NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically a follow-up on the story.

http://news.aol.com/health/article/teen-who-fled-chemo/497263?icid=main|main|dl1|link2|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2Fteen-who-fled-chemo%2F497263

MINNEAPOLIS (May 25) — A 13-year-old cancer patient and his mother are back in Minnesota after fleeing nearly a week ago to avoid court-ordered chemotherapy, a sheriff's office said Monday.
The Brown County sheriff's office did not provide more details. But Calvin Johnson, an attorney for the boy's parents, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that Daniel Hauser was in the custody of child protection workers and had been taken to a hospital for a medical assessment. The boys' parents were with him at the hospital, Johnson said.
Daniel and his mother, Colleen Hauser, had been due to appear in court last Tuesday for a hearing that could have resulted in a judge ordering chemotherapy to treat Daniel for Hodgkin's lymphoma. They missed the court appearance, and the search for them focused on Southern California and Mexico.
Johnson told the Star Tribune that Colleen Hauser has not been arrested. Although an arrest warrant had been issued for her , Brown County prosecutor James Olson planned to drop all charges, the Star Tribune reported.

Oddly enough, after all the mishap, I don't care if this kid survives cancer or not.

Oddly enough, after all the mishap, I don't care if this kid survives cancer or not.

I don't think 'odd' is the word I'd use.

Are these the same religious fanatics who want to kill all people that are pro euthanasia?

its good that she brought him back. it would be a sad thing to take your son away to die far from friends and family.

Oddly enough, after all the mishap, I don't care if this kid survives cancer or not.

It's so thoughtful of you to have an opinion. Too bad you're a woman.

Are these the same religious fanatics who want to kill all people that are pro euthanasia?Huh? The way I see it is the other way around: it is the judge (or the law) who is anti-euthanasia (well sort of anyway, since the kid's mother doesn't even think he is going to die, so you can't call it euthanasia, but just metaphorically).

Huh? The way I see it is the other way around: it is the judge (or the law) who is anti-euthanasia (well sort of anyway, since the kid's mother doesn't even think he is going to die, so you can't call it euthanasia, but just metaphorically).

But no chemo will result in an almost surely death, so in a way they are doing an euthanasia dance. With chemo he’s having a chance to survive it.

Maybe they should learn not to mix believe with knowledge.

It's so thoughtful of you to have an opinion. Too bad you're a woman.

Ruffy, you're so sweet. You called me a woman!:fluffle:

@Hairless Kitten: Indeed so they are actually pro-euthanasia? Not killing everyone who is pro-euthanasia, or is it my misunderstanding?

But no chemo will result in an almost surely death, so in a way they are doing an euthanasia dance. With chemo he’s having a chance to survive it.

The delicate thing with this case is that, in all instances, the parents aren't refusing to give treatment to their son. They just won't do chemo.

Maybe they should learn not to mix believe with knowledge.

I agree, but the Constitution, it seems, and I can be mistaken, protects them in that regard.

I think that the mom thinks she is going to cure the kid, so euthanasia is out of the question anyway. You can't blame her solely for this, I read in an article (not sure if it was posted here) that a guy called Billy Best did the same and "was cured" without chemo (or so he claims), giving her more reasons etc...

@Hairless Kitten: Indeed so they are actually pro-euthanasia? Not killing everyone who is pro-euthanasia, or is it my misunderstanding?

Pro euthanasia: Accepting euthanasia as a right.

So these folks are actually doing an euthanasia, while I'm suggesting that due their belief they would kill/fight all people that are accepting euthanasia as a right.... :)

Ruffy, you're so sweet. You called me a woman!:fluffle:

Make me a sammich?

Make me a sammich?

Nope, can't do.

Incidentally, what do you think about the article?

Although an arrest warrant had been issued for her , Brown County prosecutor James Olson planned to drop all charges, the Star Tribune reported.
Bastards.

Bastards.

Yeah. After all the fuss they made, now they're going to drop the charges.

The delicate thing with this case is that, in all instances, the parents aren't refusing to give treatment to their son. They just won't do chemo.

And what will they do? Pray? Going to a so-called 'healer'? The kid needs chemo.


I agree, but the Constitution, it seems, and I can be mistaken, protects them in that regard.

Probably it is. I lost my aunt 20 years ago. She was a Witness of Jehova and in need of a bloodtransfusion which she refused. Dumb death woman.

Nope, can't do.

Incidentally, what do you think about the article?

It's well written literature.

.. I mean, I haven't really been following this (no cable, no internet at my place), so if the kid didn't want chemo then he shouldn't be pressured and forced to get the treatments.

If I ever get cancer, I don't plan on getting chemo.

And what will they do? Pray? Going to a so-called 'healer'? The kid needs chemo.

I agree that the kid needs the chemo, you're right there, which is actually the treatment that as the more possibilities of curing him. But again, the only problem is that the parents and the kid won't go for it. But the parents aren't refusing to treat him, think about it. They just won't use chemo.

Probably it is. I lost my aunt 20 years ago. She was a Witness of Jehova and in need of a bloodtransfusion which she refused. Dumb death woman.

And these kind of choices are protected under the Constitution, which is sad because in the case of the Minnesota kid, this protection is endangering his life. But I don't think there's much the state can do.

It's well written literature.

.. I mean, I haven't really been following this (no cable, no internet at my place), so if the kid didn't want chemo then he shouldn't be pressured and forced to get the treatments.

If I ever get cancer, I don't plan on getting chemo.

Yeah, that's what many argue. He doesn't want the chemo, he should be respected. But he's so young...

I agree that the kid needs the chemo, you're right there, which is actually the treatment that as the more possibilities of curing him. But again, the only problem is that the parents and the kid won't go for it. But the parents aren't refusing to treat him, think about it. They just won't use chemo.



And these kind of choices are protected under the Constitution, which is sad because in the case of the Minnesota kid, this protection is endangering his life. But I don't think there's much the state can do.

Mmm. Maybe not for adults, but they can interfere for children. When parents are endangering the life of their kids, the state can take them away. I'm rather sure a similar law is working in US of A.

And there's another 'law' for doctors: the Hippocratic Oath.

Mmm. Maybe not for adults, but they can interfere for children. When parents are endangering the life of their kids, the state can take them away. I'm rather sure a similar law is working in US of A.

And there's another 'law' for doctors: the Hippocratic Oath.

The kid has, indeed, been put under the custody of the state IIRC.

And it was the doctors who alerted the authorities about what was going on with their patient.

Yeah, that's what many argue. He doesn't want the chemo, he should be respected. But he's so young...

Age is irrelevant, my friend.

Age is irrelevant, my friend.

Oh, I know. Still, his youth, he's 13, rather makes this case sad. The doctors, who I know may not hold all the answers, say that by undergoing chemo he'll get better, or that there's a chance that he'll recuperate.

Oh, I know. Still, his youth, he's 13, rather makes this case sad. The doctors, who I know may not hold all the answers, say that by undergoing chemo he'll get better, or that there's a chance that he'll recuperate.

It's not about his condition, it's about his opinion.

Age is irrelevant, my friend.

I think it is very relevant in this case. At 13 you're not an adult and you can't expect that they behave as an adult.

Ruffi, if the parents of the kid were atheist ones or having a sane religion, it would get chemo and the kid would accept it probably as well.

And there's another 'law' for doctors: the Hippocratic Oath.I thought that said that they will "harm no one" rather than "save everyone"? :confused:

I think it is very relevant in this case. At 13 you're not an adult and you can't expect that they behave as an adult.

Ruffi, if the parents of the kid were atheist ones or having a sane religion, it would get chemo and the kid would accept it probably as well.

I don't feel like getting into some "age of consent" debate. :(

*takes opinion and hides*

I agree that 13 year olds should at least have some opinions. If not then how are they going to mature? I mean I was pretty "mature" at 13 yo, not exactly very mature, but I could have very relevant opinions...

I thought that said that they will "harm no one" rather than "save everyone"? :confused:

Letting one die, is actually harming one. Surely in this case.

Look the kid is having a serious chance of surviving when it gets chemo. The other opions are looking very bad for him.

I don't think that's what they say in the oath at all, or imply, because that would mean they have an obligation to save everyone, which is impossible, and what if they have to choose? Not harming anyone, though, is much more feasible. :)

I don't think that's what they say in the oath at all, or imply, because that would mean they have an obligation to save everyone, which is impossible, and what if they have to choose? Not harming anyone, though, is much more feasible. :)

This is written in the original oath:

“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone”

Most countries around the globe their medical laws are based on this old greek one.

Basically a follow-up on the story.

http://news.aol.com/health/article/teen-who-fled-chemo/497263?icid=main|main|dl1|link2|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2Fteen-who-fled-chemo%2F497263



Oddly enough, after all the mishap, I don't care if this kid survives cancer or not.

Wasn't this the same 13-year old who was completely illiterate and the same person that we argued about in the last thread as to whether or not he was mentally capable of making an informed decision and such?

@Hairless Kitten: I think it says that one shouldn't cause knowingly suffering or harm. (i.e intentional wrong prescriptions or whatever)

[off-topic]However some (like Dr. House :D) exploit it and say that pain is ok, as long as you don't harm the patient.[/off-topic] :tongue:

I still say the kid and his parents opinion should be left untouched, and then at his funeral, everyone gathers around and laughs at the idiots in the moment of their grief and record it for posterity.

Don't prevent the stupid with laws, prevent the stupid by documenting the end results of being stupid as object lessons.

@Hairless Kitten: I think it says that one shouldn't cause knowingly suffering or harm. (i.e intentional wrong prescriptions or whatever)

[off-topic]However some (like Dr. House :D) exploit it and say that pain is ok, as long as you don't harm the patient.[/off-topic] :tongue:

While euthanasia is law in my country, many doctors have problems with executing it. They often use their oath as a defence.

Sure, doctors can't cure and rescue all and this is not fighting their oath. But leaving patients who has a big chance to survive is fighting with their oath.

Euthanasia IS "harming" the patient (well.. subjectively anyway, it depends), because it results from the doctor's action. In this case, it is inaction that causes the kid to die -- which is a difference. ;)

This is written in the original oath:

“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone”

Most countries around the globe their medical laws are based on this old greek one.

Prescribing treatment and forcing it are not the same thing. The doctors have, to the best of their abilities, stated what treatment should be used.

My question in cases like these is always: Who is actually making the decision? Has the teenager chosen to forego treatment and his parents are simply honoring that request? If so, is he mature enough to make that decision?

If the answer to both of the above questions is yes, then I do not believe the courts should step in.

I don't know about this particular teenager, but I think it is feasible that a 13-year old could be old enough to make this decision for himself.

Euthanasia IS "harming" the patient (well.. subjectively anyway, it depends), because it results from the doctor's action. In this case, it is inaction that causes the kid to die -- which is a difference.

To be fair, chemotherapy is harming the patient as well - quite a bit, actually. One just hopes that it harms the cancer more than the rest of the patient - in other words, that the good done outweighs the harm.

Hey, does anyone know about the doctor-patient confidentiality laws in minnesota? I know that here in NY, doctors are not allowed to divulge information unless there's a court order or the doctor fears that the patient will harm themself or someone else (in which case, IIRC, the doctor MUST divulge that info).

If such a law exists in minnesota, then that certainly qualifies.

Hey, does anyone know about the doctor-patient confidentiality laws in minnesota? I know that here in NY, doctors are not allowed to divulge information unless there's a court order or the doctor fears that the patient will harm themself or someone else (in which case, IIRC, the doctor MUST divulge that info).

If such a law exists in minnesota, then that certainly qualifies.

Such laws also generally require that a doctor divulge information to the state in the instance that he believes a child is being neglected or mistreated. This could legally fall under that distinction.

It's well written literature.

.. I mean, I haven't really been following this (no cable, no internet at my place), so if the kid didn't want chemo then he shouldn't be pressured and forced to get the treatments.

If I ever get cancer, I don't plan on getting chemo.

Sadly, I must concur. From what I gather the hospital wanted custody taken away from the parents and to force the kid to have the chemotherapy, even if it meant strapping him down to the bed and infusing it into him, which could be construed as assault on the part of the hospital. I believe that everything should be done to help someone live as long as they can, but to that extreme is unacceptable as it is most cruel and inhumane.

Sadly, I must concur. From what I gather the hospital wanted custody taken away from the parents and to force the kid to have the chemotherapy, even if it meant strapping him down to the bed and infusing it into him, which could be construed as assault on the part of the hospital.

You gather that hypothetically the hospital may have committed assault!

That is hypothetically very persuasive!

I believe that everything should be done to help someone live as long as they can, but to that extreme is unacceptable as it is most cruel and inhumane.

No. What is cruel and inhumane is persuading your children to die for your beliefs.

I'm glad this didn't become an even bigger circus. Now maybe the powers that be can sit down and rethink this law. When parents and a child make the same decision about any given medical treatment, they should have the right to accept or reject it.

My question in cases like these is always: Who is actually making the decision? Has the teenager chosen to forego treatment and his parents are simply honoring that request? If so, is he mature enough to make that decision?

The child refuses chemo and the parents allege they want to try alternative medicine to try and cure him. The thing is, they aren't refusing to provide treatment for their son, they just won't go for chemo.

I don't know about this particular teenager, but I think it is feasible that a 13-year old could be old enough to make this decision for himself.

Apparently this particular 13-year old has learning disabilities, and is completely illiterate. Does that renders his decision not to undego chemotherapy null?

And these kind of choices are protected under the Constitution, which is sad because in the case of the Minnesota kid, this protection is endangering his life. But I don't think there's much the state can do.

That isn't sad at all. People have already sacrificed their lives for the protections in the Constitution because many believe that freedom is more important than life. This kid and his family seem to agree.

I thought that said that they will "harm no one" rather than "save everyone"? :confused:

^This

Letting one die, is actually harming one. Surely in this case.


By that logic doctors should be roving around looking for people to grab, drag back to their hospitals and operate on.

This is written in the original oath:
“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone”
Most countries around the globe their medical laws are based on this old greek one.

Prescribe =/= force. The wording seems to imply that the choice is left to the patient.

Well I'm glad that they have come back and I hope he gets the treatment he needs.

It's easy this one. No matter what the maturity level of the 13 year old child is, in law he is not yet able to make this decision for himself.

His parents then are the only ones allowed to say what is and isn't going to happen to him.

If they refuse treatment on his behalf then that is it done and dusted. Now I hope they have seen sense and that the child does not die for their faith(I don't know if the child shares it?), but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

The child refuses chemo and the parents allege they want to try alternative medicine to try and cure him. The thing is, they aren't refusing to provide treatment for their son, they just won't go for chemo.

One could argue the same about parents who want to sit and home and pray (they're using the "treatment" they believe in), rather than seek medical attention. However, most of NSG seems to agree that such parents should not be able to make that decision.

Apparently this particular 13-year old has learning disabilities, and is completely illiterate. Does that renders his decision not to undego chemotherapy null?

It makes it less reliable, yes. If he is developmentally challenged, there is a good chance that he is not, in fact, mature enough to have a say in this decision.

If they refuse treatment on his behalf then that is it done and dusted. Now I hope they have seen sense and that the child does not die for their faith(I don't know if the child shares it?), but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I haven't read up extensively on this case, but the impression I've gotten is that the decision to refuse chemo was made independent of their religious beliefs. They are using religious belief to try and claim that they can use an alternative treatment instead, but that seems to be a separate decision from refusing chemo.

There was a 16-year old patient not too terribly long ago who wanted to refuse chemo and try alternative therapies. No religion was cited. Does that change the preferred outcome of the case?

That isn't sad at all. People have already sacrificed their lives for the protections in the Constitution because many believe that freedom is more important than life. This kid and his family seem to agree.

At the cost of this child's life? I think it is sad.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;14816748I haven't read up extensively on this case, but the impression I've gotten is that the decision to refuse chemo was made independent of their religious beliefs. They are using religious belief to try and claim that they can use an alternative treatment instead, but that seems to be a separate decision from refusing chemo.

There was a 16-year old patient not too terribly long ago who wanted to refuse chemo and try alternative therapies. No religion was cited. Does that change the preferred outcome of the case?[/QUOTE]


Then I would say that the law reconises that he has that choice. So no it does not change anything.

Yeah. After all the fuss they made, now they're going to drop the charges.Of course they're going to drop charges. The whole point of the charges was that the courts thought that the mother was failing to act in her child's best interests. Since she has returned voluntarily with her child for treatment there is no need to press charges. Pressing charges would not be in the best interests of the child as doing so would cause emotional distress to the child, when it appears that the mother is now willing to while with the court order.

Then I would say that the law reconises that he has that choice. So no it does not change anything.

Actually, that's the problem. It doesn't. And you said so yourself:

It's easy this one. No matter what the maturity level of the 13 year old child is, in law he is not yet able to make this decision for himself.

16 is also the age of a minor, and his choices were not recognized by law. When his parents chose to respect his choices, the state threatened to remove him from their custody and force him into chemo - much like the situation ongoing here.

One could argue the same about parents who want to sit and home and pray (they're using the "treatment" they believe in), rather than seek medical attention. However, most of NSG seems to agree that such parents should not be able to make that decision.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "such parents." Who makes that call?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "such parents." Who makes that call?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=594662

As for who makes that call, it's a tough line to walk. At some point, the parent's decisions can step over the line into neglect. Obviously, people will disagree on exactly that point.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=594662

As for who makes that call, it's a tough line to walk. At some point, the parent's decisions can step over the line into neglect. Obviously, people will disagree on exactly that point.

the problem with that one is the fact that the child wasn't getting better through their prayers, thus altenatives should've been looked into.

If a doctor/Hospital is doing a treatment and the patient is getting worse, should they continue the same treatment would make them guilty of malpractice.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=594662

As for who makes that call, it's a tough line to walk. At some point, the parent's decisions can step over the line into neglect. Obviously, people will disagree on exactly that point.

Which is, I think, what the court has done.

the problem with that one is the fact that the child wasn't getting better through their prayers, thus altenatives should've been looked into.

If a doctor/Hospital is doing a treatment and the patient is getting worse, should they continue the same treatment would make them guilty of malpractice.

All patients on chemo "get worse" if we're talking about symptomatic measurement. Chemotherapy is devastating to the body. The hope, of course, is that it is more devastating to the cancer than the rest of the body, so that the patient can eventually get better.


Which is, I think, what the court has done.

That certainly is the argument being made.

One could argue the same about parents who want to sit and home and pray (they're using the "treatment" they believe in), rather than seek medical attention. However, most of NSG seems to agree that such parents should not be able to make that decision.



It makes it less reliable, yes. If he is developmentally challenged, there is a good chance that he is not, in fact, mature enough to have a say in this decision.



I haven't read up extensively on this case, but the impression I've gotten is that the decision to refuse chemo was made independent of their religious beliefs. They are using religious belief to try and claim that they can use an alternative treatment instead, but that seems to be a separate decision from refusing chemo.

There was a 16-year old patient not too terribly long ago who wanted to refuse chemo and try alternative therapies. No religion was cited. Does that change the preferred outcome of the case?

There does seem to be the assumption that it is for religious reasons, as that is what is claimed by the media, but who knows, maybe this family had some prior experiences with the medical establishment that led to less than positive outcomes thus leading them to seek alternative treatments. And no it does not change the preferred outcome as the patient and, in the case the patient is underage, the legal guardian of said patient reserve the right to informed choice and to refuse treatment as they see fit. They also have the right to seek second and third opinions as well as consider other treatments which may have a similar degree of efficacy, or are perceived as such. Personally I would choose chemotherapy if that is what my doctor recommends, but if it is not working or I was getting tired of it, I would seriously consider ending or switching treatment.

I read in an article (not sure if it was posted here) that a guy called Billy Best did the same and "was cured" without chemo (or so he claims), giving her more reasons etc...
Billy did a few chemo treatments, and quit, and was cured. But Hodgkin's has been known to be cured by only one chemo treatment, so this wasn't a medical miracle. With zero chemo treatments, however, the survival rate is about nil.

It was just a small mention on page 2 of the article I read, certainly didn't say anything about that.

People have already sacrificed their lives for the protections in the Constitution because many believe that freedom is more important than life. This kid and his family seem to agree.


Question: WHOSE freedom, in this case?

The freedom of the parents to do whatever they want with the children,

Or

The freedom of the minor to be protected from peril, grow up to be an healty adult, and then be able to choose his own path of life (and of death)?

That isn't sad at all. People have already sacrificed their lives for the protections in the Constitution because many believe that freedom is more important than life. This kid and his family seem to agree.

Are they actually doing this in an attempt to preserve their Constitutional freedoms? Or are they just idiots who think their son is better off without chemo?

Are they actually doing this in an attempt to preserve their Constitutional freedoms? Or are they just idiots who think their son is better off without chemo?

I'm inclined to believe your second question hits the nail on the head. They're just idiots who think their son's better without the chemo, despite it being known for treating their son's condition to the point of curing it.

So if your mother wants sex with you and you, as her 13-year old son, is agreeing this then we should allow this according some constitution?

My question in cases like these is always: Who is actually making the decision? Has the teenager chosen to forego treatment and his parents are simply honoring that request?

Independently and of his own accord, he just happened to come to the same conclusion supported by his parents backwards religious beliefs! The one they've taught and obviously support, so strongly they are willing to break the law to do so.

I don't think so.

Independently and of his own accord, he just happened to come to the same conclusion supported by his parents backwards religious beliefs! The one they've taught and obviously support, so strongly they are willing to break the law to do so.

I don't think so.

In this case we could agree. This kid was probably influenced by his parents' decision because it was found out that he has a severe learning disabilities and, apparently, he's almost illiterate.

In this case we could agree. This kid was probably influenced by his parents' decision because it was found out that he has a severe learning disabilities and, apparently, he's almost illiterate.

Damn. I did not know that was the case.

Independently and of his own accord, he just happened to come to the same conclusion supported by his parents backwards religious beliefs! The one they've taught and obviously support, so strongly they are willing to break the law to do so.

I don't think so.
That's one of the problems when dealing with younger kids. You have to keep in mind:

Kids are not stupid. They really, really aren't. But young kids are usually completely dependent on their parents. OF COURSE children typically agree with their parents/guardians on most things...their parents/guardians are where kids get shelter, food, water, and every comfort that they have.

It's been very well established that children's views diverge from their parents' in parallel with their own developing independence. Which, duh, right? The more able a kid is to take care of themselves, the more willing they are to contradict Mom and Pop.

In this case, we've got a 13-year-old, of an age when even normal kids are still pretty dependent on their parents, and this particular 13-year-old has been intentionally rendered even more dependent on his parents by being kept illiterate and home-schooled. Not only should we question his ability to make medical decisions for himself based on his age, we should question his ability to contradict his parents due to their intentional efforts to make him compliant.

Damn. I did not know that was the case.

Yup. Some people on the forum have been following this news and one of the posters found this out. The 13 year old has a severe learning disability and is practically illiterate.

Question: WHOSE freedom, in this case?

The freedom of the parents to do whatever they want with the children,

Or

The freedom of the minor to be protected from peril, grow up to be an healty adult, and then be able to choose his own path of life (and of death)?

Does the minor really have to wait until the moment of his 18th birthday to have said freedom?

(I'm not saying that this particular minor is able to exercise that right - I'm just asking a general question.)

Does the minor really have to wait until the moment of his 18th birthday to have said freedom?

Legally, and speaking without any certain knowledge, I would say yes, although there is probably a gray area (in some cases, in some states, in some rulings) where being close enough is good enough.

On the other hand there are some rights where the legal right is cut off by age without exception - the right to vote, for example.

Does the minor really have to wait until the moment of his 18th birthday to have said freedom?

Yes. That's why underage people are placed under the authority of their parents or wardens.

Yes. That's why underage people are placed under the authority of their parents or wardens.

Children are placed under the authority of others because they are not yet able to make certain decisions for themselves. Does something magically happen at 18 that makes them go from completely unable to do so to completely able to do so?

If a 16-year old is in a life and death situation, should we really ignore his input on the matter because of an arbitrary age cut-off?

Children are placed under the authority of others because they are not yet able to make certain decisions for themselves. Does something magically happen at 18 that makes them go from completely unable to do so to completely able to do so?No, however fair and truthful means of determining how grown up someone is are either impossible or bureaucratically unfeasible. Even if you could take blood samples or standardized tests to determine whether someone was an adult, the effort required to test each person individually (and multiple times in the event of failed tests) would be a collossal drain on resources.

A better idea is to have a staggered endowment of rights to self-determination at sensible ages until an "arbitrary" cut-off date for adulthood.