U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-06-2008, 11:01 AM
 
Location: 38°14′45″N 122°37′53″W
4,152 posts, read 9,578,000 times
Reputation: 3398

Advertisements

Thank you rayneinspain.
How can we have a "great debate" on the topic being based on pure falsehoods?
Unless it was meant to be hypothetical? In that case, can't we at least post it that way?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2009, 06:36 AM
 
2 posts, read 3,493 times
Reputation: 11
I am appalled at what I just found out!! A parent cannot get information if their 14 yr old tests positive for an STD.
We are finacially and morally obligated by law to care and provide for our children until they are adults in all aspects of their lives but they by law can keep this infomation from us !!!!
If my child misses to much school I am threated with court. If my child commits a misdemeanor I am threatened with court and jail time because I couldn't control my child.
Do they forget if my child comes down with an STD that she is still to young at 14 to completely understand the ramification of not receiving treatment. Not to mention the fact that I will be the one financially responsible for the treatment. If she delays her treatment not only can it be life threatening but it will require more money for treatment, time off work and I will HAVE TO DRIVE HER!!! I was the one who brought her in for this possible problem and they wont let me know if she has one or not!!! If I brought her I'm obviously aware and will be responsible to see that she is cared for as well as pay for it all. My child at this age more than likely would not even remember what the doctor told her to be able to relay to mom what needs to be done to take care of it. Which means I will only have to call back to get the information correctly.
On another thought, If my child gets pregnant at 14 I cannot know this either if she chooses to not tell me?? At 14 who do you think will get stuck with raising this baby and paying for it financially?? I don't get it!!! I can tell you this. I'm getting ready to raise hell, gather other parents to raise hell and see if we can't get this ridiculous law changed. I'm assuming the people who passed this law didn't have any teenage children and if they did they never had to deal with these kinds of issues!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 06:48 AM
 
2 posts, read 3,493 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelEyez02403 View Post
Well, there were many times in my household where child protective services should have intervened, but didn't.

I wished I had been taken to a doctor/therapist/counselor and had a chance to speak one on one about what had happened.

Tex, if you are a parent, you appear to be a good one. But what reasonable boundaries do you think parents/children should have? ie. If I were 17 should my father be able to witness me laying down while my gyn performs a pelvic? Should it be an all or nothing system?

Coming from a home where my father abused me I can understand that to a point. In this kind of situation I also knew that I could tell a councelor at school and something would have been done about it which it was. There is a big difference here. There are ways to be taken care of if it is abuse and the child will be removed from the situation and the parent will have no say so and they will be taken care of. In a normal situation the parent should have the right to know. If my daughter doesn't get care she could wind up in serious trouble. If she is to recieve care I would need to know!!! She doesn't drive,that would be me!! Wuldn't have medical insuranace if it weren't for me and sure as heck wouldn't be able to pay for her care. This is pure common sense and who ever let a law like this pass sure as heck had none !!!!
I have to wonder if you are still a kid yourself with the comments you have made. If so, wait until you have teenagers yourself you may then feel different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 07:29 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,523,609 times
Reputation: 35864
There is an issue of confidentiality privileges between any person and certain professional providers. The typical ones are with doctor, lawyer, clergyman. Most people agree that this is the way it should be. Should parents have the right to know what their child confesses to a priest? Should parents have a right to know what their child divulges to an attorney, if the parents might be the potential defendants in a domestic criminal case?

Children do have the same constitutional civil rights that adults have, and in compelling circumstances, the courts and the law trump the parents in affirming that right. Yes, the parents have the financial responsibility for their children's upkeep. Yes, the parents have the responsibility for assuring the health of their children. However, the parents also have the responsibility for assuring that their child's constitutional guarantees as citizens are protected, which broadly are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Parents cannot cavalierly withhold those rights from their children any more than they can withhold economic support or health maintenance based on a political whim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2009, 03:03 PM
 
6,940 posts, read 8,872,935 times
Reputation: 7790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
So, what do you all think about this? A child (under 18) still living with the parents has the "right" to medical privacy. So, if the parent refuses the child medical treatment they can be convicted of neglect (among other things). This same parent has to be the one to sign the child out of school, and drive them to and from the medical appointment. They still clothe, feed, and take care of the child.

But, while at an appointment, the child can request the parent to leave the room, and the doctor is obliged to hold off diagnosing or treating the child until the parent leaves the room. And then the parent doesn't have the right to know what's wrong with the child. The child could be pregnant, or have an STD, or anything.

Fundamentally I have a problem with a parent being held responsible and accountable for every facet of that child and the proper rearing of that child (education, medical fitness, etc.), but not being allowed to even know what's wrong with the child without the approval of the child.

Anyone else have thoughts for or against a minor child's right to privacy with their medical treatment?
That's a more limited right than you're saying. At age 14 they have a right to privacy when it comes to substance abuse information but very little else, and they can sign themselves in for counseling somewhere at the same age w/o a parent's knowledge or consent, but only for 12 sessions.

Me, I think the main problem is that there's gray area all over the place as far as teenagers go. A parent is legally responsible for a kid until age 18, unless the kid is emancipated, but the kid can move out without a parent's consent at age 17. In some places a kid can get an abortion without her parents knowing, but in other places she can't. How does anyone know where they stand??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2009, 03:09 PM
 
1 posts, read 1,514 times
Reputation: 10
I have a topic: Parents should not be able to make decisions for children involving life-threatening conditions. what do you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2009, 09:33 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,261,063 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
So, what do you all think about this? A child (under 18) still living with the parents has the "right" to medical privacy. So, if the parent refuses the child medical treatment they can be convicted of neglect (among other things). This same parent has to be the one to sign the child out of school, and drive them to and from the medical appointment. They still clothe, feed, and take care of the child.

But, while at an appointment, the child can request the parent to leave the room, and the doctor is obliged to hold off diagnosing or treating the child until the parent leaves the room. And then the parent doesn't have the right to know what's wrong with the child. The child could be pregnant, or have an STD, or anything.

Fundamentally I have a problem with a parent being held responsible and accountable for every facet of that child and the proper rearing of that child (education, medical fitness, etc.), but not being allowed to even know what's wrong with the child without the approval of the child.

Anyone else have thoughts for or against a minor child's right to privacy with their medical treatment?
When the kid reaches the age of majority, it can have the same rights as every other citizen. Until then, it has no "rights". Unless, of course, a court has emancipated the child, and the child no longer lives with an adult guardian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2009, 09:02 AM
 
2 posts, read 3,135 times
Reputation: 10
Default To Rathagos

Yes but that’s not the only thing if you was to separate the woman can force you to pay the maintenance for the child but spend it on her self and the same for child benefit and get the child's doctor to not to show or allow you to see the medical report of the child. The only reason why a male is there is just for the sperm. You as a bloke have only right by name but practically you have not right over the child even if you are liable to pay the maintenance of the child. You are only there to feed the child nothing else because on day the child was your sperm. I am not making any of this up as I have an been thought this my self.

The law should allow both parents the full rights to upbring there own child unless there is a reason for concern, then the law should be invloved. You do get some parent who are ***** but there are a majortiy of parents who are a great parents who can do better for the child then the law can do.

Last edited by goosebump; 07-02-2009 at 09:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2009, 09:34 AM
 
2 posts, read 3,135 times
Reputation: 10
Yes but that’s not the only thing if you was to separate the woman can force you to pay the maintenance for the child but spend it on her self and the same for child benefit and get the child's doctor to not to show or allow you to see the medical report of the child. The only reason why a male is there is just for the sperm. You as a bloke have only right by name but practically you have not right over the child even if you are liable to pay the maintenance of the child. You are only there to feed the child nothing else because on day the child was your sperm. I am not making any of this up as I have an been thought this my self.

The law should allow both parents the full rights to upbring there own child unless there is a reason for concern, then the law should be invloved. You do get some parent who are ***** but there are a majortiy of parents who are a great parents who can do better for the child then the law can do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2009, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, OH
753 posts, read 2,164,376 times
Reputation: 765
It is none of a parents business if their child is sexually active or if they have gotten any STD's. The parent does not need to know the child is sexually active in order to educate them on safe sex practices.

This type of education should be ongoing starting around age 10. But parents are lazy, and they also think their kid would never have sex. Wake up people, sex is thrown in their faces all day, you need to step up and deal with it appropriatly. I say age 10 because they do start asking questions around that age, the parent needs to decide how to properly handle those questions instead of saying the stork brings the baby or whatever other crap these boneheads have come up with.

Even parents that were not historically abusive can become so once finding out their kids are sexually active.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top