This is where we differ.
Hey Philly Style, when I said the doctors have the right to override their patient’s parents, I meant exactly that.
In a life-or-death, emergency situation a doctor MUST perform a life-saving procedure IF IT’S IN THEIR PATIENT’S BEST INTEREST.
Parental permission is not required, and their refusal is automatically over-ridden. To do otherwise is malpractice.
If there is time, the courts are involved. This is often done over the phone and takes only a couple of hours, the parents will almost always be over-ridden.
It’s neither illegal nor irresponsible to objectively act in your patient’s best interests, and to accept the informed consent of a competant minor.
FYI I’m a medical student, so yes, I know what I’m talking about, and if you care to look, my location is Dublin.
Mainly because someone has to raise the kid.
Certain professions are required by law to report any sign of abuse, and any citizen is allowed to. At which point the parent can easily lose custody of the child. If there is any reason to suspect sexual abuse the child is usually removed from the home and made ward of the state until it is proved there is no abuse, with no unsupervised contact permitted between parent(s) and child until innocence of the parent is established.
It’s not a matter of parents having NO say in the medical treatment of their children, but when a teen age girl comes up pregnant it is no longer entirely their decision. In all other medical matters - broken legs, hernia repair, ingrown toenail, whatever - their authority remains intact.
** Right. Any unfortunate circumstance that occurs must be the fault of the parents. Couldn’t possibly, not in any situation, be the fault of these children you are agruing are mature and wise enough to make life decisions for themselves.
[/quote]
Excuse me, wasn’t it your side of the argument saying they’re children and therefore unable to be responsible for making decisions? Can’t have it both ways, now can you?
A minor does something wrong you do have to ask about the parents. They aren’t always the cause or even a contributor to the problem, but they do have a strong effect on the child’s conduct.
I’ll be interested in your answers.
If the child accuses the parent of sexually abusing him or her then I would NOT be in favor of that child being alone with the parent.
A girl’s refusal to tell her parents is an accusation against them. I would not override that refusal just as I wouldn’t override an accusation of molestation without further investigation. In the case of a pregnant girl, further investigation may be impossible without doing the very thing–alerting the parents–that is in question.
Julie
Hmm… of course, we are talking about two different medical systems here, Irish vs. US.
Here in the US there actually ARE some instances where religious beliefs can over-ride doctor’s judgement. The Amish, for instance, are excused from all vaccinations regardless of whether it’s in their “best interests” or not. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, and will also refuse them for their children. Christian Scientists refuse all medical treatment other than prayer. Doctors can not, legally, in the US over-ride parents’ beliefs and wishes in these circumstances without going to a judge and getting a court order. Which they will do, if they feel it is warranted and necessary, and in an emergency they can probably be granted very quickly. But there is no guarantee they will be.
But, here in the US, if a doctor gives a blood transfusion to a Jehovah’s Witness (as an example) who has made their reglious beliefs clear yes, he CAN be dragged into court over it and penalized for it.
Which might explain why Bob Cos and Philly Style are so adamant in their positions. Maybe if we had some way to stamp “pro-life family” on their kids forehead so doctors would know not to offer abortion to these kids it might be different, but kids can and do lie to get what they want.
Actually, under the US system, yes, it CAN be illegal to act in what you perceive to be the patient’s “best interest” if the patient has made clear they see the situation otherwise.
The medical systems and legal systems, for all their similarities, are not quite identical.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Broomstick *
**I’m really sorry if all you excellent, anti-abortion parents
Sorry, the term is prolife. You, on the other hand, are pro abortion.
are offended at the notion of a safety (define safety. Is this really safe? Can you gauge at that moment how she will feel when she is old enough to make this choice
net for teens in trouble, but yes, those laws and loopholes ARE written because of the Bad Parents™ in this country.
Want a comparable situation?
No
gnant.
Are you suggesting this one incident is universal? If not, leave it to your memory.
Bob Cos and Philly Style, what about a situation where a girl doesn’t want an abortion but her parents insist she have one? Should the parents have an unfettered right to subject their daughter to this procedure, or would you support a 16 or 17 year old girl going to court to prevent an abortion?
I would support the parents right. Remember, if at all possible, this is about parental rights, not abortion.
(This isn’t entirely hypothetical - when the gal who had the locker next to me in high school became pregnant her parents just
Where did you go to school, Peyton Place?
Would you object to your pregnant daughter going to a pro-life agency that assisted pregnant teens in getting medical care without going to you first?
Of course not. Now do you concede that the courts should but out?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Broomstick *
**I’m really sorry if all you excellent, anti-abortion parents
Sorry, the term is prolife. You, on the other hand, are pro abortion.
are offended at the notion of a safety (define safety. Is this really safe? Can you gauge at that moment how she will feel when she is old enough to make this choice
net for teens in trouble, but yes, those laws and loopholes ARE written because of the Bad Parents™ in this country.
Want a comparable situation?
No
gnant.
Are you suggesting this one incident is universal? If not, leave it to your memory.
Bob Cos and Philly Style, what about a situation where a girl doesn’t want an abortion but her parents insist she have one? Should the parents have an unfettered right to subject their daughter to this procedure, or would you support a 16 or 17 year old girl going to court to prevent an abortion?
I would support the parents right. Remember, if at all possible, this is about parental rights, not abortion.
(This isn’t entirely hypothetical - when the gal who had the locker next to me in high school became pregnant her parents just
Where did you go to school, Peyton Place? 
Would you object to your pregnant daughter going to a pro-life agency that assisted pregnant teens in getting medical care without going to you first?
Of course not. Now do you concede that the courts should but out?
If you want someone on the other side of an issue to call you by the designation you prefer (in this case, pro-life), then extend to them the courtesy of using the designation they prefer–in this case, pro-choice. This isn’t capitulating to the evil abortionists; it’s simply common courtesy.
Sorry for the hijack; I won’t take it any further.
You are clearly against abortion. Therefore, anti-abortion. Whether you are pro-life may be a different question. For instance, if you support the death penalty, then I can’t accept you’re pro-life, just anti-abortion. If you are against abortion AND the death penalty, yes, I’d be willing to call you pro-life.
And, if you go back and re-read this thread, nowhere do I explicitly state my own personal views on this subject. For all you know, I’m taking the opposing view as part of a debate, rather than stating my own position.
No, and neither can you.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Could you please clarify?
Let’s see… are you saying here that unless a situation is common it’s not worth worrying about? I thought every human life was worth saving. Maybe my family should have ignored the half-naked girl knocking at our front door at 2 am in the middle of winter because the incident wasn’t “universal”?
Morality isn’t what you say, it’s what you do.
So you’re saying that in your view the rights of the parents are more important the the rights of an unborn human being to live? I just want to make sure that’s your position, because if it is, I’m not sure I can call you either pro-life OR anti-abortion. Pro-parental rights, yes - the others, no, not so sure.
Detroit area. Which you’d know if you actually read the entirety of this thread.
Nope.
I’m a little confused here… you say it’s about parental rights, and seem quite upset at the notion of a 16 year old going to the courts or an agency that holds out abortion as an option on the basis that it’s up to the parents - yet you wouldn’t have a problem with your daughter going to a “pro-life” agency without your knowledge or consent… which leads me to think it’s abortion you have the most problem with, yet you have also stated that it’s OK with you for parents to FORCE a 16 year old to have an abortion against her will. This does not seem at all consistent.
Broomstick, ADULTS are allowed to make medical decisions based on their religious beliefs (JWs Chrisitan Scientists etc), but HERE they are not allowed to make such decisions for their children.
Also, a JW is only NOT transfused if they personally refuse, or are wearing a bracelet. Doctors here MUST assume that even if their patient’s family tells us that they are a JW, the person themselves could have converted to another belief system that morning, and may want the blood.
To me, our system makes a lot more sense. A child does not have the capacity for full and free choice in their religious beliefs, they should not be treated as if they do. An unconscious person whose beliefs are not confirmed by a bracelet or card, should not be assumed to have those beliefs, and all life-saving measure should be taken.
**If you require actual cause to believe that sexual abuse has taken place before you take action here, then why is the mere possibility of a bad parental influence reason enough to provide a blanket exemption, so to speak, for abortion? Your logic is not consistent. The possibility of parental “abuse” is either compelling or it isn’t. If you require cause to believe “abuse” has taken place, then removing parental authority across the board for any specific circumstance would be wrong.
**Why for all other medical matters? It’s still the child’s body and future.
I shall take a crack momentarily.
It most certainly is not, certainly not by definition. Frankly, our exchanges have led me to have enough respect for your intelligence to find your belief in this a bit incredible.
The world is not divided between wise, “June and Ward” parents and incompetent clods, just as it is not divided between trusting teenagers and those whose trust has been betrayed. The world is a difficult place, and wrestling with it in the context of adolescence does not make it any easier. The confusion all teenagers feel, the testing of authority that is a natural part of growing up, are all too familiar to any of us who don’t believe that good parenting is defined by 60’s sitcoms. Good, good parents can still have children who rebel, who challenge them. The fact that this is natural does not mean the child is always in the right.
Teenagers keep all kinds of things from their parents, for all kinds of reasons. You did. I did. There is simply not a truthful person out there, IMO, who will say that she shared everything with her parents. If your argument has as a foundation the belief that any time a teenager keeps something from her parents, it must be because the parent has let that child down–more than that, that this is an accusation of an offense that warrants the suspension of that parent’s authority–then your argument is a weak one from where I’m sitting.
**Sorry, I have to answer in a qualified manner: I believe that which is moral supercedes that which is legal. Even if it was legal to own a slave, I would not support anyone’s right to do so. Based on my beliefs regarding abortion, I have a similar viewpoint.
However, if I can set aside my own philosophy for a moment and answer purely from a legal perspective, then, yes, I suppose that decision would be up to the parent as well. That’s the price we pay as a society for permitting such offenses against human life.
I would expect my daughter to have a network of friends, mentors and “town elders.” My objection would arise should one of these people assume a role of parental authority–e.g., creating a situation that would allow something to occur that ought to require parental consent.
Just one more thing to toss out: Abortion is strenuously supported as a space in parental authority that ought to have a blanket “exemption” from the need for parental knowledge or consent–i.e., because the parent might prevent said abortion if given the opportunity. Are you aware of any other decision that encourages such a reaction where the parental decision is not inherently abusive? IOW, where the decision is deemed outside of the realm of parental authority purely because the child disagrees with it, not because the outcome of the decision itself is BY DEFINITION abusive to the child…
Perhaps there is another example and I just can’t think of it (other than the usual suspects–i.e., birth control, etc.)…
I agree unreservedly.
It is quite a difference, when you get down to it. I suspect it exists, at least in part, due to several factors such as Protestantism (where there are multiple religious/moral authorities in a community as opposed to one hierarchy such as the Roman Catholic Church) and the American frontier experience where in isolated families parents really did have absolute life-or-death responsibility over the children for the simple fact that any other help or assistance might be many miles/days of travel away.
It would be interesting to contrast our two systems with what they have in Australia. But that’s getting off the track even more so.
A person found unconcious at the scene of the accident without card or bracelet will be assumed to desire a blood transfusion - and churches such as the JW’s do recognize that such incidents will occur. But the word of the family will normally be taken to be sufficient proof of the person’s wishes - which may get complicated if half the family is one religion and half another (as does happen).
This is why, in our system, it is recommended that people having strong feelings or beliefs about medical treatment should both carry documentation and, preferably, in addition draw up legal documents beforehand to ensure there is documentation of THEIR wishes as opposed to their families’. It is also becoming common practice, where feasilble, for those admitted to a hospital to state their wishes in regards to certain medical procedures in writing.
But I’m sure you can see how, with the above situation, that adding a very divisive issue such as abortion only makes the situation worse.
I, too, believe morality supercedes law - but you have to be very, very careful about such situations.
There has been much about one Eric Rudolph in the news of late, a man wanted for supposedly bombing abortion clinics and gay establishments. It is quite clear the man is morally outraged about the existance of both, and feels this gives him the right to break the law. I don’t believe his actions are moral - I fail to see how killing people promotes a “pro-life” position.
If someone does choose to disobey an immoral law, it seems to me your actions would have to be consistant with morality - i.e. if you feel killing a fetus is immoral, killing an adult would also be.
Personally, I expect we are going to see some changes in abortion laws in the near future - and I don’t expect a “win” for either side of the debate. Much of the Roe vs. Wade generated laws were based upon the idea of “viability” - the idea that, until the fetus is capable of independent life it is not a separate human being but part of the mother. We are now pushing that time of “viability” much earlier into gestation than ever before. How can you say it’s OK to abort one fetus at five months gestation when a neo-natal ICU has the result of five-month miscarriages struggling to survive, and indeed, a significant number of them will? Doctors are now performing surgery on people months before they are born (although it is extremely risky for the baby, and carries risk for the mother as well). We know a lot more about what goes on in the womb than we did when Roe vs. Wade was handed down, and it’s becoming insupportable to argue that there is this magic moment at three months or six months along, or any other arbitrary time, when the fetus passes from “not-human” to “human”.
I suppose there would be a certain logic in using brain activity - we use it to determine death - but that starts MUCH earlier than the more extreme “pro-choice” camp likes. (Facts are soooo inconvenient at times…) I think it’s also hard to argue against the “morning after piill” that prevents implantation - which could be argued to be the moment when pregnancy begins - as opposed to conception. Unless, of course, you take the view that it’s conception that is the magic moment. Which, obviously, some people do and is the position of the Catholic church.
I suspect “abortion on demand” will have more and more restrictions put on it, but obtaining a first trimester abortion will still be fairly straightforward. It may not be possible continue to get a second trimester one without good and specific reason - and certain birth defects that some consider “good reason” at present may be referred to a surgeon rather than an abortion in the future.
No doubt, everybody will be unhappy about it.
I’ve been thinking about this lately (obviously) and have come to a conclusion that this issue of minor vs. adult rights and decision making can be seen in two ways.
In my family, although teenagers do not have the rights and responsibilities of an adult, neither are they seen as entirely child-like. I suspect my parents gave me more reponsibility that perhaps Bob Cos or Philly Style give theirs. I can’t imagine them making any important decision affecting me at that age with consulting me first (dire emergencies excepted). I do know that there were times they allowed my sisters and me to make choices they did not agree with, feeling that we were old enough and mature enough to be able to make those decisions in those circumstances. They also trusted our judgement to the degree that they allowed all of us to travel long distances or even abroad without them when 16 or 17 (obviously, there were adult chaperones on the trip, but with an adult to child ratio of 10:1 or more this is clearly not a level of supervision provided in most family situations).
Then again, none of us ever turned up pregnant prior to marriage, so I can’t truthfully answer how that would have been handled, only speculate.
The other view is that children are children until 18 (or some other age of majority) and are simply not capable of making any important decision until that point. In which case there isn’t even a need to ask the child what she thinks, the parents decide and that’s that.
And, of course, that’s an oversimplication, since most folks land somewhere between the two viewpoints.
But, clearly, where you stand on the spectrum is going to color this debate. If you learn towards “children are children, the parents decide” then no, you aren’t likely to favor the child going outside the family. If you lean towards the “children gradually mature into resposibility” side, then you might see more role for an outside agency to act as a moderator when parent and child are at odds (although I can’t imagine many of those folks would be happy with court intervention their own families, either - that IS a sign of something major breaking down on some level).
This sort of moral dilemna and legal mess is one of the reasons I personally lean towards preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Then again, how you go about doing that can result in some pretty heated discussions as well.
While I’m sure this is part of the reason for not requiring parental consent for abortion or prescription birth control, I’m not so sure it’s the entire reason. Parental consent is not required for STD treatment, prenatal care, drug rehab (I think) and someone else mentioned mental health treatment. Those situations could easily enough be handled by neglect/abuse laws if the parents refuse to consent to treatment. A court would authorize treatment in a second, without even stirring up a great controversy. So why eliminate the requirement for parental consent preemptively? I suppose it could be because parents refusing consent is a very common situation - but I don’t think that’s true. I think it’s far more likely that the reason is because the requirement for parental consent will deter some minors from seeking treatment. Add to that the inconsistency of a minor not being able to consent to an abortion, and months later being able to consent to surgery for her child ( I did see the earlier cites, and while I can’t say that a minor parent is emancipated regarding her own life in every state, I can say that in my state the consent of even minor parents is required for foster care placement , surrenders for adoption and medical care for the baby ). Seems to me there are multiple reasons for the exemption .
I’m not so sure decisions aren’t taken out of the parents hands purely because the child disagrees with the decision in other situations, and certainly I can think of hypothetical situations where I expect they would be. But they all work in the opposite direction- that is , rather than the parent forbidding the child to do something, they involve the parent forcing the child to do something. Perhaps that’s why there aren’t specific laws regarding those situations.