This is a big (and important) reply to multiple posts so apologies for it's neccessary length.
Many use the G in GRS not to stand for Gender which some doctors once called it but instead as Genital. So that 'top surgery' is still considered SRS and not only 'bottom surgery'. Because the emphasis only on genitals defining ones legal sex catagory is discriminatory towards FtM blokes who less often than MtF choose the current surgical options for a variety of reasons.Originally Posted by ~Kelly~
Reasonable to Inform of the choice and maybe even the contemplation of the choice yes, I already said as much myself but Need to Involve in the making of the choice? No. Discuss with? Sure thats an option. Even ask the opinions of. But allow the other to have a say in the decison? To have a veto? To require negotiation about? No. Not with cancer treatment nor with dental work nor with a haircut. The principle is clear and unchanged from the minutia to the ultimate life and death decisions. This is a legal point, its a human rights point, its a philosophical point.
Absolutely! It's a common missunderstanding that the two words mean the same thing. Trouble is many dictionaries and many public commentators are rather behind the field of philosophy from where the terms come. Many philosophers for a significant amount of time (lets see... I attended my first lecture on Philosophy between the ages of 3 and 4 and I just turned 33 so it's at least 30 years) do not use the terms moral and ethical as interchangeable.
They make a distinction between morality as subjective, based on personal precepts reliant on a specific feelling, faith, belief or groups rules and ethics as more objective and thus true across different moral fields. Not every philosopher uses that definition of course and there are a few different schools of thought on what precepts define Ethics but I use the term in what is generslly the main usage which is relating to the simple philosophical principles from the Enlightenment of Equality and Liberty from which all Human Rights Philosophy (and modern western civilisation and modern democracy) descends.
Example:
For some Christians working on a Sunday is immoral, in that it goes against proscribed religious rules apllicable to those who hold that faith. But for a Wiccan to work on a Sunday the Christian morals do not and can not apply to them as they do not hold that faith. Instead they have a seperate subjective morality based on the rules of their seperate faith!
However were either to comit murder even when that murder is religiously moral (for example if the Christian murders the wican because of the religious moral rule 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live') they have acted Unethically because they have imposed their subjective rule over the Wiccan and the Wiccans rights!
Now as the Christian would themselves object if the Wiccan imposed their religious rules over them or if a worshipper of the Vampire Bat God Camasotz were to tear the Christians heart out on a stone altar as a blessed sacrifice then this forms a neat understanding of how an objective system based on equality can arise. One which relegates personal morality only to the self and which requires an unbiased set of principles when dealing with others.
As every single persons morality may vary then even between two Christians one cannot assert their morality over the other.
Example: One may say that the Old Testament rules about food must be obeyed while another may say they do not but that people should go to confession. Neither can apply their personal morality to the other.
I've used religious morality for my examples because they are generaly easier for most people to recognise the differences involved, but even when it comes down to 'conscience' each person has a unique conscience not a single standard universal one so then how can anyone judge others by the standards of their own conscience when those others may well have been following their consciences too?
This is true at every level. So it's even true in a relationship! Even a marriage!
Morality is always under every conceivable circumstance inferior lesser and overridden by Ethical principles.
Morality applies only to the self, Ethics applies to all actions between any two or more sentient beings. Only Ethical judgements are valid over others choices relating to others, peoples choices relating only to themselves are intrinsicly ethical and cannot be judged by others at all!. All decisions relating to others that are Moral but Unethical are Wrong! All actions relating to others that are Ethical but Immoral to one of the parties involved are Right!
Hence the example: A Wiccan working on Sundays no matter how Immoral to some Christians is Ethical and therfore Right and Acceptable but Christians Murdering Witches despite it being Moral is Unethical and therefore Wrong and Inexcusable!
Now Kelly, if you wish I can list a host of Moral arguments to back up the point that the decision always belongs solely to the person whose body it is. But being dependant on precepts that are founded on particular faiths or cultures they will be subjective and therefore useless outside of the self. Whereas the Ethical arguments supercede all Moral ones because thay apply to all people especially when those people may come from varying faiths or cultures with different moral precepts.
I sure didn't say the person was wise doing it the way they did without informing their wife. But when it comes to all decisions about ones own body and medical are a good eample the only person with a say in the choice is the person whose body it is. This is an established Legal and Ethical (and yes folks moral too depending on moral system) principle!
The only exceptions are where the person is considered mentally incapable of making the choice for themselves! Such as if they are in a coma or are very young children or are insane!
And even under that exception the choices made on their behalf are limited by very strict rules!
Example: A sane awake sober adult can consent to anything, from surgery to sex. While a small child cannot consent to many things including surgery and no child can consent to sex. This does not mean that their parents can make any choice they feel like just because they make the choice on the childs behalf! Life-saving surgery is valid for example but cosmetic surgery to give them pointed elf ears is not. Hence an adult cant choose for the child of any age that the child have sex!
A husband for example has no say over a wifes consent to sex. Nor the wife over the husband. And if they are passed out from alcohol the other cannot choose on the behalf of the unconcious spouse to have sex. It's still rape Ethically and Legally and by much morality.
So i'm afraid that utter personal autonomy under every possible circumstance where a person is capable of making choices is the case no matter what. And when they are incapable of making choices there are strict principles on the kind of choices others can make on their behalf!
