Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Some good points there, ETW.

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

I asked earlier and I think my questions got lost in the mix - does anyone know the legal age for informed medical consent in the US? The information I got in a quick web search was unclear. I THINK it's 16, and if it is, PP providing abortions without parental consent is part of the law (to individuals over 16, that is) and if someone doesn't agree with that, they should fight the LAW, not PP. Do they provide abortions to individuals under 16 without consent? I'm not sure, but if they are, and it violates the law, well, something should be done about that.

---

In contract law, informed consent is at 18. A contract signed by a minor below the age of 18 is not binding. (That's why so many parents get away with not paying the huge phone bills to 976 numbers their kids rack up... the parents state that their kids are below 18, and the phone companies know that the kids aren't responsible parties, so they write off these 4 and 5-figure charges.)

I am assuming that the same is true of medical law.

Quote:

---

ETW, regarding condoms being available in schools; you said the schools should not be pushing condoms without parental permission - does this mean you think condoms should only be sold to those over 18 (or 16, or whatever)? I'm just trying to clarify, honestly.

---

Yes. That is what I mean. Schools, drug-stores, and PP should not be handing out condoms to kids below the age of consent without a parent's consent, IMO.

Quote:

---

I agree that the pill should not be handed out without parental consent, but this clinic got around that by having parents sign a blanket consent form, so technically, they have consent. As underhanded and loop-holish (is that a word?) as that is, they do have consent. That must be how they've gotten around the legality of it all...

---

Then it really isn't INFORMED consent of the parents, is it? Signing a form that allows schools to administer to the health of a student in an emergency is VERY different from giving them consent to dispense BC pills to the kids. Parents should know that that is the right they are signing away when they sign that form. And as far as I know, that is not the case. The parents didn't know that they were doing that when they signed these forms.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

In contract law, informed consent is at 18. A contract signed by a minor below the age of 18 is not binding. (That's why so many parents get away with not paying the huge phone bills to 976 numbers their kids rack up... the parents state that their kids are below 18, and the phone companies know that the kids aren't responsible parties, so they write off these 4 and 5-figure charges.)

I am assuming that the same is true of medical law.

---

I know that's true of contract law, but I'm not 100% sure if it's the same with medical treatments... For some reason I keep thinking it's 16... but maybe it's LIMITED consent to that age, and full consent at 16? I don't know. speech might also be right, it might vary from state to state. Maybe I'll call my doctor brother, he ought to know! :)

Quote:

---

Yes. That is what I mean. Schools, drug-stores, and PP should not be handing out condoms to kids below the age of consent without a parent's consent, IMO.

---

Thanks for clearing that up. I respectfully disagree with you, but that's OK!

Quote:

---

Then it really isn't INFORMED consent of the parents, is it? Signing a form that allows schools to administer to the health of a student in an emergency is VERY different from giving them consent to dispense BC pills to the kids. Parents should know that that is the right they are signing away when they sign that form. And as far as I know, that is not the case. The parents didn't know that they were doing that when they signed these forms.

Elliot

---

I agree, it's NOT informed consent of the parents, which is why I said it was underhanded. And I think it's not only a problem with the administering of the pill, but also with other drugs - kids that age don't necessarily know what drugs they are allergic to, they don't know the effects medications will have on them, and they may not be mature enough to take the medication properly. A parent should be nearby to inform the doctor of medical concerns which aren't in the patient chart. Hell, as a ADULT I was given penicillin (which I'm allergic to) because when the doc asked what my reaction to it was he didn't think it was bad enough that I shouldn't be taking it. Stupidly (I was 18) I took the prescription instead of insisting otherwise - is a 12 year old going to do the same as me? Probably. Might they have a more severe reaction than me? Possibly.

Does anyone know if this clinic can prescribe psychiatric drugs to the students as well? If so, I think that's a MUCH bigger concern than the pill!

Did anyone read my posts?

Like I said, if the child needs to get BC, Condoms, or an abortion and they can't talk to their parents and they are seeeking it elsewhere, the parents have already failed, I don't see why we should worry about the parents anymore. They let their kid get pregnant or made their kid feel like they couldn't get help from them. It's time to put the kids first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlotte234s

Eh, if the parent hadn't failed already, the child wouldn't be bothering to go to PP for BC, Abortion, etc.

---

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, and again an egregious assumption on your part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, and again an egregious assumption on your part.

---

Sorry Tex, I agree with Charlotte. Children from caring loving families who monitor their teens usually don't get knocked up or sneak around to meet a 45 year old guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Sorry Tex, I agree with Charlotte. Children from caring loving families who monitor their teens usually don't get knocked up or sneak around to meet a 45 year old guy.

---

That's all right NK, you can disagree but it still has nothing to do with the point I made. But since that's the point you two seem to want to make I have to disagree also. It may be the case for some teens but not all teens from caring, loving families that monitor their children. Do/have your kids always acted as you expected? I suspect not. I was raised in a loving, caring family that always took time for us and I did a lot of things my parents would be shocked at. The only reason I would have resorted to PP is precisely the opposite of yours and Charlotte's reasoning. It would not be because my parents failed me but because I failed my parents and would have tried to hide my failure from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Sorry Tex, I agree with Charlotte. Children from caring loving families who monitor their teens usually don't get knocked up or sneak around to meet a 45 year old guy.

---

"Usually" is the key word - but it does happen.

In high school, my neighbor, from a strict and close-knit Mormon family got pregnant. She was 17, how many people supervise their 17-year old non-stop?

My mom's neighbor, from a very close-knit Christian family got pregnant at 17, out of wedlock. Pregnant again (from a different dad) at 20, and FINALLY got married and pregnant a third time at 22.

My best friend from high-school, from a close-knit non-religious family, got pregnant because she didn't use protection when she lost her virginity. She knew better, but she did it anyway. She was 18.

I dated a guy who was 22 - I was 16.

Parents play a big role in how their children will grow up and behave, but sometimes you can give every opportunity to a child, and they'll screw up anyway. So I disagree that teens going to PP, et all are there because their parents failed them; they're there because they're teenagers and they do stupid things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The only reason I would have resorted to PP is precisely the opposite of yours and Charlotte's reasoning. It would not be because my parents failed me but because I failed my parents and would have tried to hide my failure from them.

---

So it matters not then if it's PP or the school nurse or the local women's shelter, you'd still be hopping mad at whatever organization your child went to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlotte234s

Did anyone read my posts?

Like I said, if the child needs to get BC, Condoms, or an abortion and they can't talk to their parents and they are seeeking it elsewhere, the parents have already failed, I don't see why we sould worry about the parents anymore. They let their kid get pregnant or made their kid feel like they couldn't get help from them. It's time to put the kids first.

---

Yeah, I read your posts and I think it's a dangerous attitude to have. Should I ever be blessed with raising another child I *!@# sure don't want anyone to have a say so but in their lives but us. Did you read my last post? I know for a fact that if I had gotten a girl pregnant as a teen it was not because my parents failed me but because I failed. You've unfairly indicted a heck of a lot of good parents over choices their children made and given blanket permission for someone else to interfere where they have no business interfering. You're assuming parents are bad and the kids have nowhere else to go. With all due respect that's insane, Charlotte.

And you've assumed that all the pregnant teens go to PP instead of their parents and that's insane as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So it matters not then if it's PP or the school nurse or the local women's shelter, you'd still be hopping mad at whatever organization your child went to?

---

First I would be disappointed in my child for not coming to me, but if they treated, guided, prescribed, counseled my child in any way contrary to our values you're darn right I would be hopping mad. I'm the parent, not them. I raised them, not them. I changed their dirty diapers, wiped their snotty noses, cleaned up their messes, fed them, paid for their upbringing and taught them my values. As long as my child is loved, healthy, and exhibiting no signs of abuse it's none of their %$%@# business. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

Charlotte and NK,

What about cases where the teen THINKS their parents wouldn't understand, but are actually good parents who would help their chidren out one way or the other. I know of quite a few cases where a kid thought that their parents were going to "disown" them or "throw them out of the house" over some misdeed or other, but in reality the parents were VERY supportive. Quite often when a teenager says that he/she is going to be thrown out of the house, it's just typical teen angst talking, not reality. Teens tend to be overly-melodramatic, and they play out worst-case scenarios in their heads.

So... do we take these kids at their words that their parents wouldn't understand, would throw them out, would disown them, and let them get abortions without parental consent, when the reality is more likely to be that parents would be supportive and loving? Do we cut the parents out of the equation based on the kids' say-so, when the kids are very likely wrong about their parents?

And don't tell me it has never happened, because I've seen it happen. Kids very often don't go to their parents because they think that parents wouldn't understand or would hate them for what they have done, and most often they are incorrect in that assumption. Most of us have tried to hide something from our parents because we thought they wouldn't get it. Would our educators have been right to cut our parents out of the equation in those situations?

Elliot

What's the point of doing various low percentage what-if scenarios? We could do this all day by creating scenarios that fits our arguments.

That's the point, NK. It isn't a low-percentage scenario. MOST parents are loving, supportive people who love and care for their children. It's genetically ingraned into humans to be that way. The cases where parents are NOT loving, caring and supportive of their kids is the low-percantage scenario.

Or do you deny that most parents are loving and caring of their children? If so, please supply some sort of data to support that conclusion.

Therefore, if most parents care, if most parents would be supportive of their children even if they got pregnant, then why set us a system designed for the few who do not have supportive parents, and deliberately cut the good parents out of the decision-making loop?

Elliot

I'm saying that if he chil doesn't feel comfortable, then their parent hasn't helped them enough. The parent should sit the chil down and explain to them that f they need anything, even if they think you might get angry or be disappointed or whatever, that you will understand and they should come to YOU. If they don't feel comfortable doing so, then you've nt done your job right.

The problem is that parents should be there and not be letting their kids go get pregnant or have sex without them knowing about it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

And you've assumed that all the pregnant teens go to PP instead of their parents and that's insane as well.

---

Good grief NK, I have neither said or assumed any such thing. All I did was disagree with the assumption parents have failed because their kid went to PP, you cannot logically come to your conclusion based on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What's the point of doing various low percentage what-if scenarios? We could do this all day by creating scenarios that fits our arguments.

---

Man I have seen more than my share of cynicism today. You think the odds are low that a parent is going to care about, support and otherwise do right by their child? That's where we differ, I trust parents to take care of their children a hell of a lot more than I do PP or the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You think the odds are low that a parent is going to care about, support and otherwise do right by their child? That's where we differ, I trust parents to take care of their children a hell of a lot more than I do PP or the government.

---

Holy sh*t, where did I say that? What the hell is wrong with you?? Where did I ever say "the odds are low that a parent is going to care about, support and otherwise do right by their child"? My world revolves around my kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

NK,

I do respect your opinion, Altenweg. And I must say that you state your opinion very well. I disagree with it, which is why I give my opposing arguments. But I respect it, and your right to have it. I would never say that you don't have the right to that opinion, and I don't think I have intimated such a thing here. If I did, or if something I have said is taken that way, please accept my apology.

Elliot

---

No apology necessary you also have a right to your opinion. We obviously live in very different places. I went to a catholic school from grade 3 until grade 12, we were taught that abstinence is best. We were briefly informed about condoms but not how to use them or there effectiveness. The year that I was in grade 12 (1988) four girls were pregnant in our school, all of them chose to keep their babies, 1 of them actually turned out to be a wonderful parent, she is still with the father of the child and they have 2 teenagers although one will be 20 next year. The other three girls didn't fair so well, 2 of them had their children taken away and placed in foster homes and the other one ended up leaving her child with her parents and running off. What I'm trying to say is that we all base our opinions on past and present life experiences, it sounds like you live in a place were teen pregnancy is rare, you are very lucky. I live in the suburbs in Canada, we have wonderful neighbors and live in a very safe neighborhood. We have many catholic schools and public schools, both elementary and high school. When I go to the shopping centre I see many teenagers walking around with their pregnant bellies, it makes me sick to think about their future because statistically most of them will not make it and their children will be the ones to suffer. I understand what you are saying about the parents responsibility to inform their children and parent their children, but the friend that I talked about that made it work when she conceived at 17 was from a wonderful Catholic family. They preached abstinence in their home they were very concerned hands on parents, she still got pregnant. My friend and her boyfriend had sex once and she got pregnant, she was shocked because she truly believed that you couldn't get pregnant the first time, she didn't have the information and she paid for it. It's this kind of mis-information or lack of information that scares the bejesus out of me. If you give a kid a gun and don't teach gun safety someone's probably going to get hurt, you can't un-shoot a gun, just like you can't wait until your child is pregnant or has gotten someone pregnant to give them sex ed and talk about taking precautions. Once again this is my opinion, but I do understand were you are coming from and I believe that because of our life experiences and upbringing we have formed very different views on this subject. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlotte234s

I'm saying that if he chil doesn't feel comfortable, then their parent hasn't helped them enough. The parent should sit the chil down and explain to them that f they need anything, even if they think you might get angry or be disappointed or whatever, that you will understand and they should come to YOU. If they don't feel comfortable doing so, then you've nt done your job right.

The problem is that parents should be there and not be letting their kids go get pregnant or have sex without them knowing about it anyways.

---

Again, we get to the crux of the issue. It's the parents' responsibility, not government's, not school's, not planned parenthood's. And yet there are those who wish to take the parents out of the decision making loop, even though the responsibility is theirs.

But again, this doesn't answer my question.

When a kid feels that he's done Something Really Bad, that kid often tries to hide from their parents, even if those parents are loving, caring parents who will do anything to help those kids. They either do it to try to avoid consequences, or they do it out of an unjustified fear of their parents' anger. We've all done that at some point. At least I know that I have. Haven't you ever tried to hide the report card from your parents, or tried to say that your little brother or sister was the one who broke the lamp? We all have done something like that because we were afraid of getting punished. But does that mean that our parents were uncaring, unloving, or willing to throw us out of the house at the first excuse?

So when a kid gets pregnant and says she wants an abortion, but she doesn't want her parents to know about it because she's afraid her parents "will freak", are we to take that as gospel? Are we to assume that the parents really will freak, and that this poor kid is going to be abandoned by her parents? Are we to take the decision out of the parents' hands on the basis of the adolescent fears of the kid, and the wish to not face the consequences for her bad decisions?

Do we assume that any kid who gets into pregnancy trouble comes from a bad family that will mistreat her over this issue and not be supportive of their child? That has not been my experience in parenthood. Nor has it been my second-hand experience in viewing the actions of other parents. The vast majority of parents are responsible, loving, caring people.

By what right do we take the decision... even the KNOWLEDGE of the problem... out of the hands of the parents who DO care about their kids and want to help them? And what makes the adults at school or at planned parenthood any better than the adults at home for helping the kid making these decisions?

Elliot