Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mordcrest t1_iubnble wrote

Two parts of this confuse me

>6.1.c- receive training and have expertise in gender identity development, gender diversity in children and adolescents, have the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent, and possess general knowledge of gender diversity across the life span.
>
>
>
>6.12.c- the adolescent demonstrates the emotional and cognitive maturity required to provide informed consent/assent for the treatment.

So if they are treating a minor, someone under the age of 16 even, why is their consent possible for a procedure like this, or hormone therapy, even though they can't legally consent to sex, drinking alcohol, smoking, or gambling? Why are they considered mature enough, or able to be assessed for consent, if they cannot, at that same age, consent to many other things with life altering consequences less severe in some cases, than these treatment procedures?

Genuine question, since I am confused what separates them.

688

iam666 t1_iubsm9b wrote

Because the law requires an arbitrary limit in order to apply it to everyone equally. It’s not like on your 18th birthday you’re magically a mature adult who can be trusted to sign a mortgage. But medical care requires a much more individual approach which varies person to person. Someone who is 16 could be evaluated by a professional (who has “the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent”) to determine if they understand the situation and are of sound mind to make the decision.

This is by far a more effective way of determining one’s ability to consent. But they’re not going to have you get a professional examination every time you go to the bank for a loan. They just make sure you’re 18+ and assume you’re capable.

1,476

Greyswandir t1_iubpb7k wrote

Informed consent and legal ability to make certain decisions are different concepts. And in the cases you list the key difference is giving consent for a medical procedure which may have drawbacks but which may have upsides too, and asking the patient to weigh those aspects before deciding. Whereas the things you listed that a teenager cannot do are generally not seen as having a benefit to the teen.

Informed consent is more or less exactly what it sounds like. It’s the idea that a thing is explained to you in a manner you can understand and then you agree to it. It’s a thing that can be given even by very young children for example. It’s also a thing that an adult may not be able to give, for example if they have certain developmental disabilities. A large chunk of medicine and medical research is built around the idea of informed consent. The idea that the patient needs to have medical procedures explained to them in a manner they can understand before they agree so that they can make their own judgements about if the risk is worth the potential gain.

The other things you mention have to do with legality, which is a policy rather than scientific construct. For the examples you listed the idea is that those are things we generally don’t want children doing because they are 1) addictive and 2) bad for you. The age cutoff is the age at which we as a society will let you make your own self-destructive choices.

390

overlordpotatoe t1_iubsgko wrote

It's a cost/benefit thing. There's no benefit to a teen smoking, drinking alcohol, gambling, etc. and no professionals trained to assess which teens are and aren't mature enough to make decisions about those things. This would be better compared to other medical treatments than to things that have no benefit other than personal enjoyment and no professional oversight. Teenagers are often allowed input on their medical treatment.

142

finalmantisy83 t1_iuboclz wrote

The most basic answer would be that individuals are generally able to come to conclusions about their identity before they are about drug or alcohol use.

39