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 03-23-2010, 12:46 PM
 
1 posts, read 940 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Well when I was 16 I went to the doctor and the doctor told me that my mother would not be informed of anything that was said or found unless I myself told her. The doctor I saw said that it was my right to privacy and that she did not even have to be in the room if I did not want her there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2010, 11:03 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,943,561 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
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.
What if the parent who is standing in the examining room is the one who made the child pregnant or gave her an STD? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Even in the absence of such a situation, I find the thought of a man being present during his teenage daughter's gynecological examination profoundly disturbing. You think he should have the right to look between her legs, too? Because he pays for her food?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2010, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Michigan--good on the rocks
2,544 posts, read 3,455,691 times
Reputation: 1931
Yes, let's tie the hands of 97% of parents because 3% of them behave badly. The parents now have all the responsibility without having access to the information they need to properly administrate said responsibility. If a doctor thinks I am abusing my daughter, then let that doctor file an affidavit with the court and get a judge to allow medical treatment without my consent. Let him prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. As it stands, all a doctor needs to make this happen is just "a feeling." And when that "feeling" is proven to be wrong, then the doctor can expect a lawsuit for wrongful prosecution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2010, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Michigan--good on the rocks
2,544 posts, read 3,455,691 times
Reputation: 1931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
What if the parent who is standing in the examining room is the one who made the child pregnant or gave her an STD? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Even in the absence of such a situation, I find the thought of a man being present during his teenage daughter's gynecological examination profoundly disturbing. You think he should have the right to look between her legs, too? Because he pays for her food?
What if the doctor turns out to be a sexual molester? The odds are similar. Who will protect her from the doctor? As a father, I would not expect to be in the room when my daughter gets an exam, but it is perfectly appropriate for her mother to be there.

Most teenagers are not capable of making decisions which may affect them for the rest of their lives. Perhaps by 17, definitely not at 14. Who do you think is giving informed consent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2010, 11:46 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,943,561 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanman13 View Post
If a doctor thinks I am abusing my daughter, then let that doctor file an affidavit with the court and get a judge to allow medical treatment without my consent. Let him prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you are standing over your daughter while she is talking to the doctor, how will she be able to tell him the truth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2010, 11:49 AM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,943,561 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanman13 View Post
What if the doctor turns out to be a sexual molester? The odds are similar. Who will protect her from the doctor?
As far as I know, doctors are required to have a nurse or a PA present in the room during the exam. I suppose it's possible for the nurse or the PA to be in on it, but it's exceedingly unlikely: those who molest strangers almost invariably act alone. Parents, on the other hand, are another matter. When a parent molests his or her children, it is not unusual for the other parent to cover for him and to see to it that the child keeps her mouth shut.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanman13 View Post
Most teenagers are not capable of making decisions which may affect them for the rest of their lives. Perhaps by 17, definitely not at 14. Who do you think is giving informed consent?
The age at which one is capable of reasoned judgment is a murky matter. What does get under my skin, however, is that tired old argument that the parents should get automatic access to the records and to the examination room because they pay the child's bills. What about a 22-year-old college student? Should his parents be present during his medical examinations because they pay his bills? (And if he gets private scholarships, I suppose the entire Board of Trustees has the right to be there too.) What about a housewife? Does she lose all rights to privacy to her husband just because he pays the bills? Sorry, but I find such a view appalling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2010, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Michigan--good on the rocks
2,544 posts, read 3,455,691 times
Reputation: 1931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
As far as I know, doctors are required to have a nurse or a PA present in the room during the exam. I suppose it's possible for the nurse or the PA to be in on it, but it's exceedingly unlikely: those who molest strangers almost invariably act alone. Parents, on the other hand, are another matter. When a parent molests his or her children, it is not unusual for the other parent to cover for him and to see to it that the child keeps her mouth shut.
Yet it does still happen. They are not required to have other attendants in most cases. Wise doctors do, though.

Quote:
The age at which one is capable of reasoned judgment is a murky matter. What does get under my skin, however, is that tired old argument that the parents should get automatic access to the records and to the examination room because they pay the child's bills. What about a 22-year-old college student? Should his parents be present during his medical examinations because they pay his bills? (And if he gets private scholarships, I suppose the entire Board of Trustees has the right to be there too.) What about a housewife? Does she lose all rights to privacy to her husband just because he pays the bills? Sorry, but I find such a view appalling.
At age 22, the "child" is a legally responsible adult, and the parent paying the bills is a purely voluntary act. Under 18, I am legally and morally responsible for the child's well-being, and if the child has an STD or pregnancy (to use the given examples), then clearly I need all the information I can get to address the issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2010, 12:25 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,943,561 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanman13 View Post
Yet it does still happen. They are not required to have other attendants in most cases. Wise doctors do, though.
So if your only concern is possible molestation by the doctor, you would not insist to be present as long as one of his staff is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanman13 View Post
At age 22, the "child" is a legally responsible adult, and the parent paying the bills is a purely voluntary act. Under 18, I am legally and morally responsible for the child's well-being, and if the child has an STD or pregnancy (to use the given examples), then clearly I need all the information I can get to address the issues.
Under the law, spouses are obligated to support each other. If your wife doesn't work, you are legally responsible for her expenses. Does that mean you are automatically entitled to all her medical records? And to be present at all examinations? And to be the one to give or withhold consent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2010, 02:59 PM
 
152 posts, read 88,224 times
Reputation: 85
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?
Such a proposition is ridiculous on its face, but I wouldn't put it past modern liberals to attempt such a moronic thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2010, 03:00 PM
 
152 posts, read 88,224 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
So if your only concern is possible molestation by the doctor, you would not insist to be present as long as one of his staff is?

Under the law, spouses are obligated to support each other. If your wife doesn't work, you are legally responsible for her expenses. Does that mean you are automatically entitled to all her medical records? And to be present at all examinations? And to be the one to give or withhold consent?
I think most spouses are over 18 charges of their guardians, parents or otherwise.

Simple concept for clear thinking people.

MahiAhiOno
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