Teens-Cancer-Informed Consent: E.G. and C.C. A Tale of Progressive & Nebulous Legal Theories

[Procrustes Stretched]

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , but I am also law abiding to my culture.

what culture would that be?

American

ok. thought it might be Kenyan

 

[Moonglow]

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , yes but I am also law abiding to my culture.

Almost all states have made laws pertaining to medical care of the senior and children...If someone does not look out for the best interest the state will take over..Elderly can be put into nursing homes if they have no one to live with them that is able to help take care of the senior..

I think people should have a right to choose what they want done.

I won't give them a chance....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

laws are not inconsistent. they are all separate laws with exceptions within laws and...

nothing is as simple as you drifter, would have it be

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , yes but I am also law abiding to my culture.

Almost all states have made laws pertaining to medical care of the senior and children...If someone does not look out for the best interest the state will take over..Elderly can be put into nursing homes if they have no one to live with them that is able to help take care of the senior..

I think people should have a right to choose what they want done.

you believe children of 12 years of age should?

 

[Michelle420]

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , but I am also law abiding to my culture.

what culture would that be?

American

ok. thought it might be Kenyan

You've seen my family, you know that's not true.

 

[Michelle420]

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , yes but I am also law abiding to my culture.

Almost all states have made laws pertaining to medical care of the senior and children...If someone does not look out for the best interest the state will take over..Elderly can be put into nursing homes if they have no one to live with them that is able to help take care of the senior..

I think people should have a right to choose what they want done.

I won't give them a chance....

ok

 

[Michelle420]

I don't think it's simple, but in this line of thinking:

biopower
Foucault argues that biopower is a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, biopower is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.

body
Foucault is particularly concerned with the relations between political power and the body, and describes various historical ways of training the body to make it socially productive. The body is an element to be managed in relation to strategies of the economic and social management of populations.

I don't think the government should be involved in the commodity of medicine or the regulation of bodies.

then you are at odds with society

I am at times , yes but I am also law abiding to my culture.

Almost all states have made laws pertaining to medical care of the senior and children...If someone does not look out for the best interest the state will take over..Elderly can be put into nursing homes if they have no one to live with them that is able to help take care of the senior..

I think people should have a right to choose what they want done.

you believe children of 12 years of age should?

Well they do, if they want an abortion, and if they want hormone blockers for gender reassignment.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Dante and drifter
Again, this issue of choice happens to be about
* comparing prochoice in terms of ABORTION
to
* medical health care choices.

As the liberals have shown with ACA health care choices
versus abortion choices, NO they are NOT consistent.

I am trying to analyze this also.

It seems that the belief in health care as a RIGHT is filed in a different
belief section away from the policies on abortion or other decisions.

So I can only surmise the same is happening here.

Some people I know have come out and SAID they
are AGAINST regulating the choice of abortion before 3 months
But then turn around and say they are FOR punishing the mother
for drinking alcohol or taking drugs affecting their babies before 3 months.

So which way is it?

Dante is talented and focused picking apart the law and logistics
of "why this case is different from that one"

Some people can only see it that way, and can't help answering that way.

Likewise others see the SPIRIT of the argument,
where person A is asking for FREEDOM OF CHOICE
and person B is imposing regulations (of whatever kind)
person A DOES NOT CONSENT TO.

so it doesn't matter to person A what reasons person B has,
they said NO I don't agree to regulate my choices based on that reasoning.

So Dante you and I could point out the similarities and differences
all day and all night, and this person won't change their mind.

I think it is a matter of political and personal beliefs coming FIRST,
and if you respect that FIRST, then maybe you can discuss the
conditions afterwards. But if you don't respect their freedom of belief
FIRST, then the rest of the conversation doesn't matter, it won't be heard.

i think drifter is asking similar questions that I am, and also dblack asked also.
why is X okay in this case, but turn around, and Y is not okay in this other case.
And it doesn't always add up logistically, even if you explain it Dante using the actual laws.

There is some emotional/psychological factor going on because of people's
core beliefs and values that overrides the logistic arguments which come second if at all....

 

[emilynghiem]

I am not talking about emancipation. All of the legal acts a 17 yr can do is not based on emancipation, it's just their legal right to do it. The only thing they seem to not have the right to do is to refuse medical treatment.

It makes no sense.

Why would they be allowed to decide all those other things I listed, some even risky decisions. If the legal argument for forcing medical treatment is because of the state worrying about liability, why isn't that true in abortion? If the legal argument is mature state of mind to understand the decision to refuse treatment, then why isn't that legal argument there when recruiters are trying to sign up 17 yr old for military (risk being they could die in war)

Anyway, you obviously have some different agenda so, I will let you get to it.
Salute

drifter sorry to say, you ARE doing what you say you are NOT doing: you are arguing about emancipation of minors:

Emancipation of minors
All states have laws dealing with the "emancipation" of minors; that is, laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents for important legal purposes. A complete reference to statutory provisions for all 50 states, pertaining to termination of parental rights, age of majority or emancipation itself, can be found in the LII State Law pages.

Emancipation of minors Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
​

"It makes no sense." Yes it does.

The rest of your post is about who has custody of a minor -- before they are emancipated

Nope!

Sorry but you don't need emancipation to have an abortion, and you don't need it to join the military at 17, and you don't need it for gender reassignment surgery either.

You need a parent's consent for gender reassignment, and for marriage as a minor.

Not for abortion or military.

But you want to argue about the law in regards to minors legal choices on "low risk" medical treatments.

The key word there is low risk, I doubt there is much legal controversy on that.

I am wanting to know why the law allows minors to decide "life altering" decisions in one instance and not the other.

Since this is not what you are interested in Dante I will unwatch this thread because otherwise I would be hijacking your thread into something else you are not interested in and that is not what I want to do.

Okay, I see where you are confused. The minor gets permission from the state/adult because they have not reached the age of maturity, emancipation. This is why they "don't need emancipation to have an abortion," and why "they don't need it to join the military at 17," and why "they don't need it for gender reassignment surgery." In place of it they get a waiver that the law allows. Why does the law allow this? Because.

and there is the Age of majority which is enumerated in state laws for specific purposes. If you presented your arguments to the court, saying what you do is not a legal arguments and would change nothing. How would you frame the argument? What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Would you demand all things be consistent. too funny

Because why? (shakes my head)



Age of majority is just a fancy way to say 18 or 19 yrs old legal adult.

1. The "age of majority" is the legal age established under state law at which an individual is no longer a minor and, as a young adult, has the right and responsibility to make certain legal choices that adults make.

State Age of Majority
Alabama 19
Alaska 18
Arizona 18
Arkansas 18 or graduation from high school, whichever is later
California 18
Colorado 18
Connecticut 18
Delaware 19
District of Columbia 18

What Is the Age of Majority in My State


I am not a law student, but maybe Emily will pop in and take that on.

I simply pointed out the inconsistencies of law especially applied to the 17 yr old and wanted to know the reasons why.

The answers people gave me really don't justify the inconsistencies in the laws.

How would you frame the argument? Asserting Your Right to Give/Withhold Consent, The Right to Choose Your Treatment.

Although the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty, this right is not always honored. A refusal can be thwarted either because a patient is unable to competently communicate or because providers insist on continuing treatment. To help enhance the patient's right to refuse treatment, many states have enacted so-called "living will" or "natural death" statutes. We believe the time has come to move beyond these current legislative models, and we therefore propose a Model Act that clearly enunciates an individual's right to refuse treatment, does not limit its exercise to the terminally ill or to heroic measures, and provides a mechanism by which individuals can set forth their wishes in advance and designate another person to enforce them. The right to refuse treatment a model act.

What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Why does it have to show advantages, why not show the disadvantage someone is at who loses their right to their own choices?

Would you demand all things be consistent. Yes, afterall, ------> absolutist

Of course the inconsistencies are justified. You just don't agree with the justifications. The reason states differ is because of the US Constitution: powers reserved to the states.

Minors do not have the Right to Give/Withhold Consent anymore than they have the right to vote or sign legal contracts. You keep confusing minors as equal to adults. Under law, common law, that has never been so.

Hi Dante: So in the case of abortion, Minors are not supposed to contract either, right?

I thought the argument in that case was that if the parents/guardians had a conflict of interest
and were the reason the Minor was seeking abortion, such as incest or abuse, then they
might be forced to seek permission from the very person(s) abusing them.

So why can't the same argument be applied to religious differences
if the parent is abusing the kid, and imposing Christian or gay choices
on a person who rejects that, or imposing chemo when they believe in natural methods or marijuana or "whatever else besides chemo" as treatment.

drifter does this help?

 

[Michelle420]

Hi Dante and drifter
Again, this issue of choice happens to be about
* comparing prochoice in terms of ABORTION
to
* medical health care choices.

As the liberals have shown with ACA health care choices
versus abortion choices, NO they are NOT consistent.

I am trying to analyze this also.

It seems that the belief in health care as a RIGHT is filed in a different
belief section away from the policies on abortion or other decisions.

So I can only surmise the same is happening here.

Some people I know have come out and SAID they
are AGAINST regulating the choice of abortion before 3 months
But then turn around and say they are FOR punishing the mother
for drinking alcohol or taking drugs affecting their babies before 3 months.

So which way is it?

Dante is talented and focused picking apart the law and logistics
of "why this case is different from that one"

Some people can only see it that way, and can't help answering that way.

Likewise others see the SPIRIT of the argument,
where person A is asking for FREEDOM OF CHOICE
and person B is imposing regulations (of whatever kind)
person A DOES NOT CONSENT TO.

so it doesn't matter to person A what reasons person B has,
they said NO I don't agree to regulate my choices based on that reasoning.

So Dante you and I could point out the similarities and differences
all day and all night, and this person won't change their mind.

I think it is a matter of political and personal beliefs coming FIRST,
and if you respect that FIRST, then maybe you can discuss the
conditions afterwards. But if you don't respect their freedom of belief
FIRST, then the rest of the conversation doesn't matter, it won't be heard.

i think drifter is asking similar questions that I am, and also dblack asked also.
why is X okay in this case, but turn around, and Y is not okay in this other case.
And it doesn't always add up logistically, even if you explain it Dante using the actual laws.

There is some emotional/psychological factor going on because of people's
core beliefs and values that overrides the logistic arguments which come second if at all....

Agreed, which I said at the beginning that I should opt out of this thread since I was seeking to understand why in some instances the law let's minors decide things that effect their bodies and in other instances it doesn't.

As far as emotional psychological aspect, laws that are already intact got there because people had feelings on the matter.
They took those feelings on abortion, right to die, right to allow physicians to treat minors who want hormone blockers, etc etc.

Those laws were not created by robots.

When you treat humans as commodities you ignore the emotional, spiritual, psychological aspect of why a law was created.

So then when someone tries to explain to me why a 12 year old is mature enough to decide to have an abortion or to have hormone blockers but a 17 year old is not mature enough to decide to decline medical treatment. It makes no sense to me.

That is what I wanted to understand.

Dante want me to come with a solution a proposal, how I would remedy it or what kind of laws I think should be in place of the ones that are already in tact.

Short of that, he's not interested. Which is totally fine, but it still doesn't answer what I was trying to get at.

Thanks Emily!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

drifter sorry to say, you ARE doing what you say you are NOT doing: you are arguing about emancipation of minors:

Emancipation of minors
All states have laws dealing with the "emancipation" of minors; that is, laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents for important legal purposes. A complete reference to statutory provisions for all 50 states, pertaining to termination of parental rights, age of majority or emancipation itself, can be found in the LII State Law pages.

Emancipation of minors Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
​

"It makes no sense." Yes it does.

The rest of your post is about who has custody of a minor -- before they are emancipated

Nope!

Sorry but you don't need emancipation to have an abortion, and you don't need it to join the military at 17, and you don't need it for gender reassignment surgery either.

You need a parent's consent for gender reassignment, and for marriage as a minor.

Not for abortion or military.

But you want to argue about the law in regards to minors legal choices on "low risk" medical treatments.

The key word there is low risk, I doubt there is much legal controversy on that.

I am wanting to know why the law allows minors to decide "life altering" decisions in one instance and not the other.

Since this is not what you are interested in Dante I will unwatch this thread because otherwise I would be hijacking your thread into something else you are not interested in and that is not what I want to do.

Okay, I see where you are confused. The minor gets permission from the state/adult because they have not reached the age of maturity, emancipation. This is why they "don't need emancipation to have an abortion," and why "they don't need it to join the military at 17," and why "they don't need it for gender reassignment surgery." In place of it they get a waiver that the law allows. Why does the law allow this? Because.

and there is the Age of majority which is enumerated in state laws for specific purposes. If you presented your arguments to the court, saying what you do is not a legal arguments and would change nothing. How would you frame the argument? What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Would you demand all things be consistent. too funny

Because why? (shakes my head)



Age of majority is just a fancy way to say 18 or 19 yrs old legal adult.

1. The "age of majority" is the legal age established under state law at which an individual is no longer a minor and, as a young adult, has the right and responsibility to make certain legal choices that adults make.

State Age of Majority
Alabama 19
Alaska 18
Arizona 18
Arkansas 18 or graduation from high school, whichever is later
California 18
Colorado 18
Connecticut 18
Delaware 19
District of Columbia 18

What Is the Age of Majority in My State


I am not a law student, but maybe Emily will pop in and take that on.

I simply pointed out the inconsistencies of law especially applied to the 17 yr old and wanted to know the reasons why.

The answers people gave me really don't justify the inconsistencies in the laws.

How would you frame the argument? Asserting Your Right to Give/Withhold Consent, The Right to Choose Your Treatment.

Although the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty, this right is not always honored. A refusal can be thwarted either because a patient is unable to competently communicate or because providers insist on continuing treatment. To help enhance the patient's right to refuse treatment, many states have enacted so-called "living will" or "natural death" statutes. We believe the time has come to move beyond these current legislative models, and we therefore propose a Model Act that clearly enunciates an individual's right to refuse treatment, does not limit its exercise to the terminally ill or to heroic measures, and provides a mechanism by which individuals can set forth their wishes in advance and designate another person to enforce them. The right to refuse treatment a model act.

What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Why does it have to show advantages, why not show the disadvantage someone is at who loses their right to their own choices?

Would you demand all things be consistent. Yes, afterall, ------> absolutist

Of course the inconsistencies are justified. You just don't agree with the justifications. The reason states differ is because of the US Constitution: powers reserved to the states.

Minors do not have the Right to Give/Withhold Consent anymore than they have the right to vote or sign legal contracts. You keep confusing minors as equal to adults. Under law, common law, that has never been so.

Hi Dante: So in the case of abortion, Minors are not supposed to contract either, right?

I thought the argument in that case was that if the parents/guardians had a conflict of interest
and were the reason the Minor was seeking abortion, such as incest or abuse, then they
might be forced to seek permission from the very person(s) abusing them.

So why can't the same argument be applied to religious differences
if the parent is abusing the kid, and imposing Christian or gay choices
on a person who rejects that, or imposing chemo when they believe in natural methods or marijuana or "whatever else besides chemo" as treatment.

drifter does this help?

the state cannot dictate religious choices

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Dante and drifter
Again, this issue of choice happens to be about
* comparing prochoice in terms of ABORTION
to
* medical health care choices.

As the liberals have shown with ACA health care choices
versus abortion choices, NO they are NOT consistent.

I am trying to analyze this also.

It seems that the belief in health care as a RIGHT is filed in a different
belief section away from the policies on abortion or other decisions.

So I can only surmise the same is happening here.

Some people I know have come out and SAID they
are AGAINST regulating the choice of abortion before 3 months
But then turn around and say they are FOR punishing the mother
for drinking alcohol or taking drugs affecting their babies before 3 months.

So which way is it?

Dante is talented and focused picking apart the law and logistics
of "why this case is different from that one"

Some people can only see it that way, and can't help answering that way.

Likewise others see the SPIRIT of the argument,
where person A is asking for FREEDOM OF CHOICE
and person B is imposing regulations (of whatever kind)
person A DOES NOT CONSENT TO.

so it doesn't matter to person A what reasons person B has,
they said NO I don't agree to regulate my choices based on that reasoning.

So Dante you and I could point out the similarities and differences
all day and all night, and this person won't change their mind.

I think it is a matter of political and personal beliefs coming FIRST,
and if you respect that FIRST, then maybe you can discuss the
conditions afterwards. But if you don't respect their freedom of belief
FIRST, then the rest of the conversation doesn't matter, it won't be heard.

i think drifter is asking similar questions that I am, and also dblack asked also.
why is X okay in this case, but turn around, and Y is not okay in this other case.
And it doesn't always add up logistically, even if you explain it Dante using the actual laws.

There is some emotional/psychological factor going on because of people's
core beliefs and values that overrides the logistic arguments which come second if at all....

Agreed, which I said at the beginning that I should opt out of this thread since I was seeking to understand why in some instances the law let's minors decide things that effect their bodies and in other instances it doesn't.

As far as emotional psychological aspect, laws that are already intact got there because people had feelings on the matter.
They took those feelings on abortion, right to die, right to allow physicians to treat minors who want hormone blockers, etc etc.

Those laws were not created by robots.

When you treat humans as commodities you ignore the emotional, spiritual, psychological aspect of why a law was created.

So then when someone tries to explain to me why a 12 year old is mature enough to decide to have an abortion or to have hormone blockers but a 17 year old is not mature enough to decide to decline medical treatment. It makes no sense to me.

That is what I wanted to understand.

Dante want me to come with a solution a proposal, how I would remedy it or what kind of laws I think should be in place of the ones that are already in tact.

Short of that, he's not interested. Which is totally fine, but it still doesn't answer what I was trying to get at.

Thanks Emily!

Dear drifter: Since we all seem to be finding these quirks,
and people's responses to one situation seems "inconsistent" when presented with another,
that is why I recommend offering public assistance and training
in MEDIATING such conflicts, so people CAN have individualized care, respect
for THEIR beliefs and THEIR process, REGARDLESS why they are acting
or thinking psychologically this way or that way. What works or doesn't work for one person
shouldn't be ASSUMED to be the solution for someone else, because apparently
that doesn't translate and apply to the next person, does it?

Since we are all so different, I can only assume these SENSITIVE issues should
remain personal and that is why the govt was NEVER designed to legislate in these areas.

It would be unrealistically asking to create one "rule of law" to cover all cases,
and expect people to agree to the compromises of individual freedom this would cause.

Clearly, by the responses we see here and in the media and parties,
people DO NOT AGREE to the blanket policies that other people are suggesting or imposing!

So drifter, I think we could offer suggestions or referrals "case by case,"
but for the overall solution, I would STILL leave it open and just set up
general access to mediation for help with conflict resolution
to take it case by case. if a "blanket policy or solution" can
come out of those resolved cases, maybe THAT could be offered to the public as a MODEL.

But let's see what works first, and then maybe we can build a solution out of that
for people to adapt to their own situations.

More and more, I think this USMB is a good format to use to organize teams
for training conflict resolution facilitators and establish networks or centers
state by state, and through the parties to reach people facing diverse issues.

I think even the people here can serve as a good model
for keeping the process open, to solve problems ourselves where each case may be different.