Sorry but all the "internet's requests" was all for those two artcles, so it is no a matter of what you said.
Did I misunderstood or are two different votes? The law was already known it will pass, but what concerns those two articles, I guess it was a different vote, where the 5 was "missing", if I'd understood.
Imho just beat him: imho again if it's my father, and laws are specific so dumb, there are no questions denying me to talk to my father, would it be a brother in law or natural brother.
It is not a matter of choice that he has to take by himself (other than think he "has the possibility to feel responsible", but that's also not a question and not an option, imo). I would make him understood that it is not a choice, nor me that I'm asking him if he will allow me, he has to understand (imho) within goods or bads: if it's for my father, he will come after, on a different level of importance. Really to me allowing him to take responsability as to "help" himself, or make him to feel this experience, is something that might even be silly, like what: "have a solace try?", whitin the life of another person? Because hospital's laws are dumb? Imho no way, and no no fight if needed (you also older).
iirc also our self-defense body's behaviour acts automatic responses when we "miss" something, as like taking some elements or create them from other organs, if in need (our organs are also bigger than what is needed, iirc also for those "emergency" states).
So if missing calcium, the first places where the organism might take it from, are the tooths -iirc-.
