•  
  •  
 

Allison Mantz

Abstract

Part One discusses Ohio's current DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) law, which does not include an exception for mature minors. It explains the medical difference between initiating a valid DNR order and refusing life-sustaining medical treatment. However, the note solely focuses on DNR and how it relates to a minor's right to initiate his or her own DNR order in light of parental disagreement. Part two explains the evolution of the minor and healthcare. Specifically, the progression from the early common law assumption that minors lack the capacity to consent, to the present, in which minors are permitted to make some medical treatment decisions without parental consent or knowledge. Part three examines the development of the mature minor exception, and the effect it has had on minor's healthcare rights. This section will also discuss three cases that have applied a mature minor exception in determining whether a minor was capable of consenting to some form of medical treatment. Part four compares West Virginia and New York's DNR statutes to Ohio's current law, and ultimately determines that Ohio's law should be amended to permit mature minor's to initiate a DNR order with or without parental consent. Part five will focus specifically on Ohio's abortion statute, which recognizes a mature minor's right to have an abortion without parental consent or knowledge. It will include an overview of Ohio's abortion law, and an explanation of the judicial bypass proceeding for a mature minor who does not wish to notify her parents. The section will also discuss the mature minor exception as it was applied in the abortion cases of Bellotti v. Baird, Ohio v. Akron Ctr. for Reproductive Health, In re Jane Doe I, and In re Jane Doe. It will conclude that Ohio law should apply the mature minor exception to the area of DNR because it already applies in the significant medical situation of abortion.

Download

Share

COinS