U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2008, 01:53 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,440 posts, read 3,713,781 times
Reputation: 3009

Advertisements

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2008, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 5,685,872 times
Reputation: 1840
Everyone should have the right to doctor-patient confidentiality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2008, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Between Philadelphia and Allentown, PA
5,078 posts, read 8,857,938 times
Reputation: 3619
I have always worked in the medical field and know this and know from experience with my own kids. Until they turn 18, the medical records are open to parents. Once the kid turns 18, they are now an adult and the parent is not allowed in at appts unless the kid gives permission and likewise, that kids medical record is off limits to the parents.
Children under 18 do not have privacy unless mandated by a court order, i.e., they have been emancipated, etc...
I would think that if a parent were in a situation with their minor child whom they have taken to the doctor for a medical issue, then denies care that depending on the doctor and the issue, the oness would be on the doctor to report the patients mother / father for neglect.
To be honest though, I have never personally heard in all of my years working for doctors and / or with my own kids of a kid being able to say that they don't want the parent in the room. I'm pretty up on my HIPAA laws, or so I thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2008, 03:50 PM
 
274 posts, read 410,469 times
Reputation: 89
My mom refused me medical treatment when I was a minor---so I went myself---should she still have access to my records if I'm the one that paid for the treatment?

I was screamed at by my mom when I got pneumonia because it is always my fault if I get sick with anything. Some kids can fear abuse from their parents when diagnosed with certain illnesses or having certain conditions. Parents can abuse their kids and it is important that the doc have one on one time with the kid to ensure that they are well taken care of. Kids will most likely not open up if their abuser is standing right there. Furthermore, if a parent is in the room, a kid may not answer medical questions honestly, which could lead to health issues from not fully disclosing truthful answers.

Also, parents shouldn't have ultimate control over their kids medical decisions. I don't mean young kids by this, but teenagers. I think by high school teens are able to make their own decisions regarding their health issues.

Last edited by AngelEyez02403; 10-29-2008 at 04:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2008, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Southern Maine, Greater Portland
511 posts, read 564,334 times
Reputation: 508
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?
I wonder if they would feel the same if you told them to address the bill to your child since he knows what he's paying for and also tell them good luck getting the money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2008, 06:10 PM
 
249 posts, read 394,856 times
Reputation: 109
This is part of the movement to socialism in our country: The government knows better how to raise our children than the parents do. (or so they say) This is a result of exageration of the incident rates of child abuse/neglect and an overreaction to those incidents. I can speak to this as I have worked in law enforcement and social service agencies my entire professional career. For those of you who are unfamiliar do an internet search on all the horror stories parents have had to go through in dealing with unsubstantiated/invalid actions and investigations of child welfare workers.

The problem is that the government/bureaucratic officials do not have to live day in and day out with problem children and overstep their bounds when they have the slightest suspicion a parent has overstepped theirs.

The same thing happens in prisons. Organizations like the ACLU jump all over an incident of abuse of an inmate and thus demand excessive protection of criminals' rights. However, those same advocates never spend one day working in a disciplinary segregation unit of a maximum security prison ... getting urine and feces thrown at them ... being bitten, scratched, punched, kicked, slashed, stabbed, assaulted by those very same inmates they are longing to protect.

Oops ... I've gotten off-topic.

#1. Children's medical records will always be able to be viewed by those whom the government determines "need to know". That may include social service workers, insurance companies, medical billing specialists, receptionists in medical offices, etc.

#2. If the government were to decide that a child's parents were not privy to this same information that an unrelated secretary can view, we could conclude that the government has decided the parents don't have a nees to know.

#3. If a parent is considered to not have a need to know, we can conclude that a parent's responsibility for raising a child is restricted only to those elements that the government allows us to be involved with.

Thus, we become only stewards of the children and the state excercies final authority over their well-being.

Hmmmm ... I don't like that at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2008, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Beautiful East TN!!
7,285 posts, read 14,328,704 times
Reputation: 2650
Until a person reaches 18, they are a minor, there is a reason for this word.
Yes, parents should have the right to records and to make a decision for that child's treatments until they reach 18 years of age. For those cases where the parents are to ignorant or just plain don't care to have a child treated, there is a system in place for this as well. It is call Child Protected Services, and the schools are very sure kids know how to get help if they need it. The rights of the parents can be temporally taken away, also called, the child placed with CPS, and while in that time frame, CPS has all and any medical needs addressed and has the right to make decision for the childs care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2008, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Memphis
948 posts, read 2,513,983 times
Reputation: 511
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?

I think they do have right to privacy. Sometimes it is just to personal or even embarrassing for the child to have their parent there. If it is not life threatening I think it is okej, to keep the parents out, if that what your teenager want. But if we are talking about HIV or something really serious, that's a different story.
But it is hard for me to sit here and judge because I never been in that situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2008, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,218 posts, read 2,259,377 times
Reputation: 908
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?

I didn't know that. I thought we had aright to the information. I think parents should have the information up the age of 18.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2008, 10:58 PM
 
5,893 posts, read 2,468,186 times
Reputation: 4486
Default Facts and research go a very long way

HIPAA FACTS: PARENT AND MINOR RIGHTS:

www.ftnys.org/HIPAA%20rights.pdf (http://www.ftnys.org/HIPAA%20rights.pdf - broken link)



*********


Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule allow parents the right to see their children’s medical records?

Answer:
Yes, the Privacy Rule generally allows a parent to have access to the medical records about his or her child, as his or her minor child’s personal representative when such access is not inconsistent with State or other law.


There are three situations when the parent would not be the minor’s personal representative under the Privacy Rule. These exceptions are:
    1. When the minor is the one who consents to care and the consent of the parent is not required under State or other applicable law;

      When the minor obtains care at the direction of a court or a person appointed by the court; and

      When, and to the extent that, the parent agrees that the minor and the health care provider may have a confidential relationship.
However, even in these exceptional situations, the parent may have access to the medical records of the minor related to this treatment when State or other applicable law requires or permits such parental access. Parental access would be denied when State or other law prohibits such access. If State or other applicable law is silent on a parent’s right of access in these cases, the licensed health care provider may exercise his or her professional judgment to the extent allowed by law to grant or deny parental access to the minor’s medical information.

Finally, as is the case with respect to all personal representatives under the Privacy Rule, a provider may choose not to treat a parent as a personal representative when the provider reasonably believes, in his or her professional judgment, that the child has been or may be subjected to domestic violence, abuse or neglect, or that treating the parent as the child’s personal representative could endanger the child.

Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule allow parents the right to see their children’s medical records?



********


Federally-Protected Sensitive Health Information**

Special handling is required for HIV, other sexually transmitted diseases, drug and alcohol abuse, abuse from a partner, sexual dysfunction, and mental health disorders. HIPAA, as well as many states, specify that the health care organization and its associated service vendors can be liable for breach of confidentiality by releasing this information without authorization. In addition, reports on behavioral health instances may be considered too sensitive to be released to the patient and, in such cases, the treating clinician may be called up to make the decision whether or not to release the information.

** Children between the ages of 12 and 17 have the right to restrict parental access to this information if they so choose, as some states authorize them to consent for care.
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 $84,000 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, 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 - Top