Quote:
Originally posted by SOPi_Jawbreaker
I think the right thing would have been for him to tell these guys to wait until they're adults and out of their parents' houses and if they still want to brand themselves at that time, to go to get it professionally done so they don't get skin infections. Even if the football players still went and branded themselves anyway, he wouldn't have been there and he wouldn't be a liability to the school because he had given the football players the correct advice (wait until you're older, wait until you're out on your own, go to a professional brander). And maybe, by telling them about the risk of infection if the branding is done by an amateur, the guys that are still determined to get a brand right then and there would have gone and gotten it done at a tattoo/branding/piercing parlor.
|
What makes you think he DIDN'T tell them that? They could have persisted (like teenagers do) or went ahead and tried to do it the wrong way and he tried to help them so that there would not be injury, etc. I think he was placed in a no-win situation: place the system in potential liability OR risk injury to his students. I think he made the right MORAL choice but clearly the wrong LEGAL choice.
BTW, in most states, if you are under 18, you cannot get tattooed/branded/pierced at a business w/o parental consent.
Threaded Mode