Nor, frankly, does most of America.

People should have the same rights. End of statement.

Things get much stickier where children are concerned. They have legal guardians who make important decisions for them before the age of majority, and that is proper. The situation gets worse when there is an even number of legal guardians (like 2), and those legal guardians disagree on the best course of action for the child.

https://youtu.be/jciTR2wvb1M

Okay, I have about 30 minutes between stuff so I'll try and dive in. First off, the legal stuffs. Note that none of this necessarily represents my own opinion. I'll state clearly when I switch.

@paradigm , to answer your question, who makes the decision for or against puberty blockade changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In many states, provinces, or countries the age of full emancipation and the age of medical emancipation, and the degrees of medical emancipation yielded at different ages, varies.

To stick with the US, many states confer a medical emancipation for prescription drugs as early as 12 years old. For surgical procedures as early as 13 last I checked.

The purpose for this is to permit minors to make their own decisions in regards to contraception and abortion.

So my initial answer to your question, Paradigm, is that in many cases the decision may be made by the youth in question.

Is an emancipation process required in those cases?

No It is automatically conferred.

Again, depends on the jurisdiction.

Beyond medical emancipation, then it is up to either a consensus of the parents or the courts.

Again, this is just pure legality

That is not my understanding of emancipation, and I would oppose it.

Again, the intent is to yield agency to youth to make their own decisions about their sexual destiny. I'm not judging it, just laying that out.

Sure. And I would oppose it, as would very many other people.

Now on to ethics. No gender specialist I am aware of in the US would prescribe meds to a minor who is not legally given agency by the state to make their own decisions or who is not supported by either their legal guardians or a court with jurisdiction.

That sounds like a legal concern, rather than an ethical concern.

We can set aside emancipated minors, because emancipated minors are legally adults, not children.

In this case fear of lawsuit is part of it but also looking to the state to determine when someone is able to exercise medical agency. That later perspective is the ethics.

I'm ethically against adults having sex with minors for example. That said, the age I consider "minor" changes depending on the juristiction I'm considering.

I let the citizenry make that determination and then adapt my ethics appropriately.

That said, even I draw lines below about 15 which is where my morality comes in.

Morality and ethics are very separate concepts. Morality is entirely internal whereas ethics are guided by outside principles.

We deal with this in healthcare a lot, which is why I said in another discussion that I am ethically pro-choice but morally pro-life.

In cases where a legal minor (not emancipated) disagrees with the decisions of the legal guardians regarding medical treatment, the minor may petition the court to overrule the decision of the legal guardians. That is a legal procedure that exists to handle exceptional cases, and should be adequate.

I agree

In the event that there are "automatic medical emancipation" laws without any kind of process, I would oppose them categorically.

This is an honest question so that I understand your perspective accurately. Do you believe a 16yo should be able to obtain oral contraceptives without their parent's permission?

Or should the parent be able to deny that to the minor despite the fact the parent cannot control that minor's sexuality?

I believe the 16 year old has access to emancipation procedures, and can use those if desired.

So they have to go to court to take "the pill"?

Once emancipated, the 16 year old is an adult.

Not at all, @DrYuriMom , the minor would have to go to court to set aside the decision of the legal guardians.

Many parents will consent.

Hmm'kay

I just wanted to be clear where you stood. I'm not judging. I just want to be clear.

It's very simple. Legal guardianship is controlling, unless set aside with due process.

If there is a disagreement between the guardian and the minor on medical issues, there is process to handle that.

Hmm'kay. We can agree to disagree on that but at least I get where you are coming from and can certainly respect it given your consistency in application.