Bush is taking away MORE privacy rights?

The BBQ Pit
21

Anthracite I guess where I got confused was in a post that goes:

Blah blah blah general stuff, blah blah blah general stuff no names.

insert your name here specific stuff.

that you’d take the ‘blah blah blahs’ more to heart and more personally directed towards you and your points, then the one thing that I specifically directed to you, which demonstrated, I thought, a pretty high level of respect (well, at least for me :smiley: ).

I accept that you didn’t intend/that you thought I did. And that this has been a most perplexing misunderstanding.

I can see your point regarding placement of the post etc. and since I intended no specific rudeness, snippiness to you personally, please consider this formal appology for appearing to be personally rude/snippy etc.

whew.

now, back to the drill.

While the abortion issue certainly is there, my concern lies not just with abortion per se, but also access to health care information etc.

It’s far more than just the abortion issue. Safety of the children involved should be paramount, and unfortunately, since there are imperfect parents running around, disclosure of all medical records is not always in the childs best interest.

22

Are we friends again? Or at least cool?

OK, I see what you are saying here. I understand that you have a valid concern outside of abortion, I would never deny that. I was simply stating, in a very cynical fashion, that I think the real reason that politicians and politically-driven groups are interested in this is due to abortion, more than due to a legitimate concern over the safety of the child.

I agree with your points on how sometime it is, indeed, not in the best interest of the child that the parents know their medical records. My viewpoint is that I feel that perhaps, more often than not, it is more often to the advantage of the child for the parents to know their medical condition. And I speak of this from a standpoint of being an “arch-conservative” who is morally opposed to abortion, but feels that from a legislative standpoint it should not be limited. That could make me what some call a “pro-choice Republican”, but I’m not really pro, per se. Just opposed to legislation on it.

23

In reviewing my last post, I guess I’m focusing too much on abortion again. I realize that your concerns are more general than that. What are some of them - you mentioned incest, for example. Just so I can understand your viewpoint better, what non-sexual-related things do you feel would be of value to keep private from the parents?

24

Geez, I’ve got to work on my writing skills if you needed to ask “are we cool then?”

(to avoid any ambiguity, the answer is “why of course we are” and insert your favorite smiley here).
Concerns include: STD’s, drug abuse - child doesn’t want parents to know they’re sexually active or have tried drugs. Yes, we, as parents want to know these things and in the best of all worlds, we would. However, not all parents are ok. Some (including for example my son’s father, but that’s an entirely different pit thread), there’s always a possability of the parent reacting with violence or other draconian measures.

Sexual identity issues are of concern as well. Love life/friendships in general - if the parent is a bigot, and the child has developed a friendship for some one of the hated group, this could cause all sorts of stress related stuff. And again, if the parent is a true ijiot (and sadly many are), this could result in draconian punishments or the child continuing to suffer from stress.

General depression, especially if the cause of the depression is parental abuse, substance abuse etc.

If the child is afraid of the parent, but can trust that the doctor will treat the concern and not tell the parent, there’s the chance that they can get actual help. (yes, I know in the case of abuse, the doctor has the obligation to contact CPS).

Counseling in particular (tho I’m not absolutely certain how the proposed rule changes would handle this). The only specific thing I ever got from my son’s counselor (other than ‘making progress’ type of statements) was he did answer a direct question I had regarding possible abuse. (the answer was no). That’s how it should be.

Most stuff, I admit, would absolutely need to be divulged to the parents - but I there needs to be protections in place for those kids who are in dangerous households.

25

Good points, wring; I see exactly what you mean. Maybe my viewpoint on parental information needs to be re-thought some.

26

That is obserd, that would be a violation of our constitutional rights

27

IMO, I don’t see the problem. When and where I grew up, we as kids didn’t have rights. We had privileges. Now as a parent, I still hold that to be true. And as I consider myself to be a good parent, I want to know what is going on with my kids. If they go get medical treatment, I want to know about it and why. Especially for STD, substance abuse, whatever, because I would rather try and help them through it, and am fairly confident that I would be able to do a better job than a counselor (no offense to any counselors out there).

I also think that the “A” word is the main problem people are having with this. I doubt highly that if abortion was specifically mentioned as being a private concern, that this motion would even be newsworthy. There seems to be three solutions:

  1. Allow a minor to have full privacy of all medical related things. Since I am the primary care provider, this is akin to allowing a kid to have full access to your bank account and credit cards at will.

  2. Allow a guardian full access to all medical related things. Again, I want to know what is happening with my kids’ health. I’m sure someone will suggest something ridiculous on how, if I am a truly good parent, my son “The Beav” will always feel comfortable coming to me with anything and I should have no worries. Anyone who believes that either doesn’t have kids or never was a kid. My kid still tries to convince me that it was the dog that put the ham sandwich in the VCR so I just can’t see him calling me some night saying “Hey pop, I’m in the hospital cuz I got jacked on smack earlier and went base jumping and I sprained my ankle… oh yeah, I got the clap too, is it okay if I get looked at?”

  3. Create a medical guidline for parental disclosure for particular services that would make my current Blue Cross handbook on provided services look like a flash card. “Broken finger, yes, provided child was not drinking or engaged in robbery at time of injury. Penicillin for cold, yes. Penicillin for STD, no. etc…”

Define the term “dangerous household” and what the protections would be. Let’s just use STD for an example. How many kids, even from good homes, will tell a doctor “I don’t want my parents to find out, they might freak out”. So what next? Do a CPS investigation to see if the parents are not violent and see the messy home from last nights party and whisk the kids away to protective custody for a week while a full blown investigation takes place? (Yes, it happens… a lot) There are already protections available for kids in abusive homes provided the kids tell people about it. By the time a kid is in a hospital getting treated for STD, booze, drugs, etc… I think it’s reasonable to assume that they have previously figured out that they are in an abusive home. If they haven’t told someone by that time like a teacher, friend, or others why can it be assumed that they will tell a doctor, someone they have never seen before?

I personally don’t see a downside to it. Being a parent, and being responsible for my kids, it is my right as a parent to have full access to everything. If I am the one held liable if my kid cracks the gun safe combo, picks the trigger lock, buys some ammo on the street and kills someone, then I certainly have the right to know if my kid smoked a bit too much crack at a party and had to be taken to the E-room. It’s one or the other. Kids either get the rights of adults and are held accountable for their actions as adults, or they are viewed as minors, in all things.

A bit old fashioned perhaps, but there it is.

28

Well, since we have no stated constitutional right to privacy, only a very shaky implied one (see Griswold vs. Connecticut, don’t remember the date), you can’t violate said right.
However, keep in mind, people, that only two types of people need privacy - criminals and the Vice President. Only people with something to hide worry about their privacy - unless they’ve the Vice President, at which point they need said privacy for very important reasons that you wouldn’t understand, so don’t worry your pretty little head about it.

29

Turbo you’re making the error of assuming that all parents are like you, and would attempt to make positive changes w/your children in a positive manner.

For a period of time, my son’s father was a Fundementalist who believed strongly that homosexuality was an abomination, a sin etc, and believed strongly also that ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’. Now, imagine such parents with a teenager struggling with sexual identity issues.

Or, you’re saying you’d want to know about your child’s treatment for STD and Substance Abuse. However, (since I know this wouldn’t be you), what about the incest victim’s STD - the parent wouldn’t want legal and medical personel questioning the victim just how she ** got** syphillis for example, or the kid who’s substance abuse problem is 'cause mom & dad are selling drugs, they’d not likely want intervention either.

In those types of cases, parental notification would be downright dangerous for the child (the parents may retaliate and/or move quickly to avoid detection, leaving the child untreated still).

Do I think that this happens often? no. But, you see, I think in the cases of a good set of parents they are likely to **know about it ** first hand cause they’re likely to be the ones taking the kid in, so laws regarding a doctor’s ability to treat the child’s condition w/o specifically having to notify them of everything wouldn’t be likely to have an impact on good parents.

Of course, you should keep in mind that most folks consider themselves ‘good parents’, including for example, my son’s father.

30

wring I’m not suggesting that parental consent be required for medical treatment, only that the parent have full rights to know about it. In fact, with exceptions, I’m opposed to consent being required before treatment whether it is on children or adults, but especially children.

In both of the scenarios you suggested, assuming prior consent is required, any parent denying medical treatment of a kid, especially something serious or life threatening, should immediately be locked up and checked out from head to toe, especially those who would deny a kid medical help because of their own religious reasons which may or may not be the child’s, but that’s a different subject. Please keep in mind that I am talking about medical treatment here, not counseling which for the most part should be kept confidential. And if prior consent is not required, and a kid tells a doctor that they are a victim of rape/incest or parental drug use, it should be taken very seriously, and with immediate action. I would even be willing to support the notion that a hospital cannot inform a parent of treament afterwards if a minor pays for it themself. But to actually be prevented from disclosing information should a parent inquire? Absolutely not.

Yes, there are some piles of shit out there that masquerade as parents, but that’s not enough IMO, to give kids carte blanche when it comes to privacy. Would you support a child’s right to privacy when it comes to criminal records/illegal activity just because some parents would come down harder on the kid who stole a purse than the law ever could? Or how about school performance because somewhere out there are parents who go apeshit if their kid gets a C in math?

Again, I’m not that old, but when I was a kid it was beyond our comprehension to sue our parents, or our school, or our town for violating our rights. Incomprehensible simply because as far as we were concerned, we didn’t have any rights. Our parents owned us, would find out everything we ever did, and went through our sock drawers. That’s just how it was supposed to be. Compare your average group of teenagers today to the same group 20 years ago. It’s a shocking difference, and a difference that IMO, has not been for the better. The way it’s going, it will only get worse.

31

I’m not wring, so I can’t speak for her. But i have to ask, why would you compare potentially life threatening mental and physical illnesses to grades or criminal records. Apples to oranges, IMHO.

Also, please don’t compare the teenagers of “today” to those of “20 years ago” like it’s some grand difference. There was crime, drugs, sex, irresponsiblity, abortion, death, murder, and all matter of unspeakable things 20 years ago, as there was 200 years ago. I’m also, as a teenager of “today” offended a great deal by the implication that everybody in this age group is a rabid monster because we have the audacity to stand up for our rights. Because we are not animals to be herded along. We are thinking human beings…perhaps we are different from your generation, but we are certainly not worse.
Furthermore, you do your valid arguements a grave disservice by pulling out the ole “Well, in my day…” technique. It’s hacknied, trite, completely irrelevant, and from what I can see, extremely untrue.

32

Hell, I am a teenager from 20 years ago and remember quite clearly the issues.

I was unable to get a pregnancy test w/o advance parental consent.

Turbo perhaps I’m not making my point clearly.

For the teen w/an STD given to her by her loving father, she’s unlikely to obtain medical treatment on her own w/o knowing that her treatment for it would remain confidential from the one who caused it.

Treatment then telling mom and dad isn’t a solution. IN the first place, knowing that mom and dad will be told may preclude the troubled teen from obtaining necessary medical services.

And, of course, with the ‘bad’ parents, it won’t matter when they get the information about their childs’ activity, the draconian and physical abuse issues will be there.

So, for example, in the case of the teen struggling with sexual identity issues, it may even be worse for the parent to find out afterwards, since then, in addition to the ‘issue’ they may have about their child’s homosexuality, there is the additional issue of ‘now some one else knows’.

My point is that for the loving, good parent, the child has less of a reason, thus less of an incentive to hide these issues (tho I agree that it still can happen). FOr those cases, they already have fewer issues and problems then the ones with the ‘bad’ parent. IN those cases, such disclosure can be horrifically bad.

So, my breakdown of possabilities:

  1. In MOST cases, with the ‘good’ parents, the information will already be presented to the parent, by the child.

  2. In RARE cases, with good parent, the child may still attempt to hide the information. They may tell afterward or not. IN either case, the child involved, still would have had access to necessary medical care, and because they had ‘good’ parents, would most likely have also coping skills to deal with the issues.

  3. In the case of the BAD parent, I cannot come up with a ‘good’ scenario where the parent has been notified.

33

Turbo -

I agree with most of what you said, but I think the “paying for the treatment” issue is a bit of a strawman. Whether or not the minor child can request and receive medical services without your knowledge and consent, they are unable to contract for those services, so you can’t be forced to pay for them. (IANAL, please correct me if that’s wrong)

The way I see the two sides of this argument right now, it comes down to this: How common are the “exceptions” (bad parents), and is it better to assist the good parents while harming the unlucky kids, or to help the unlucky kids and hinder the good parents? And that issue, I think, isn’t subject to objective analysis.