Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I agree that this thread has lost its collective mind, because you're all operating under the impression that this tattoo is now the ONLY acceptable proof of love between these two children.
This is a false narrowing of options, and it's a trick lawyers often use. Don't fall for it.

First, there doesn't need to be any physical proof of this love at all. The love and support is completely obvious NOW, WHEN IT MATTERS MOST. Why does it need to be memorialized in a physical way at all?
Second, if the surviving child wants to memorialize it, why a tattoo? Why not something else?
Third, there is something about a dying person's wishes that is tripping people up here. It's really hard to say no to a dying person, particularly a child. But just because they're dying, it doesn't mean they're always rational. It's normal that this young patient's parents would not say no to a tattoo. 1, They're devastated; 2, of course a tattoo on a dying person isn't going to have any sort of consequence; and 3, faced with the death of their own child, a tattoo on someone else's child is no big deal. But the surviving child's parents, who have their child's best interest at heart, should not feel pressure to say yes so quickly.

I personally hate tattoos and I would absolutely let her do it.

What a great and compassionate child you have!

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I'm 54 and don't have pierced ears. I would not allow a 15 yr old to get the tattoo. I'm also the PP that was in a similar position at that age, when a friend died. I didn't say anything about disfigurement though. Also, I don't see why the OP would need to explain anything to the other teen, it's her daughter she needs to explain things to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I'm on the fence and have not yet responded. I take issue with your premise that I owe an explanation to child with the terminal illness. I would still have to consider my child here.

I didn’t say you owe anyone an explanation, but you’re dreaming if you think this is a situation where you can just say “no” and have that be the end of it. The OP’s daughter is certainly not going to let it go. I guess you could just wait until her friend dies to avoid THAT conversation, but there is no way out of this situation that doesn’t involve having to provide a difficult and hurtful answer to a teenager whose good friend is dying. If a tiny tattoo is worth the hurt that denying this will cause, go for it, but it doesn’t give you some kind of great parent award.

Anonymous wrote:What a horrible idea. I would be irritated at the emotional manipulation.

I understand the parents of the young patient are distraught, but come on. It's not cool to encourage the surviving teen to get something permanent. This isn't about disrespecting the future memory of a pediatric cancer victim. Don't believe anyone who tries to tell you that, since that would reduce her memory to a tatoo, which is ridiculous. It's about not allowing another child to mark their body permanently before they are old enough to really think it through unemotionally.

I would persuade them to do something else.

+1

This is only an issue since tattoos are more "in" now. I was in the same situation years ago, but tattoos were not in vogue and there is no way my parents would have allowed it.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I'm on the fence and have not yet responded. I take issue with your premise that I owe an explanation to child with the terminal illness. I would still have to consider my child here.

I would work with her on the design and make sure it was done safely. I might veto any larger tattoos. I'm not a tattoo person, but I would get one in a heartbeat if a dear friend who was dying asked me to get one. It's a testament to your daughter that she has such a friendship. The tattoo will hopefully be a reminder of the friendship they once shared. And really, tattoos can be removed.

Anonymous wrote: On a practical note, will a tattoo artist work on an underage cancer patient, even with parental consent?

I know a tattoo artist well and he said that he would absolutely do this as long as the parents consented and were present. He said that a letter from her doctor would make him feel better about it medically, but that he wouldn’t require it.

I guess I just don’t understand why you’d think this would be any more complicated because of the illness. If anything, I think that makes it LESS complicated.

I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

On a practical note, will a tattoo artist work on an underage cancer patient, even with parental consent?

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be in the minority, but I would not let my child get a tattoo. It's not to be mean or purposefully deny the other girl anything; I am just not comfortable with it.

I would get my kid into therapy and have her discuss the situation with a neutral third party and encourage her to come up with other ways to honor her friend. Once my child turns 18, then they can do what they want.

Yes. People have lost their minds. A tattoo at 15? No. Not only may she not want to be reminded of her grief daily, but if it causes her more grief, makes her uncomfortable eventually, she wants to get it removed...that will be even harder. There is the cost and the pain of getting a tattoo removed, but also the huge emotional aspect of removing something she promised her friend she would have forever. That may give her a tremendous amount of guilt. Do not let her do this. I'd be angry at the other parents for encouraging this.

I am going to be in the minority, but I would not let my child get a tattoo. It's not to be mean or purposefully deny the other girl anything; I am just not comfortable with it.

I would get my kid into therapy and have her discuss the situation with a neutral third party and encourage her to come up with other ways to honor her friend. Once my child turns 18, then they can do what they want.

Anonymous wrote:Of course I would allow this. I would push to make it small and in a place that is easy to cover when desired, but yes. Absolutely.

+1 and I am normally opposed to tattoo

Anonymous wrote:Just a DCUM wake up moment. We literally have to be one of the last metropolitans and areas of the country where tattoos are shunned. Literally go to the west coast. Entire people covered in tats. By the time your daughter is a professional, DC will be the same. Lots of people have tats (covered) in this town and more will have them uncovered.

I’m a MS teacher. We have 120 professional staff. I think 60% have ink. And half of those are people over 40, including women. I personally do not, but I have nothing against them. The point though is that it hasn’t stopped our teachers, admin, and various specialists from getting decent jobs in the public eye.

Anonymous wrote:I think that as long as it’s in a discreet location (possible to cover) I would absolutely allow it. And I am really not a tattoo person.

I don’t have any tattoos, but I agree with this solution.