2023-12-29T13:05:16Ztag:sursumcorda.salemsattic.com,2018:/isso/thread/post/did-i-say-lack-of-information-was-hardtag:sursumcorda.salemsattic.com,2018:/isso/1499/50112023-12-29T13:05:16ZSursumCorda<p>No doubt you are right, and that is the reason. But &quot;age of majority/consent&quot; is a slippery and unpredictable thing, at least in the U.S. For example, 13 is the magic age for many things online. In New Hampshire, an 18-year-old is considered fully adult—but he can't legally drink alcohol. In Connecticut, a 15-year-old and a 13-year-old can have sex without it being considered rape. Parents can do all sorts of things to and for their children, many of them irreversible, from piercing their babies' ears to circumcising their little boys all the way to having their own grandchildren aborted, and now, to dousing small children with strong chemicals to disrupt their sexual maturation, and even removing their normal, healthy sexual organs. An almost any age.</p> <p>Although bone marrow donation is relatively simple, it does involve anesthesia, a risk one could say is too much for a child to consent to. (Though parents do it all the time for their children—for dental work, for example.) So it does make sense to keep children off the donation registry while encouraging familial donations. It just struck me as archaic, given all of the above.</p>tag:sursumcorda.salemsattic.com,2018:/isso/1499/50102023-12-29T10:38:45ZStephan<p>I’m pretty sure it’s ethics keeping the minors off the registries. They can’t legally give informed consent to be donors, and having parents consent for their children to undergo an operation like that is ethically questionable.</p>