A trans person can shoot dutasteride directly into their eyeball if they want or gurgle horse urine against the specific advice of a physician and it would still be fine.
I think the thrust of their point is it’s between the individual and their doctor if they want to pursue medical things. The state should not be prescribing what they can/can’t do in this domain and getting in the way of their relationship with their doctor. Much like the argument that keeping a pregnancy/aborting is between a pregnant individual and their doctor. It’s a shorthand way of putting it we all sort of get. Yes they should be able to do it because it’s their body but generally the whole thing involves a doctor one way or another.
I think the thrust of their point is it’s between the individual and their doctor if they want to pursue medical things.
And my point is it isn’t.
Saying, “It’s between an individual and their doctor.” implies there could be a time when a person wants to ingest something or do something to their body that affects nobody but them (vaccinations I still advocate the administration of at gunpoint) and they shouldn’t be allowed to because a doctor said no.
Doctors are their to advise, but not at the level of the individual to consent.
By all means keep antibiotics behind a key, but if a person wants to eat paint chips doctors should be there to monitor their blood for lead and explain why they maybe shouldn’t, not to stop them.
I didn’t stop listening. I read what you wrote. You are not entitled to my attention, to be blunt. And vice versa!
This is a fight now, it’s not a discussion. We both made our cases, we both processed the other’s argument (I hope), and we both still disagree. Let’s just move on.
A trans person can shoot dutasteride directly into their eyeball if they want or gurgle horse urine against the specific advice of a physician and it would still be fine.
I think the thrust of their point is it’s between the individual and their doctor if they want to pursue medical things. The state should not be prescribing what they can/can’t do in this domain and getting in the way of their relationship with their doctor. Much like the argument that keeping a pregnancy/aborting is between a pregnant individual and their doctor. It’s a shorthand way of putting it we all sort of get. Yes they should be able to do it because it’s their body but generally the whole thing involves a doctor one way or another.
And my point is it isn’t.
Saying, “It’s between an individual and their doctor.” implies there could be a time when a person wants to ingest something or do something to their body that affects nobody but them (vaccinations I still advocate the administration of at gunpoint) and they shouldn’t be allowed to because a doctor said no.
Doctors are their to advise, but not at the level of the individual to consent.
By all means keep antibiotics behind a key, but if a person wants to eat paint chips doctors should be there to monitor their blood for lead and explain why they maybe shouldn’t, not to stop them.
When did I say a doctor can override a patient? That’s not remotely the standard of care in the US. Calling that a red herring is generous.
It isn’t. It’s between an individual and their damn self.
Alright I can tell when a conversation isn’t productive anymore. Have a good rest of your weekend.
When you stop listening?
I explained very clearly why the implications of the position you took were harmful.
I didn’t stop listening. I read what you wrote. You are not entitled to my attention, to be blunt. And vice versa!
This is a fight now, it’s not a discussion. We both made our cases, we both processed the other’s argument (I hope), and we both still disagree. Let’s just move on.
So much for leaving, huh?
Only because you’re making it one.
Not trying to pick fights here.