Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Sure thing, thanks for accepting.O1: My point here is just an observation of the burdens of the round. To give me the burden that any cosmetic surgery (e.g. breast implants or the like) is due payment from the parents would be unfair, this is just me setting up my burdens for the round: if the adolescent can provide for themselves, they can get non life-threatening things, whilst if they need something life-threatening (heart surgery, etc.) the parents should pay. There's nothing deeper than that, I just want to set up the burdens.FW: Yeah, ethical egoism is the self-centered belief -- you can say that this is self-preservation or self-love, going to whatever end you wish to the comparisons, these are all valid. But, ethical egoism is a priority-based set of moral thought; it has the highest-yielding first, and so on and so on. It weighs the outcomes of everything, not just the personal beliefs - there is a sharp contrast and a fine line between the two. As for your braces example, they are not an adolescent to start. A child does not have close to the mindset of an adolescent, and even further from an adult; but on the other hand, an adolescent is closer to an adult mindset. Further, it is only the burden of the parent to provide money for the braces (as per my O1, meaning observation one) if the adolescent's life is in danger. Anything else, they have to pay for it for themselves; there exists no conflict within your scenario.C1: We care about the book because it talks about ethical egoism and nomadism. Further, we care because it talks about social hierarchies; my case specifically critiques these things, and so on and so on.To explain my case in my own words further.Basically, the triangle of the family as it exists in the status quo (2 parents, no child) is social unity according to society; any deviation from it (one mother and one child only, for example) is nonconformism and is the colonisation (the creation) of Oedipus (please read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles if you do not understand this metaphor). We need to consider the rights of the immature (the adolescent), since they are in the process of becoming full citizens and because they are due certain rights. When the child makes an autonomous choice, I claim, he changes the triangle as it exists. From a large top and small bottom (2 parents at the top, 1 child at the bottom) to a small top and large bottom (1 child at the top, 2 at the bottom). Society will not respond well - it will call this new structure a rebellion, as we see in Oedipus where he kills his father and sleeps with his mother.If the child submits to this power hierarchy, he submits to society in the status quo - and further, I claim, he is the poster child of conformity and control. Exploitation and hierarchies will continue - only by rebellion can we solve for all of these inherently bad things (slavery, as an example of a hierarchy, but my case specifically talks of the exploitation of adolescents). When an adolescent doesn't have this right of autonomy, they continue this power hierarchy -- Deleuze and Guattari call this the 'fascism' of the future -- and this fascism will cause extinction unless we check this power as it exists ('check' as in the term 'checks and balances'). The Nomadism of my criterion is the only way out of this fascism, Seem 72 claims.No need to cry to your parents, for that is entrenching their power and making the state of repression and oppression - simply cry to yourself and your deserved right to rebel in autonomy, then you will no longer need to cry. Thanks ~