...is it bad to say I don't know the proper answer to this?
Allow me to enlighten you:
In the case of a person in the majority of their years, I think it's safe to say that he or she is the final arbiter of any decision to be made regarding their health care, as long as he or she can pay for it somehow.
In the case of a minor, however, the parents are liable for the bills. The minor is liable for the actual results of the procedure or treatment (or lack thereof). You have a classic potential conflict of interest not unlike the welfare state we currently have in the US, where 51% can vote themselves benefits from the treasury. Not that kids are welfare leeches...
But the moral principle from a financial standpoint is the same. However, you have to weigh that against the moral principle from the familial obligation standpoint. It's a parent's duty to care for their children, including health care costs.
So, you can have a couple of conflicting situations:
1. Minor cancer or other terminal patient that is so sick of treatment that he wants to just have some peace, but mom/dad/doc/ins all agree to give him more treatment. Minor patient is being coerced into treatment against his will.
2. Minor patient in need of treatment but parents cannot afford it or oppose it, yet doctor suggests it. CPS and gooberment gets involved as a result.
I'd propose as a standard of practice WRT minors in expensive or controversial treatment:
As long as the following conditions exist:
1. The patient is severely ill or terminal;
2. A means of at least partial insured payment is available;
3. The doctor believes that treatment is the best option;
4. and the patient and parents disagree on the course of treatment;
That the result should be to follow doctor's orders.
But... if the patient and parents agree to terminate care... the doctor is obligated to honor that and the state has no right to interfere.