Holy Crap Oregon, WTH is Wrong With You?

[Ben]

This makes CA look conservative. How the hell can this be legal? OR allows, and in some instances pays for, 15 year olds to get sex change operations without parental consent.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/09/oregon-allowing-15-year-olds-to-get-state-subsidized-sex-change-operations/

I need to make sure this isn't from some kind of satire site that they took as a real news source.

[MechAg94]

So when will they just confiscate babies at the hospital and put them in a state run school?

[SADShooter]

So when will they just confiscate babies at the hospital and put them in a state run school?

"Soon. Very soon."

[lupinus]

So when will they just confiscate babies at the hospital and put them in a state run school?

i would say don't give them any ideas, but that would require them having not already had the thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brimic]

So when will they just confiscate babies at the hospital and put them in a state run school?

They pretty much do, unless you have the wherewithall to put them on a different course.

[RocketMan]

Looks like my home state has gone full jackwagon.  I got out of there just in time.

[vaskidmark]

OK.  Fine.  Whatever.

But what are the parents' legal responsibilities
1 - when the kid goes missing unannounced so s/he can go to the hospital without the drama of arguing with the 'rents?
2 - as far as seeking a change of/amendment to the birth certificate after Johnny loses/Susie gains parts?
3 - re-registering the kid in school?  (The school administration is going to be very interested in any Title IX funds they can pick up or may lose)?
4 - to provide ongoing health and mental health care now that Johnny/Susie has been enrolled in state Medicaid in order to pay for the deletion/addition?
5 - regarding either/both federal or state laws relating to recoupment of debts to the state for the care of minor children?

And the biggie - who's going to try to force the 'rents to love and hold and pet and house Johnny/Susie when they come home as Susie/Johnny over the objections of the 'rents?  I can just see that one in family court now:  "Your honor, we admit we had a male/female child born to us.  That's not what we have in front of us or want."

Depending on the state's expenditure for foster care placement, it might just be cheaper to tell the judge to put her/him up and we'll pay what family services pays the foster parents.  And I'd tell the talk shows that they are going to have to deal with getting approval for her/him to appear* and what, if any, stipend will be paid (and then automatically confiscated to be used to pay for foster care).

stay safe.

* - Approval can not be given.  Per state law Susie/Johnny is still a minor as regards medical confidentiality and release of information about who is in/why they are in state custody.  It would take three separate court orders (to appear, to release [that's even taking about] medical records, and to disclose information about a specific foster care placement).

state family services rep: "Gee Jerry/Maury/Geraldo/Dr. Phil, I'd love to talk about that but the state laws prohibit me from saying anything.  I can neither confirm nor deny what Mr & Mrs NotReallyHappy allege happened."

[dogmush]

This is the second article I've seen recently about medical procedures on underage kids without parental consent/knowledge.

The other one was about IUD's in 12 year olds.

I'm kinda at a loss for words.  I'm pretty damn libertarian but procedures with (potential) hugely life altering results seems like exactly the kinda f thing we should REQUIRE parental consent for.  These kids couldn't get a Tat or piercing without a signed consent form, but this is OK?

I reaffirm my belief that when the shooting starts, it'll start over some .gov overreach like this (or turning loose a criminal to kill people).

[Perd Hapley]

This is the second article I've seen recently about medical procedures on underage kids without parental consent/knowledge.

The other one was about IUD's in 12 year olds.

I'm kinda at a loss for words.  I'm pretty damn libertarian but procedures with (potential) hugely life altering results seems like exactly the kinda f thing we should REQUIRE parental consent for.  These kids couldn't get a Tat or piercing without a signed consent form, but this is OK?

I reaffirm my belief that when the shooting starts, it'll start over some .gov overreach like this (or turning loose a criminal to kill people).

The explanation is that our culture has lost its mind where sex/gender/reproduction are involved.

"But my sexuality/gender/abortion is my private choice! That's why .gov has to subsidize it!"

'Your religion is your private choice. That's why government can't even acknowledge it, and you can't either, unless the church door is locked tightly behind you."

[MillCreek]

FYI, most states have broad exceptions to parental consent for medical treatment of minors.  Most of those exceptions have to do with treatment for psychological, sexual or substance use issues.  In those cases, the minor can provide their own legal consent to treatment, and I note from the original article that the age of legal consent in Oregon for medical treatment is 15.  So in Oregon, a minor over the age of 15 can apparently consent to any medical treatment.

The sex-change operation is a headline grabber, but of course, finding a surgeon who would think that someone of that age is an appropriate candidate would not be easy.  You would definitely want to have the patient evaluated by psychiatry and undergo a period of living the self-identified gender first, before contemplating surgery.   I know that the medical literature on this has changed in recent years, and surgery is by no means a guarantee that you will end up with a satisfied patient at the end.  I think the enthusiasm for gender-reassignment surgery amongst surgeons has really dropped.   

[lee n. field]

The sex-change operation is a headline grabber, but of course, finding a surgeon who would think that someone of that age is an appropriate candidate would not be easy. 

But not so hard, apparantly, to find one to prescribe a hormone blocker for a child approaching puberty, if the parental sorts of persons can badger him into talking about being the other sex.

(I'm on a hormone blocker right now.  No fun, at all.)

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

No experience with the whole sex change operation for minors name but I have been involved with a child getting substance abuse treatment against their parents wishes
you would think that would never happen but it does

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[vaskidmark]

FYI, most states have broad exceptions to parental consent for medical treatment of minors.  Most of those exceptions have to do with treatment for psychological, sexual or substance use issues.     

Abortion is the only surgically invasive procedure I am aware of that minors may consent to without parental approval.

Down on my arthritic knees hoping  and praying that we can avoid yet another round of "discussion" about the morality of abortion while discussing this (and realizing that the odds are stacked against that) but let's talk about some of the "reasoning" behind not allowing surgically invasive procedures to minors without parental consent.

The biggie is the concept that surgery will disfigure the minor - which is behind not allowing minors to get tattoos.  The residuals of the notion that children are the property of their parents remain active.  Dent my car, pay to undent it or to replace it.  Lop something off my kid, pay me compensation because there's almost no way you are put it back on again in the same condition as it was prior to your lopping.

Next in line is that minors are not considered intellectually developed enough to comprehend the inherent dangers of surgical procedures (especially that part where they tell you you might die).  Not allowing minors to use tanning beds fits best here: they cannot fully comprehend the inherent risks involved, as opposed to everyone over 18 who is considered capable of doing so and of having made a careful and studied decision after weighing the risks against the benefits.

Way down at the very bottom of the list seems to be the question of how folks are going to get paid when the minor welshes on the contractual promise to pay.

stay safe.

[Ben]

No experience with the whole sex change operation for minors name but I have been involved with a child getting substance abuse treatment against their parents wishes
you would think that would never happen but it does

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

This is where I would have sympathy for the law, or for instance, parents refusing to deal with an appendix that's  about to erupt because they don't trust doctors or whatever. But that would apply to any age minor, and even then, it becomes a very slippery slope to let the state decide when they intervene because, well, the OP.

There is no immediate threat to life or health that a sex change operation will fix. While I think it's a stupid operation, if some adult wants to privately pay for it and not force me to stick my nose in their business to "recognize" them, what do I care? But there is no doubt gender reassignment is a big stress on a person's psychology, and I'm not sure a 30 year old has enough life experience to truly know what they're doing in that regard, let alone a 15 year old.

[vaskidmark]

This is where I would have sympathy for the law, or for instance, parents refusing to deal with an appendix that's  about to erupt because they don't trust doctors or whatever. But that would apply to any age minor, and even then, it becomes a very slippery slope to let the state decide when they intervene because, well, the OP.

There is no immediate threat to life or health that a sex change operation will fix. While I think it's a stupid operation, if some adult wants to privately pay for it and not force me to stick my nose in their business to "recognize" them, what do I care? But there is no doubt gender reassignment is a big stress on a person's psychology, and I'm not sure a 30 year old has enough life experience to truly know what they're doing in that regard, let alone a 15 year old.

A kid with a ripe appendix is probably being seen by someone who knows what one is and why it needs attention.  That stacks the odds heavily in favor of them also being a mandated reporter of suspected abuse/neglect.  That brings into play the invoking of emergency custody laws and emergency court orders to allow medical folks to go after said appendix.  (Was a compound fractured leg, not an appendix, I dealt with.  Got a judge to issue the order over the phone - doctor and two nurses + cop + me as listening witnesses who all wrote very brief statements about having heard the judge identify himself and issue the order to operate.  Later that day a copy of the official order was faxed to the hospital for their records.

There are a very few groups who can avoid that by claiming they are refusing medical treatment because of religious beliefs.

stay safe.

[Tallpine]

So how come it is that a teen age minor can consent to elective surgery, but he/she cannot refuse something like chemotherapy 

[lupinus]

So how come it is that a teen age minor can consent to elective surgery, but he/she cannot refuse something like chemotherapy 

Stop oppressing people with your logic.

[Firethorn]

So how come it is that a teen age minor can consent to elective surgery, but he/she cannot refuse something like chemotherapy 

Different states, different agencies, different viewpoints.

Show a police officer graffiti and he'll look for the sprayers to press criminal charges.  Show a maintenance worker and he'll paint over it. 

Also, the cases I remember the kid refused just fine, even if it went 'extra-legal' at moments.