Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are we really wanting to argue though that the child should always get what they want?  Children are considered minors for a reason.  What they want isn't always what is best for them.

Well now you are ignoring the other people in the decision process.  It is the parents role to advise, counsel and even convince in certain cases the decisions made by a minor.  You are right, what they want is not always best for them.  But it is the parents that are the best judge of whether the decision is best for them, not a politician, a neighbor, nor you who don't even know the child.  

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well now you are ignoring the other people in the decision process.  It is the parents role to advise, counsel and even convince in certain cases the decisions made by a minor.  You are right, what they want is not always best for them.  But it is the parents that are the best judge of whether the decision is best for them, not a politician, a neighbor, nor you who don't even know the child.  

Rain gave a pretty good example of times when A) parents don't actually know what is best for the child.  And we've already agreed that B) the child cannot be trusted to know what is best for themselves.

When A and B are both true, how does it work to suggest that the parents and child should have full autonomy?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You are really comparing apples to oranges and completely ignoring the very most important person in the child, parent, doctor decision process, the CHILD and what they want.  

In the U.S., "all 50 states and the District of Columbia have statutory laws requiring a person receiving a tattoo be at least 18 years old. This is partially based on the legal principle that a minor cannot enter into a legal contract or otherwise render informed consent for a procedure. Most states permit a person under the age of 18 to receive a tattoo with permission of a parent or guardian, but some states prohibit tattooing under a certain age regardless of permission, with the exception of medical necessity."  Getting a tattoo is far less momentous a decision than the medical procedures involved in so-called "gender-affirming care," such as puberty blockers, cutting off healthy body parts, getting sterilized, etc.  Tattoos are also reversible, whereas most of the medical treatments under discussion have permanent, lifelong effects.

We don't endorse / encourage / facilitate behaviors associated with anorexia or bulimia in children (starving themselves, binging and purging, etc.).  A parent found doing this sort of thing would likely be charged with child abuse.

Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), also known in some contexts as dysmorphophobia, is 

Quote

a mental disorder defined by an overwhelming preoccupation with a perceived flaw in one's physical appearance. In BDD's delusional variant, the flaw is imagined. When an actual visible difference exists, its importance is disproportionately magnified in the mind of the individual. Whether the physical issue is real or imagined, ruminations concerning this perceived defect become pervasive and intrusive, consuming substantial mental bandwidth for extended periods each day. ... {BDD} usually starts during adolescence and affects both men and women. ... As the disorder severely impairs quality of life due to educational and occupational dysfunction and social isolation, those experiencing BDD tend to have high rates of suicidal thoughts and may attempt suicide.
...
For many people with BDD, cosmetic surgery does not work to alleviate the symptoms of BDD as their opinion of their appearance is not grounded in reality. It is recommended that cosmetic surgeons and psychiatrists work together in order to screen surgery patients to see if they have BDD, as the results of the surgery could be harmful for them.

So it seems like a minor with BDD would not be eligible for cosmetic surgery, even if the parents and a willing doctor are on board.

Body integrity dysphoria (BID), also referred to as body integrity identity disorder (BIID), amputee identity disorder or xenomelia, and formerly called apotemnophilia, is "a rare mental disorder characterized by a desire to have a sensory or physical disability or feeling discomfort with being able-bodied, beginning in early adolescence and resulting in harmful consequences."  "People with this condition may refer to themselves as transabled."  Those who suffer from this condition believe "there is a mismatch between the mental body image and the physical body, characterized by an intense desire for amputation or paralysis of a limb, usually a leg, or to become blind or deaf."  "To the extent that generalizations can be made, people with BID appear to start to wish for amputation when they are young, between eight and twelve years of age, and often knew a person with an amputated limb when they were children." 

I think a minor with BID should not be allowed to receive medical treatment congruent with their "desire for amputation or paralysis of a limb, usually a leg, or to become blind or deaf."

And so on.

I am cognizant that children may "want" this or that medical procedure.  But there are all sorts of things that children may want to do, but which we as a society do not allow them to do.

I also think that parents may be induced to acquiesce to, or even endorse, certain medical procedures (such as, for example, when the parents are persuaded that they must choose between the medical procedure for the child or the suicide of the child).  Or the parents may have some sort of ideological propensity that favors or requires such medical procedures for their child.

I also think that doctors may also be willing to go along with medical procedures on children, generally on the same grounds as induce parents (social pressures, coercive threats of suicide, ideological motivations, etc.).

1 hour ago, california boy said:

In the end, we all should be allowed to choose our path in life where ever that leads and no matter who might disagree with our choices as long as we are not harming others.

Generally, I agree with this sentiment.  "In the end" being the operative wording.  I think society, acting through its elected lawmakers, can and should regulate important and life-altering decisions as to minors of the sorts under discussion.

Once a person becomes an adult, though, he can generally proceed as he sees fit.  But even then there are limitations.  See, e.g., this video of a woman who is looking for, and has found, a doctor willing to operate on her and render her paraplegic:

The transcript:

Quote

COMM: Chloe Jennings White spends her days 0:04 confined to a wheelchair. 0:06 It's tough to get around and she struggles with living in the world that isn't built 0:10 for the disabled. 0:12 However, Chloe is actually able to walk perfectly, and chooses to live her life like a paraplegic, 0:18 due to a rare psychological disorder called BIID. 0:21 Despite wishing she was paralysed, Chloe 0:24 still takes part in extreme sports like skiing. 0:27 BIID has led Chloe, a Cambridge University 0:31 educated research scientist, to harm herself in a bid to become paraplegic for real. 

Chloe: I have fantasies about having a car 0:39 wreck, and becoming paraplegic from a car wreck. 0:42

COMM: Perhaps most shockingly of all, London 0:45 -born Chloe is on a quest to find a surgeon willing to operate in order to paralyse her 0:49 legs forever.

Chloe: I did find a surgeon in another country 0:55 who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyse my legs. 1:02 It would be at least twenty five thousand dollars, and I don't have the money to do 1:08 it. 1:09 That's basically the only reason that I've not yet had surgery.

COMM: For her whole life Chloe has wished 1:17 more than anything that she was disabled. 

Chloe: From about ten years old I somehow 1:23 got the idea to bandage my legs when I was home alone so nobody would know what I was 1:30 doing, I sort of fabricated a leg brace so that I couldn't bend my knee and walking around 1:38 like that felt "Oh wow, this is how it's supposed to be." 

COMM: Chloe struggled to cope with her feelings. 

Chloe: For a long time I had no idea why I 1:49 felt this way about my legs. 

COMM: Chloe began to get real relief from 1:53 her condition when she started using the wheelchair full time in 2008. 

Chloe: When you have BIID, the stress is really 2:02 intense. 2:03 The first few friends I told I would literally be shaking or, and crying even with emotion. 2:11 I was not really living a normal life before that, it was always in my mind, like, "I'm 2:16 supposed to be paralysed!" 

COMM: But while Chloe pursues her quest to 2:20 have surgery that will leave her paraplegic, she loves taking part in her favourite past 2:25 time, downhill skiing. 

Chloe: Skiing is essential to me and it has 2:32 a lot of benefits for me in terms of BIID. 2:36 I ski very aggressively, if it's a groomed run I will absolutely go as fast as I can. 2:45 My friends and family can get a little worried about me skiing sometimes because they know, 2:51 they know that I ski very aggressively, and y'know, they know it's in the back of my mind 2:59 that I actually want to get injured. 

COMM: To deal with the anxiety BIID causes 3:05 her, Chloe sees psychotherapist, Dr. Mark Malan as often as she can. 

Chloe: The problem that I run into is that 3:12 people make up these fantasies about BIID, it;s like they say, "Oh well, you're doing 3:19 it to get disability benefits, you're doing it to get attention" and then you say "No, 3:24 that's not it" and they'll come up with another fantasy of theirs. 

Dr. Malan: So it sounds like, just misunderstanding 3:32 that a lot of what you're having to do is educate people about it. 

Chloe: Oh education yeah. 

COMM: Dr. Malan says BIID is actually very 3:40 real. 

Dr. Malan: It's a psychological disorder that 3:43 people have, where they desire to have some sort of body modification, but it's a sense 3:49 that a person really wants to lose some sort of ability that they have. 

COMM: And like other BIID sufferers, Chloe's 4:00 illness has worrying symptoms. 

Chloe: I have to admit any time I'm driving 4:04 I sort of conjure up accident scenarios in my mind where I would become paraplegic. 

COMM: In 2009, Chloe really did crash, surviving 4:16 a horrific seventy five mile per hour double roll over. 

Chloe: One of the things that was in my mind, 4:22 after the car wreck was dId I do this deliberately in order to um, y'know, be paraplegic? 

Chloe: I couldn't say for sure at that time 4:37 that I had not done it deliberately because I simply had no memory of, that. 

COMM: Chloe's attempts to injure her legs 4:46 mean many of her friends and loved ones worry about her. 4:49 Like Dave Allen, a hiking buddy. 

Dave: It's scary for all of her friends y'know, 4:53 including myself that y'know if she does, y'know, she runs a huge risk that she could 4:58 die doing some of the stuff she's done in the past 

COMM: Despite her love of skiing and the challenges 5:03 of confined to a wheelchair, Chloe is still determined to have surgery that will render 5:08 her paralysed.

Chloe: When I have that surgery I just know, 5:13 it will be the happiest day of my life.

I am curious as to your thoughts about Chloe. 

"'I did find a surgeon in another country who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyse my legs."

"Chloe is still determined to have surgery that will render her paralysed.  'When I have that surgery I just know, it will be the happiest day of my life.'"

Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit?  Should they help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life?

Do you think Chloe "should be allowed to choose {her} path in life where ever that leads and no matter who might disagree with {her} choices as long as {she} not harming others"?

More specifically, do you think her friends and family should encourage her to go through with the "surgery that will render her paralysed"?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

In female circumcision, the parents have taken that decision out of the hands of the very person who should have the most say in that medical procedure, the child.

What are your thoughts about informed consent?  We generally do not let children enter into contracts or do other significantly life-altering things because they lack the ability to form it (informed consent).  Do you think an exception to this principle should be made and children allowed to choose whether or not to take puberty blockers, undergo a mastectomy or penectomy, etc.?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Just as strongly, if not more strongly, the driving force of changing gender must be first and foremost driven by the person that is making that transition.  It is them, not anyone else who understands and has to deal with those feelings far and above any other single person.  

For adults, I generally agree with this sentiment.  But this is not an unlimited principle.  For example, I think comorbidities should be addressed as part of the process.

For minors, though, parents and society can and should and do have a voice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2024 by smac97

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Rain gave a pretty good example of times when A) parents don't actually know what is best for the child.  And we've already agreed that B) the child cannot be trusted to know what is best for themselves.

When A and B are both true, how does it work to suggest that the parents and child should have full autonomy?

So do you believe that a neighbor, or politician or some stranger on the street is more often right about what is best for your children than you are???

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the U.S., "all 50 states and the District of Columbia have statutory laws requiring a person receiving a tattoo be at least 18 years old. This is partially based on the legal principle that a minor cannot enter into a legal contract or otherwise render informed consent for a procedure. Most states permit a person under the age of 18 to receive a tattoo with permission of a parent or guardian, but some states prohibit tattooing under a certain age regardless of permission, with the exception of medical necessity."  Getting a tattoo is far less momentous a decision than the medical procedures involved in so-called "gender-affirming care," such as puberty blockers, cutting off healthy body parts, getting sterilized, etc.  Tattoos are also reversible, whereas most of the medical treatments under discussion have permanent, lifelong effects.

We don't endorse / encourage / facilitate behaviors associated with anorexia or bulimia in children (starving themselves, binging and purging, etc.).  A parent found doing this sort of thing would likely be charged with child abuse.

Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), also known in some contexts as dysmorphophobia, is 

So it seems like a minor with BDD would not be eligible for cosmetic surgery, even if the parents and a willing doctor are on board.

Body integrity dysphoria (BID), also referred to as body integrity identity disorder (BIID), amputee identity disorder or xenomelia, and formerly called apotemnophilia, is "a rare mental disorder characterized by a desire to have a sensory or physical disability or feeling discomfort with being able-bodied, beginning in early adolescence and resulting in harmful consequences."  "People with this condition may refer to themselves as transabled."  Those who suffer from this condition believe "there is a mismatch between the mental body image and the physical body, characterized by an intense desire for amputation or paralysis of a limb, usually a leg, or to become blind or deaf."  "To the extent that generalizations can be made, people with BID appear to start to wish for amputation when they are young, between eight and twelve years of age, and often knew a person with an amputated limb when they were children." 

I think a minor with BID should not be allowed to receive medical treatment congruent with their "desire for amputation or paralysis of a limb, usually a leg, or to become blind or deaf."

And so on.

I am cognizant that children may "want" this or that medical procedure.  But there are all sorts of things that children may want to do, but which we as a society do not allow them to do.

I also think that parents may be induced to acquiesce to, or even endorse, certain medical procedures (such as, for example, when the parents are persuaded that they must choose between the medical procedure for the child or the suicide of the child).  Or the parents may have some sort of ideological propensity that favors or requires such medical procedures for their child.

I also think that doctors may also be willing to go along with medical procedures on children, generally on the same grounds as induce parents (social pressures, coercive threats of suicide, ideological motivations, etc.).

Generally, I agree with this sentiment.  "In the end" being the operative wording.  I think society, acting through its elected lawmakers, can and should regulate important and life-altering decisions as to minors of the sorts under discussion.

Once a person becomes an adult, though, he can generally proceed as he sees fit.  But even then there are limitations.  See, e.g., this video of a woman who is looking for, and has found, a doctor willing to operate on her and render her paraplegic:

The transcript:

I am curious as to your thoughts about Chloe. 

"'I did find a surgeon in another country who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyse my legs."

"Chloe is still determined to have surgery that will render her paralysed.  'When I have that surgery I just know, it will be the happiest day of my life.'"

Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit?  Should they help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life?

Do you think Chloe "should be allowed to choose {her} path in life where ever that leads and no matter who might disagree with {her} choices as long as {she} not harming others"?

More specifically, do you think her friends and family should encourage her to go through with the "surgery that will render her paralysed"?

What are your thoughts about informed consent?  We generally do not let children enter into contracts or do other significantly life-altering things because they lack the ability to form it (informed consent).  Do you think an exception to this principle should be made and children allowed to choose whether or not to take puberty blockers, undergo a mastectomy or penectomy, etc.?

For adults, I generally agree with this sentiment.  But this is not an unlimited principle.  For example, I think comorbidities should be addressed as part of the process.

For minors, though, parents and society can and should and do have a voice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let me refresh your memory on the post I made at the beginning of this conversation

Quote

Let me be clear where I stand.  I personally am in favor of not allowing surgeries and chemical castration until after the child is of legal age.  BUT, I am not the parent nor am I the doctor.  I do believe that there may be rare instances where that MIGHT be the best decision for the child.  I just don't know and neither do you.  The far bigger issue is people who have no idea about a child that is not there deciding all the other procedures leading up to surgery should also be something they get to decide on.  Yes, I strongly believe that a stranger who has absolutely no knowledge or understanding of a child should not have ANY input into how their medical decisions are made.

Just so  we are clear on where I personally stand, do you see the part I purposefully put i bold type?  But that said, I can not in all honesty say that I know more about each individual decision more than the child, the parent and the doctor combined.

Now, can you tell me in complete honesty that in all of the situations you listed that YOU know more about the situation and the people involved in these choices than their own parents, the person themselves and the doctor?  Are you making those judgements without any personal bias?  Does the government know more about each and every individual case that you can guarantee that the government will make the very best decision for every single person involved in the cases you mentioned?  

 

[Dario_M]

Edit.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Dario_M

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Let me refresh your memory on the post I made at the beginning of this conversation

Just so  we are clear on where I personally stand, do you see the part I purposefully put i bold type?  

Yes.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

But that said, I can not in all honesty say that I know more about each individual decision more than the child, the parent and the doctor combined.

Understood. Hence my questions to you, which are intended to further a discussion about who should be involved in these decisions.

1. I am curious as to your thoughts about Chloe. 

"'I did find a surgeon in another country who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyse my legs."

"Chloe is still determined to have surgery that will render her paralysed.  'When I have that surgery I just know, it will be the happiest day of my life.'"

Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit?  Should they help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life?

2. Do you think Chloe "should be allowed to choose {her} path in life where ever that leads and no matter who might disagree with {her} choices as long as {she} not harming others"?  Even if that means undergoing a medical procedure rendering her paralyzed for life?

3. More specifically, do you think her friends and family should encourage her to go through with the "surgery that will render her paralysed"?

4. What are your thoughts about informed consent?  We generally do not let children enter into contracts or do other significantly life-altering things because they lack the ability to form it (informed consent).  Do you think an exception to this principle should be made and children allowed to choose whether or not to take puberty blockers, undergo a mastectomy or penectomy, etc.?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Now, can you tell me in complete honesty that in all of the situations you listed that YOU know more about the situation and the people involved in these choices than their own parents, the person themselves and the doctor?  

I have not interjected myself into the decision.  My comments have been about society and society's laws and lawmakers being involved in these decisiosn.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Are you making those judgements without any personal bias?  

Personal bias against whom?  What are you referencing here?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Does the government know more about each and every individual case that you can guarantee that the government will make the very best decision for every single person involved in the cases you mentioned?  

I think the role of government is generalized.  I do not think the government should abdicate its responsibilities if it cannot "guarantee" that in "each and every individual case" it "will make the very best decision for every single person involved" in decisions addressing whether minors should undergo important and life-altering and permanent medical procedures.

I think the State (that is, the state government, more so than the federal government) should pass laws regulating whether minors should undergo important and life-altering and permanent medical procedures.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think much of the activism in and against the Church is aptly characterized as arising from "March of Dimes Syndrome."

I think that there is much to criticize about the church (and many other institutions as well).  There is only so much time and money so activists have to pick and choose. When one issue is resolved that let's them move on to another. I know you feel that criticism and activism focused on the church is somehow a  really bad thing to do. And the leaders of the church have been clear they think any criticism of them and what they do is wrong. Buh oh well.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You are really comparing apples to oranges

Yes, for the most part, which is why I worded it the way I did.  Where I felt it was on the same level was parent's making surgical decisions.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

and completely ignoring the very most important person in the child, parent, doctor decision process, the CHILD and what they want.

No, I wasn't.  I was thinking of the maturity of the child in being in that position.  Yes, an older child will have a lot of input.  But a younger child while technically being able to choose won't have the understanding of that, will have limited ability to get that knowledge and understanding and will be heavily influenced by patents.

This is why I said i agree with you in theory, but that it gets sticky.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 In the end, we all should be allowed to choose our path in life where ever that leads and no matter who might disagree with our choices as long as we are not harming others.  

Yes, but as adults we have a responsibility to help our children make good choices and like it or not there will be a lot of parents who handle that badly.  Some of the time it won't matter much, but some of the time those choices will be irriversible.

 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

In female circumcision, the parents have taken that decision out of the hands of the very person who should have the most say in that medical procedure, the child. That is the person that has to live with the results of that decision.   A more apt comparison would be if others were forcing the child to change genders or in your example forced to be circumcised against their will.  Do I have a right to impose the path that I believe in, on you or anyone else when your path is not harming others and you have the mental capacity to make your decision for yourself?  Does your neighbor have the right to impose their beliefs on you?  Does an elected official have that right?

While I have no idea what it is like to have such driving inter feeling to need to live a life as a different gender, I do know what it is like to be gay in a world that does not always easily accept that choice.  No parent or doctor should force a child to live a gay life for example.  Nor should you or any other person get a vote in whether a person can live as a gay person.

I agree.  But I don't see surgery as on the same scale as living as a gay person while still a child.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 It is ONLY the individual that should be allowed to follow that person who they believe is who they are to their very core. Just as strongly, if not more strongly, the driving force of changing gender must be first and foremost driven by the person that is making that transition.  It is them, not anyone else who understands and has to deal with those feelings far and above any other single person.  

So yes, if a female wishes to be circumcised I would hope that the female getting the circumcision has spent countless hours convincing their parents and doctor of its own personal importance that is in their lives. I don't think that is ever happening.  

If that female is 16, 10 or maybe even 4 and has convinced parents and doctor to do you still feel it is her choice?  I'm not sure I can feel good about saying it is her choice (with parents and dr) every time.  If you can then it will just be something we disagree about. 

Edited October 9, 2024 by Rain

[Dario_M]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think that there is much to criticize about the church.

Like?

I think it's more about the fact that you've left the church and now take every opportunity to criticize the church wherever you can. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So do you believe that a neighbor, or politician or some stranger on the street is more often right about what is best for your children than you are???

See, that's another sticky area.  Obviously they will not be right more often.  But I don't feel parents/dr are right 100% of the time either and this isn't something that will easily be ok if it is wrong.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So do you believe that a neighbor, or politician or some stranger on the street is more often right about what is best for your children than you are???

No, I don’t, but I don’t think “ the parent always knows best” and “the neighbor, politician, stranger always knows best” are the only two choices in this conversation either.

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think much of the activism in and against the Church is aptly characterized as arising from "March of Dimes Syndrome."

I think that there is much to criticize about the church (and many other institutions as well). 

The same can be said for every institution run by men.  

The same can be said for all men and women.

Faultfinders will never run out of targets.  

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There is only so much time and money so activists have to pick and choose. When one issue is resolved that let's them move on to another.

I agree.  Career activists are endlessly moving the goalposts.  That's how they make money and gain notoriety.  Whether the new target/topic of their activism is worthwhile is . . . uneven. 

Tying activism to a career in which making money and garnering social notoriety/praise tends toward a substantial untethering effect.

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I know you feel that criticism and activism focused on the church is somehow a  really bad thing to do.

Not so.  I have repeatedly acknowledged that the Church is not immune from such things.  It is a part of society, and so can and should expect to have its decisions and positions evaluated and critiqued.

As far as "activism," that would need to be reviewed on case-by-case basis.  I find much of the external activism to be unfair, unhelpful, unreasonable, etc.

As far as internal "activism," I have markedly less patience for that, as I find it largely incompatible with the principles of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And the leaders of the church have been clear they think any criticism of them and what they do is wrong.

I think this is a substantial mischaracterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Quote

I think that there is much to criticize about the church.

Like?

Hoo, boy.  Underneath his name there is a notation: "9.5K."  This is in reference to Teancum's approximately 9,500 posts on this board, the vast majority of which are taken up with criticizing and finding fault with the Church.  

49 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I think it's more about the fact that you've left the church and now take every opportunity to criticize the church wherever you can. 

I think Teancum gave the Church an attaboy for its announcement of starting a medical school at BYU.  That was a nice thing to see.  Overwhelmingly, though, the "there is much to criticize about the church" dictum (which you aptly describe as "take every opportunity to criticize the church wherever you can") is the order of the day. 

Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."  If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by implacable hostility and a desire to tear down and find fault (the "hammer"), then pretty much every story about the Church can be construed as a basis for criticism ("as if it were a nail").

And that's really too bad, because although the Church is not perfect.  it is, in my view and experience and estimation, overwhelmingly good in both motivations and behaviors/actions.  I love it a lot.  It deserves nowhere near the endless and relentless faultfinding that Teancum has spent nearly 10,000 posts heaping on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2024 by smac97

[Dario_M]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hoo, boy.  Underneath his name there is a notation: "9.5K."  This is in reference to Teancum's approximately 9,500 posts on this board, the vast majority of which are taken up with criticizing and finding fault with the Church. 

 

👏🤣👍 I can't be more agree with you than i've ever have been with somebody. Cheers. 🧋

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I think Teancum gave the Church an attaboy for its announcement of starting a medical school at BYU.  That was a nice thing to see.  Overwhelmingly, though, the "there is much to criticize about the church" dictum (which you aptly describe as "take every opportunity to criticize the church wherever you can") is the order of the day. 

Yeah you know. I see it so clearly now. I haven't been so long on the board like you guys have been offcourse. And in the beginning i didn't paid so much attention i guess. But now i see it so clearly. 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."  If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by implacable hostility and a desire to tear down and find fault (the "hammer"), then pretty much every story about the Church can be construed as a basis for criticism ("as if it were a nail").

And that's really too bad, because although the Church is not perfect.  it is, in my view and experience and estimation, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  It deserves nowhere near the endless and relentless faultfinding that Teancum has spent nearly 10,000 posts heaping on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

This. I couldn't have said it better than you.

Amen. 🏆🏆🏆

Edited October 9, 2024 by Dario_M

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Understood. Hence my questions to you, which are intended to further a discussion about who should be involved in these decisions.

1. I am curious as to your thoughts about Chloe. 

"'I did find a surgeon in another country who would be prepared to do femoral and sciatic nerve transections to paralyse my legs."

"Chloe is still determined to have surgery that will render her paralysed.  'When I have that surgery I just know, it will be the happiest day of my life.'"

Do you think Chloe's friends and family should encourage her in her pursuit?  Should they help her pay this surgeon for a procedure to permanently sever her nerves and render her paralyzed for the rest of her life?

I think it is Chloe's life.  She has to decide how to live that life.  If she has the financial means to do the operation and support herself and can do this without forcing others to provide services to her, and her friends and family have all tried to convince her not to take those steps, then ultimately it is her choice to make.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

2. Do you think Chloe "should be allowed to choose {her} path in life where ever that leads and no matter who might disagree with {her} choices as long as {she} not harming others"?

yes.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

3. More specifically, do you think her friends and family should encourage her to go through with the "surgery that will render her paralysed"?

From my perspective not knowing anything about what she is going through or has gone through, I would absolutely make every effort to convince her to not do the operation.  What I do know as a complete stranger, is that I should have absolutely no say in the choices she made.  I can't really speak for others who actually know the situation she is in.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

4. What are your thoughts about informed consent?  We generally do not let children enter into contracts or do other significantly life-altering things because they lack the ability to form it (informed consent).  Do you think an exception to this principle should be made and children allowed to choose whether or not to take puberty blockers, undergo a mastectomy or penectomy, etc.?

We do allow children to enter into contracts when their parents or guardians also think it is in the best decision for the child.  What we don't do is let complete strangers decide whether a child should enter into a contract.  The child, the parents and in medical decisions, the doctors are the very best people who should have a say in the final decision.  Now, is there a role where the government requires certain courses or training on the implications of those decisions?  Absolutely.  The decision should be made after fully and completely understanding the ramifications of those decisions.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have not interjected myself into the decision.  My comments have been about society and society's laws and lawmakers being involved in these decisiosn.

Personal bias against whom?  What are you referencing here?

Do you think that society can have an uninformed or complete misunderstanding of issues like this and are deciding how a decision should be made in a bias and unjustified way about someone else's medical decisions?  Has society gone thorough the same courses and training on this subject to be fully informed before deciding public policy?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think the role of government is generalized.  I do not think the government should abdicate its responsibilities if it cannot "guarantee" that in "each and every individual case" it "will make the very best decision for every single person involved" in decisions addressing whether minors should undergo important and life-altering and permanent medical procedures.

I think the State (that is, the state government, more so than the federal government) should pass laws regulating whether minors should undergo important and life-altering and permanent medical procedures.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think those in government crying for regulation have all the medical training and indepth knowledge on this and many similar restrictions.  Until they do go through such training, they would probably be in the worse possible situation to make an informed decision on a person's life choices.  Just because they are the government does not make them authorities on gender reassignment.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Yes, for the most part, which is why I worded it the way I did.  Where I felt it was on the same level was parent's making surgical decisions.

No, I wasn't.  I was thinking of the maturity of the child in being in that position.  Yes, an older child will have a lot of input.  But a younger child while technically being able to choose won't have the understanding of that, will have limited ability to get that knowledge and understanding and will be heavily influenced by patents.

This is why I said i agree with you in theory, but that it gets sticky.  

Yes, but as adults we have a responsibility to help our children make good choices and like it or not there will be a lot of parents who handle that badly.  Some of the time it won't matter much, but some of the time those choices will be irriversible.

I agree.  But I don't see surgery as on the same scale as living as a gay person while still a child.

If that female is 16, 10 or maybe even 4 and has convinced parents and doctor to do you still feel it is her choice?  I'm not sure I can feel good about saying it is her choice (with parents and dr) every time.  If you can then it will just be something we disagree about. 

I do think that government can be an important part of this process by requiring the parents and child to go through a training program that explains all the ramifications for this serious medical decision.  Hopefully the doctor has already received the necessary training.  If not he should also be required to take the training.

If after hearing all of the pros and cons, maybe even be required to take a test to see if those issues are completely understood, then ultimately the best people to be involved in the decision is the child, the parent and the doctor.  They all have to agree it is the best course of action for that child.  

[Dario_M]

Edit. I was talking about the wrong Chloe. My apologies.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Dario_M

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

See, that's another sticky area.  Obviously they will not be right more often.  But I don't feel parents/dr are right 100% of the time either and this isn't something that will easily be ok if it is wrong.

I agree that even with all the safeguards that may be put in place, the child, parents and doctor might not always get it right 100% of the time.  But I do believe that with complete understanding of the implications of that decision and carefully considering all aspects of the situation, they will be right more times than some stranger or politician who may have very little understanding of the issue and coming at that decision with their own bias, will be wrong far more often.

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Are we talking about Chloe Kardashian? I find it a disgrace what she does with the amount of money that she has while so many people are bankrupt, so many people are on the street, So many people are homeless, US is in a big money crises. So many problems and the only thing Chloe wants to do is getting a fake bottom. I believe that Chloe injoys more money on the bank then the whole LDS church has in their wallet. 

lol.   I would love to be in charge of Chloe Kardasian's life and what she does with her money.  And I would love to be in charge of the whole LDS church wallet as well which is over 100 billion dollars, far more than Chloe Kardasian.  But that is not the Clloe we are talking about and I don't think I have a right to tell the LDS church what to do with it's money either.  

See SMAC's post I was responding to.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

n female circumcision, the parents have taken that decision out of the hands of the very person who should have the most say in that medical procedure, the child

So you would be okay with female circumcision if the child was 5, 10, 15? and wanted it done?

Trying to understand your position here, not accuse you.

PS:  I thought there were just a few more posts, it looks now like there is another page and you may have responded to a similar question. Ignore if you have

Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

also think that parents may be induced to acquiesce to, or even endorse, certain medical procedures (such as, for example, when the parents are persuaded that they must choose between the medical procedure for the child or the suicide of the child).  Or the parents may have some sort of ideological propensity that favors or requires such medical procedures for their child.

 

Do you believe male circumcision should be banned or at least heavily regulated?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Like?

I think it's more about the fact that you've left the church and now take every opportunity to criticize the church wherever you can. 

Teancum limits his criticism to mostly, if not only the board if he is being truthful and given I have known him online for over 20 years and he’s been very consistent in the content of his posting in the sense nothing has ever seen odd or unlikely, I see no reason not to trust him in this. Which means there are tons of opportunities to criticize the Church he does not take.  His personal POV has always been more complex than many, from when he was a devoted member to now.  I would definitely not call him an anti Mormon. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

think it is Chloe's life.  She has to decide how to live that life.  If she has the financial means to do the operation and support herself and can do this without forcing others to provide services to her, and her friends and family have all tried to convince her not to take those steps, then ultimately it is her choice to make

At what point do you believe mental illness should render a person legally incompetent to make medical decisions?

Edited October 9, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Teancum limits his criticism to mostly, if not only the board if he is being truthful and given I have known him online for over 20 years and he’s been very consistent in the content of his posting in the sense nothing has ever seen odd or unlikely,

 

I know that most of you know each other for a long time, and i'm just the newby. But you can also trust me. 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I see no reason not to trust him in this. Which means there are tons of opportunities to criticize the Church he does not take.  His personal POV has always been more complex than many, from when he was a devoted member to now.  I would definitely not call him an anti Mormon. 

Yes but in this situation i choose to  agree with smac97 in this matter. 

Edited October 9, 2024 by Dario_M