Anonymous #1 15w

but i will say about the financial reason one. there's no way a capitalist hospital in this day and age would waive the fees lmao. just the way it is. atp it would be better to abort

1

Anonymous #1 15w

The professor asked for my views even if it’s “outlandish” so I said that. xD

3

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 15w

I have views from both side of politics but I have more right side views than left so I’m considered a right leaning independent.

3

Anonymous #3 15w

That is a tough one in my opinion. On one hand, abortion is a “surgical”procedure done which usually requires parental consent for any other surgery, however it could be dangerous for the child in question since there is many cases where parents are abusive. The waiting period is also a bit iffy, but it gives time to absorb any information. I am pretty neutral on that

3

Anonymous OP 15w

For parental consent I’d potentially copy what seems to be the standard (at least in my state) for children who need blood transfusions in surgery. If the parents refuse to consent but the kid could die or suffer serious harm, the hospital will go to a judge and try to get an order authorizing it. It sometimes needs to be done for children of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In some cases they’ll be fine with their kid dying than risk being shunned by their community for letting their kid have a transfusion

1

Anonymous #3 15w

I like that case to be honest. Because it still has the informed consent, but has the minor’s best interests in heart!

1

Anonymous #1 15w

Bro they probably could, with the way our current insurance system works that’s basically how they get paid ever. Bill comes out to six figures insurance agrees to only pay low 5 and the rest is just deducted. Might be mis/underinformed but the cost of the service seems likely to be waved🤷‍♂️

-1