comes to decision-making; the reason for it was to create a legal age that establishes a norm that everyone can follow.

So, knowing this, how does society discern when us young people have the agency to make such decisions for ourselves?

An issue that frames this argument is the debate for the right to death of children, or the age at which terminally ill, suffering children can decide to die via physician-assisted death. It is an extreme example, but the reason for such a topic is because it encapsulates the many layers of decision-making involved with such a decision, it's a very present (albeit less discussed) issue in society today, and with its extremity, its life-and-death implications are something that begs discussion.

Physician-assisted death happens as a physician facilitates a patient’s voluntary death through providing the means. A common method is administering a painless, lethal dose that swiftly ends the life of the patient after the patient takes sleeping pills. There are other ways, too - one can be through willingly giving lethal medication to a patient knowing that they will consume it in their own privacy, and another method can be through withholding life-saving treatment from the patient by their request.

Adult euthanasia has seen rising popularity around the globe, with laws legalizing euthanasia being enacted in numerous countries, some notable nations being parts of the United States and Australia, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. However, on the subject of child euthanasia, many fewer countries support it - only Belgium and the Netherlands have legalized child euthanasia, conditional on very strict terms. 

What explains why these countries support this, and what explains why others don’t? There are numerous factors that can impact the considerations a country has when making these decisions - a couple relevant ones are biology, cultural values, and language.

The biology of the developing mind, for example, is one factor that can affect society’s approach to rights of the youth. Some argue that minors, given their age and relative inexperience, are not mentally capable to judge the decisive choice of what is best for them. Luc Bovens, a professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics, explains this argument as the Capability of Discernment: that minors, incapable of discernment, are not fit to handle requests of euthanasia. 

On the other end, palliative care researchers Marije Brouwer, Els Maeckelberghe, and Eduard Verhagen attack the idea of a “fixed” age of mental competency relying on the formation of the brain, and instead postulate that the age limit is more varied. 

When presenting evidence that brain development in children even from the age of 12 upwards are competent enough to make such decisions, both sides have their own merits and substantive evidence. Knowing this, there isn’t an objectively correct answer to brain maturity, which invites the attitude towards child euthanasia to rely on other values and bases. 

Cultural values, too, can shape society’s approach to euthanasia. It is, after all, argued as the most central problem of social science. The history and development of a country’s philosophy or ideologies can spur their approach to euthanasia. 

The hippocratic oath, for example, is a traditionally western oath of ethics taken by physicians. The famous clause “first do no harm” has been interpreted literally - that the role of physicians should first adhere to not doing harm, and should serve as a basis of their practices. Although the oath has become somewhat archaic today, this may be a source of reluctance for contemporary western societies. 

Cultural viewpoints like collectivism and individualism can also shape perceptions of child euthanasia. In the United States, for example, heavy emphasis on individualism and self-governance leads to this autonomy to make decisions for your body as empowering. Across the world in Korea, however, the same autonomy is viewed as a burden - eastern culture’s collectivist mentalities put the priority of the group over the individual. 

What about language? How the connotations of the words “euthanasia” and “suicide” frame the practice, and how the word is culturally understood around the world, play huge roles in considerations. 

Margaret Battin, an American philosopher and medical ethicist, argues that the term euthanasia itself has historically had a negative connotation - that perhaps the taboo could be attributed to the fact that child euthanasia’s emergence in history was its involvement in Nazi Germany’s systematic killing of disabled and handicapped children. She explains that in the United States and rest of the world, euthanasia is often accompanied with "overtones of Nazism," and that the term itself "evokes that horrifying legacy of political killing that had nothing to do with the the interests of the person killed.”

She juxtaposes this with the term’s definition in some European cultures, where it is understood as the Greek word eu-thanatos, which transliterates to “good death.” 

Such may be one of the reasons why Belgium and the Netherlands embrace this practice: the term connotes for mercy and compassion, rather than forceful killing.

These instances, although about one specific issue, help outline how those in authority think when considering all of the rights us youth are entitled to. From driving, to getting married - all of those rights come with extensive thought, and that thought is shaped by similar factors and ways of thinking. It’s important that as teenagers moving into a period where we will be given more and more freedom to make our own decisions, we understand why these restrictions came to exist.

The next time your parents say that you can’t do something, ask them “why” instead - learn about your family’s values, and hopefully, you’ll walk out of the conversation with a more refined view on your teenage life.