you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think there may be some misunderstanding about this case.

The law says a 21 year old can consent to an operation and their parents have no say in the matter. This is the right thing in 99.99% of matters, as adults we don’t want our parents to be able to interfere in our lives especially not in our healthcare decisions.

However, in this case the father is concerned that his 21-year old son is incapable of consenting due to his autism and mental health issues. In circumstances like this the mechanism that exists is the courts where a judge will hear the evidence and make a decision based on the law and facts.

The government is not involved in this. This is not a Canada situation. In this case the father is asking the court to rule that his son cannot consent. The father will have a pretty hefty burden to prove that, as he should as we don’t want people being ruled incompetent Willy-nilly but this is nothing to do with the government.

This is the sort of court case you might bring if your mother was developing dementia and spending all the family’s money - you’d go to court to get power of attorney to prevent her impoverishing herself and spending your inheritance whilst incompetent.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And this makes the case far more of a question mark since it is fucked up either way.

If the father loses, then this kid who was likely groomed into believing he was transgender and is suicidal beyond his gender identity, meaning it won't satisfy him and he'd 41 no matter what, will get a full sex change.

If the father wins, then it fully says autistic people cannot consent to anything. This cannot possibly end well for the country- because if it does, given how autism is a spectrum disorder, we're potentially looking at a world where anyone who's less of a social butterfly than the prom king/queen can be ruled incompetent and they CAN rule basically anyone who isn't a popular celebrity incompetent of making any decisions for themselves.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t think this will set precedent unlike the Keira Bell case potentially could have.

This court case will be simply about this father and son, just as if you pursued a similar case to prevent your dementia-suffering mother from spending your inheritance buying exotic parrots and eating them. That case would not apply to anyone else’s dementia-suffering mother, they will need to pursue their own cases to save their inheritances.

I see it as similar to those cases where doctors think that there is no further point continuing extreme life-saving measures but the family want them to keep going. The court cases apply to those individuals only.