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.
Currently, New York State has proposed bills A497/S3134 which provide for the treatment of sexually transmissible diseases to minors without a parent's or guardian's consent. This includes administering the Hepatitis B and HPV vaccine.
Read text of bill here:
It passed the Health Committee this morning and is due to be voted on by the assembly soon. What do you think about this? The wording scares me because it says ANY minor - so this is including any child under 17? Seems like an extremely dangerous piece of legislation - not to mention costly! Who will be paying for this treatment?
The wording scares me because it says ANY minor - so this is including any child under 17?
That's what it says. I fail to see what your issue is with it.
Quote:
Seems like an extremely dangerous piece of legislation - not to mention costly! Who will be paying for this treatment?
I see nothing in the wording about the state picking up the tab, so presumably they will be paying for it directly, or they'll use whatever insurance coverage they have.
Not that it would particularly concern me otherwise. Vaccinations and making sure STDs are treated has such a massive benefit to society compared to the minimal cost of administering such care that I'd be fine with the state paying for it. Especially when we're talking about young people who are likely to have a number of partners in the upcoming years, treating 1 person properly now is helping many people.
And the number of people <18 who are also infected with a STD, aren't willing to tell their parent, and are going to go to the doctor on their own, is going to be pretty small anyway, and most of the treatment for such things is quite cheap. So the cost really would be low regardless.
Ummm, if the parents don't know - how would the child be able to access the insurance. And what about family history? What if -because this says any minor child - some health care provider decides some 5 year old needs something that the child is completely allergic to? Such as a Hep B vaccine? What if this child previously reacted, and this new healthcare provider didn't know that?
I can't believe that you have no issue with the state making parenting decisions!
What if this child previously reacted, and this new healthcare provider didn't know that?
Why wouldn't a child's doctor have those files?
The bill says the patient must be able to consent to care. Legal consent requires more than a 5 year old saying "oh okay". I think that's poorly written; my understanding is that minors can't legally consent to anything *because* they're minors, which means the bill probably won't get far. I also agree that nothing is said about state funding any treatments, so it would be billed, quite possibly to the parents, but with no legal requirement to divulge the specifics.
That said, the first thing I thought of is sexual abuse cases; doctors in the middle of calling the cops don't want to alert the potential abusers to that fact.
In short I think there's a lot more dangerous legislation out there than something likely to improve public health.
Ummm, if the parents don't know - how would the child be able to access the insurance.
If the kid knows their insurance info, it'll still go through, just as you don't need your husband to sign off on you going to the doctor if you're on his health insurance. Now, presumably, if there's a bill afterward or something instead of it being completely covered, the parents will still likely find out, but not immediately.
Quote:
And what about family history? What if -because this says any minor child - some health care provider decides some 5 year old needs something that the child is completely allergic to? Such as a Hep B vaccine? What if this child previously reacted, and this new healthcare provider didn't know that?
You're reading the "WITHOUT REGARD TO AGE" line, but ignoring the rest above that. A 5 year old is not considered to have the capacity to consent to treatment, they cannot understand consequences/risks at that age. And realistically, without special circumstances, I don't think a healthcare provider would consider treating someone under teenage years, because they'd have a good chance of losing a lawsuit if the parent brought one on those grounds (inability to consent to care).
Quote:
I can't believe that you have no issue with the state making parenting decisions!
The law is rather clearly aimed at people who are or may become sexually active willingly (teenagers), not the out-there cases you're referring to. And once that is the case, parents no longer have complete control over their kid legally anyway. If your 15 year old gets pregnant for example, you cannot legally force them to have an abortion (or to not have one if they want one), even though you are their parent/guardian.
The state is not forcing anyone to recieve care/something. It is merely making sure that a very small subset of minors who need it CAN recieve important care.
Speaking only for the insurance providers I have had: after all claims have been submitted, I received an Explanation of Benefits noting the date of service, doctor, etc. -- in short, I will find out. However, as noted, it will be after the fact.
I don't see this as usurping parental rights. I would prefer children come to their parents if something isn't right, but if embarrassment, shame, or fear of parental response is going to delay treatment, I would sooner see a child treated without parental consent as opposed to delaying it until the summon up the courage to tell mom or dad.
Speaking only for the insurance providers I have had: after all claims have been submitted, I received an Explanation of Benefits noting the date of service, doctor, etc. -- in short, I will find out. However, as noted, it will be after the fact.
I don't see this as usurping parental rights. I would prefer children come to their parents if something isn't right, but if embarrassment, shame, or fear of parental response is going to delay treatment, I would sooner see a child treated without parental consent as opposed to delaying it until the summon up the courage to tell mom or dad.
This is funny, because North Carolina is doing the opposite, trying to force parental consent to treat such things. You can argue a lot of things about what states/cities offer opposed to others, but in this instance, New York is trying to move forwards, and North Carolina is trying to move backwards.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 16 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,220 posts, read 17,075,134 times
Reputation: 15536
Quote:
Originally Posted by tchemgrrl
Why wouldn't a child's doctor have those files?
The bill says the patient must be able to consent to care. Legal consent requires more than a 5 year old saying "oh okay". I think that's poorly written; my understanding is that minors can't legally consent to anything *because* they're minors, which means the bill probably won't get far. I also agree that nothing is said about state funding any treatments, so it would be billed, quite possibly to the parents, but with no legal requirement to divulge the specifics.
That said, the first thing I thought of is sexual abuse cases; doctors in the middle of calling the cops don't want to alert the potential abusers to that fact.
In short I think there's a lot more dangerous legislation out there than something likely to improve public health.
One can tell most of the posters on this subject are probally middle class with regular family doctors. You don't realise how many don't have regular family doctors so accuracy of records is not always good. This sort of reminds me of society as a whole in the last century when someone had TB. They would be sent to a sanatarium at goverment expense to hopefully get better and protect others in the communities.
Actually, the way the bill is written you just have to be able to say you consent, that is extremely vague. Even the way the bill is written in California it specifies age 11 and above, this bill does not. I totally agree with what VA Yankee said - besides the fact that a lot of schools have begun offering these vaccines - you can't tell me the people coming to the school to do this would have access to all the previous medical records. Before you tell me that this wouldn't happen - it has happened in several different states.
The new legislation (which warrants concern) is an amendment and an addition to NYS Public Health law, Article 23 Title 1. Laws of New York
The addition:
Quote:
(B) A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER MAY PROVIDE HEALTH CARE RELATED TO THE
20 PREVENTION OF A SEXUALLY TRANSMISSIBLE DISEASE, INCLUDING ADMINISTERING
21 VACCINES, TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS WITHOUT THE
EXPLANATION
1 CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OF SUCH PERSON,
2 PROVIDED THAT THE PERSON HAS CAPACITY TO CONSENT TO THE CARE, WITHOUT
3 REGARD TO THE PERSON'S AGE, AND THE PERSON CONSENTS.
A friend and I were back and forth about administering HPV vaccines to minor children without parental consent. She raised a good point -- not all children have the type of relationship in which they can speak openly about sexuality with their parents. Or that there are those children who have absentee parents and in essence have raised themselves in the streets. Despite their hardships in life, they should still have access to healthcare, especially where public health is concerned.
First let it be noted that I am not an anti-vaccine person, but have serious reservations about allowing my child to receive the HPV vaccine. My reasons will emerge in the following:
The CDC and VAERS have reports of side effects ranging from fainting to Guilian- Barre syndrome, ALS, and MS-like symptoms. Is the average 16 year-old capable of understanding the long-term implications of potential vaccine-caused long term disability? If said 16 year-old can't speak with a parent and the minor child is stricken by any one of the potential side effects, who will they turn to?
The vaccine is too new, the true test subjects are the girls (and now boys) who have received this vaccine since its fast-track approval and subsequent release to the general public. Those who opt for the vaccine decide to chance the risk of side effects over the possible risk of cancer or warts. Given that Gardasil works against HPV 16, 18 -- it is not covering all of the HPV's (approximately a dozen in total) which are responsible for causing cancer.
When a 16 year-old sits down in a clinic and rolls up his or her sleeve for the first of three injections, are they going to be told everything we've read, and better still, will they even listen closely? Or will those who rush into things just hear the part about preventing warts and cancer, thinking they can go without a condom?
The vaccine is supposed to be administered to persons before they are sexually active, which in a number of cases is earlier than 16. There are children in the junior high who are sexually active. The same kids who forget to bring their homework home, who would stay up all night texting if given the chance, who might fib about being at Suzy's when they went to Tommy's -- are they truly capable of making such a serious decision?
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.
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.
