There are potential ways, but again, this is no different from anything else in the current system. They’re still going to need a trained physician.
Your argument here is a red herring. It has literally no impact at on on this particular facet of the issue, because it does not change anything from the existing system.
Yeah, I’m sorry, but the government’s role is not to protect us from decisions that you believe to be bad. Again, we’ve already established that you have a fundamental disagreement on this aspect of things with me, and believe that the government should stop people from making decisions that someone has determined to be bad.
That’s tyranny. Maybe benevolent tyranny, but tyranny nonetheless. As CS Lewis once said:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
You believe this to be ok, for the government to restrict your choice, based merely on the fact that someone may make a choice that you disagree with… that results in an outcome that you deem suboptimal. That’s fine for you to believe, although I feel like in order to believe that, you must not be considering the full implications of such a belief. But again, I do not expect to be able to sway you from it.
What’s further, I have considered this issue quite a lot, and I do not believe you are going to be able to sway me. I do not accept your premise that it’s acceptable to sacrifice choice in order to protect people from the repercussions that directly result from an informed decision. Or out of fear that they may be foolish and act upon that foolishness. Especially when we’re talking about a situation where the decision must still be directly facilitated by an expert in the field. You cannot fall back upon the spectre of unformed decision makers, when their decision is being directly informed by a licensed expert.
Absolutely nothing changes in the scenario you describe, compared to the existing status quo, from the perspective of any of the decision makers. So if it’s ok today, then it’d be ok in that situation.
It’s a red herring argument, focusing on an immaterial aspect of the discussion. The lack of decision making capability of a child, when seeking medical care, is exactly the same, and the ethical issues that arise are no different. There are any number of FDA certified procedures and drugs which a child would not be equipped to decide about. And that’s why we don’t let children buy prescription drugs and get surgery from random people on the street.
A child could want to get breast enlargement surgery. Certainly no ethical doctor would provide such a service, certainly without their guardian’s knowledge. But MAYBE they could somehow find some unethical doctor? And I guess that somehow they could go through some kind of legal hoops to bypass any need for parental consent? That imagined situation isn’t enough for me to say that no one should be able to make that decision for themselves.