Boilermaker -

You keep wrongly bringing up religion. The debate here has nothing to do with religion. The debate is whether parents have a right to make decisions for their children or the government does. That they may or may not have done it for religious reasons isn't material.

You are nuts to paint teachers as having some unique skill set that a reasonably educated parent couldn't replicate. That's not a shot at teachers; it's true of most professions. The biggest downside to home schooling is the lack of socialization....... which is a huge downside.

I know you're a big government guy, which is fine, but where do you draw the line?

It is about religion. They made it about that.

I'm not a big government guy. However we already draw lines about what decisions parents can make for kids. I'm guessing you and others would want the government to step in if a parent was getting their 10 year old a gender reassignment surgery.

No, it's not about religion. Are you saying that if the parents had just objected to the procedure just on principal and not on religious beliefs that you would have a different opinion?

I may have. The trial would have been about the effectiveness of a treatment rather than the religious beliefs of people who weren't the patient. Blood transfusions are against some religions. Should parents be able to deny consent for their kids in life saving situations? What about elective procedures? See why it's relevant to argue about effectiveness rather than what a church says?

Any doctor who would participate in custody proceedings over hormone replacement therapy to be performed on a minor should be sued for malpractice then lose their license.

If they argued they should be able to say no because they asked a magic 8 ball would I have to view it the same?

Huh?

What was unclear to you?

Yes. You absolutely should. You're now okay with the government not only being in the business of determining what parents can decide but also why they decide it? You think that that's a valid or fair legal argument?

You're kidding, right?

Why would you strip the license of a doctor for advocating for a transgender patient? Would you also strip the law license of the minors attorney?

What do you think happens in a court case? Each side presents arguments and one is chosen. The better the argument the better chance of being accepted.

I don't think there is at all enough scientific evidence to warrant hormone replacement or sex reassignment as the prescribed treatment of claimed gender dysphoria in a minor. I think doing so, and especially taming part in a coirt proceeding that strips parents of a child specifically over that issue, is a galling misuse of a medical license and should warrant it's forfeiture.

Okay then, consider the following scenario:

A child wants to have breast implants to increase the size of her breasts. She is 14 years old.

Her parents won't allow her to, and the stated reason they don't want to allow her to is for religious purposes.

You believe the court should step in and allow her the breast implants because of the religious angle, yes?

Rick..I'd bet it's already happened.. The surgeons should be locked up with the parents.

And you can't talk about sports unless you've played the game, right?

Well when you suggest license removal for supporting a patient on valid medical procedures then you shouldn't talk about it.

The validity of the medical procedure is not the issue (see: straw man), it is that the medical procedure is perhaps unnecessary and is to be performed on a minor. Ordering unnecessary medical procedures, though they be otherwise valid, is certainly grounds for losing your license to practice medicine.

Uh, because we don't let a 12 year old consent to football?