Being apprehensive about something you don't understand is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Taking away people's choice to make an informed decision for themselves with their doctor because of the apprehension is not acceptable (or it shouldn't be at least).
Every medical procedure has consequences, as does the forgoing of such procedure. The decision should be left for each individual to decide for themselves, not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.
Taking away people's choice to make an informed decision for themselves
These are children we're talking about. We don't allow them to make decisions for themselves, informed or otherwise, for lots of things. Parents often cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for their children either.
not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.
We also don't let doctors make many medical decisions. The medical industry is incredibly-highly regulated, regardless of what region we're talking about. Doctors and hospitals care about money more than anything, like most humans. They will do whatever you want for the right price.
The government makes rules to protect its' citizens from harm. You can argue that they made the wrong decision, but to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to make any decisions is nothing short of anarchy.
As an anarchist, yeah that'd pretty much be anarchy.
We couldn't have people make decisions for themselves I guess! We have to make sure those rich elites in control of the government are there to protect us from our total stupidity. /s
Of course there need to be regulations. The procedure needs to be tested to be safe on humans (which it has, to a higher degree than many other medicines), and the parents/guardians would need to reach a decision with their child and with a licensed medical professional.
Government officials aren't licensed medical professionals. They shouldn't be making that decision. They should lay out the groundwork for licensing and medical testing and leave the actual results and decisions to the professionals and the patients.
We couldn't have people make decisions for themselves I guess
Some people, sure. Lots of people, absolutely not.
We have to make sure those rich elites
LOL that's rich. How do you think those people became rich elites? By taking advantage of people who make poor decisions.
Of course there need to be regulations.
I'm getting A LOT of mixed signals here... You're an anarchist, in favor of regulations? How does that work?
Anarchism is not what you believe it to be. The Wikipedia page honestly isn't too bad for it:
Generally anarchists want regulations to protect people from being preyed upon. It doesn't want people telling them how to live their lives. People should have the liberty to choose how to live for themselves, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. No one should have the power to control another person's life. We need to have regulations that protect people and to keep things ordered, but we don't need anybody ruling over others.
You mean what the dictionary says it is?
Some definitions, sure. Not all of them. Not lawlessness and chaos, which is how it's normally portrayed in the media. Ordered liberty without hierarchy is what it is.
Can you direct me to the "correct" definition?
The Wikipedia page seems to be generally correct. It's a pretty broad political spectrum though with a reasonably long history. Some anarchists disagree with each other (as people in any group do) so there isn't a perfect definition. The synopsis of the wiki is probably as good as you'll get without reading the literature. Proudhon is probably the most famous anarchist, if you want to read up on his works.
Being apprehensive about something you don't understand is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Taking away people's choice to make an informed decision for themselves with their doctor because of the apprehension is not acceptable (or it shouldn't be at least).
Every medical procedure has consequences, as does the forgoing of such procedure. The decision should be left for each individual to decide for themselves, not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.
These are children we're talking about. We don't allow them to make decisions for themselves, informed or otherwise, for lots of things. Parents often cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for their children either.
We also don't let doctors make many medical decisions. The medical industry is incredibly-highly regulated, regardless of what region we're talking about. Doctors and hospitals care about money more than anything, like most humans. They will do whatever you want for the right price.
The government makes rules to protect its' citizens from harm. You can argue that they made the wrong decision, but to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to make any decisions is nothing short of anarchy.
As an anarchist, yeah that'd pretty much be anarchy.
We couldn't have people make decisions for themselves I guess! We have to make sure those rich elites in control of the government are there to protect us from our total stupidity. /s
Of course there need to be regulations. The procedure needs to be tested to be safe on humans (which it has, to a higher degree than many other medicines), and the parents/guardians would need to reach a decision with their child and with a licensed medical professional.
Government officials aren't licensed medical professionals. They shouldn't be making that decision. They should lay out the groundwork for licensing and medical testing and leave the actual results and decisions to the professionals and the patients.
Some people, sure. Lots of people, absolutely not.
LOL that's rich. How do you think those people became rich elites? By taking advantage of people who make poor decisions.
I'm getting A LOT of mixed signals here... You're an anarchist, in favor of regulations? How does that work?
Anarchism is not what you believe it to be. The Wikipedia page honestly isn't too bad for it:
Generally anarchists want regulations to protect people from being preyed upon. It doesn't want people telling them how to live their lives. People should have the liberty to choose how to live for themselves, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. No one should have the power to control another person's life. We need to have regulations that protect people and to keep things ordered, but we don't need anybody ruling over others.
You mean what the dictionary says it is?
Some definitions, sure. Not all of them. Not lawlessness and chaos, which is how it's normally portrayed in the media. Ordered liberty without hierarchy is what it is.
Can you direct me to the "correct" definition?
The Wikipedia page seems to be generally correct. It's a pretty broad political spectrum though with a reasonably long history. Some anarchists disagree with each other (as people in any group do) so there isn't a perfect definition. The synopsis of the wiki is probably as good as you'll get without reading the literature. Proudhon is probably the most famous anarchist, if you want to read up on his works.