Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Joona Räsänen argues some people have a right to change their legal age to prevent age discrimination. He proposes two prerequisites—the person feels his age differs from his legal age, and that person’s biological age differs from his chronological age. I argue we can achieve the same protections from ageism through restricting access to one’s birth date. I review several moral reasons in favour of changing one’s legal age, concluding the enterprise is folly.
- ethics
- legal aspects
- rights
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors I am the sole author of this piece.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Linked Articles
- Original research
- Response
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Moral case for legal age change
- Age change, official age and fairness in health
- What a drag it is getting old: a response to Räsänen
- Further defence of legal age change: a reply to the critics
- Against the nihilism of ‘legal age change’: response to Räsänen
- Age change in healthcare settings: a reply to Lippert-Rasmussen and Petersen
- Retailer compliance with tobacco control laws in New York City before and after raising the minimum legal purchase age to 21
- The International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement on age determination in high-level young athletes
- On Ageing and Maturing
- Early marriage, poor reproductive health status of mother and child well-being in India