If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Actually the point is that, just like anyone else in this country, children have the right to confidentiality when it comes to any form of medical treatment. This has been set through case-law in addition to these guidelines.
This isn't optional, this isn't something to bleat about because you don't like it applying in this case, this isn't something which can be removed just because people don't agree with abortion. It is a fundamental part of the patient/doctor relationship which is pivotal to the healt hof the nation.
People have the right to have their confidentiality to be upheld.
Break that for such an emotive, personal issue and you break the whole...
You are making a very moral judgement here. Such an arguement has no place in this discussion.
No. I would think that I had failed. I wouldn't blame the doctor though.
Why should they know about this treatment, but not be allowed to know about any others?
If Doctor A said "no, you must tell your parents" don't you think that some people will go elsewhere - the old "backstreet" approach. Surely this would be much more risky than having the abortion done in a clean environment with well trained staff.
Still, so long as we maintain high morals I suppose :rolleyes:
Children do have the right to confidentiality but while they are depending on their legal guardian, I believe the parent should be aware of what's happeneing to their daughter who is classed as minor by law .
I am NOT against abortion. So this has nothing to do with my argument.
Where did I say, that I would blame the doctor? Yes I do believe it's great that doctors will now have the opportunity to get close with their patients by giving them moral support; but doing this all behind a parents back while the child is still a minor is just encouraging children to lie and betray their parents trust.
I as a female know what harm this can cause to young ones mind, never mind having to keep it to herself with possible regret or guilt when she sees her mother and father everyday. Deep down inside most kids would prefer to be open with their parents. Half the times they don't because they fear the worst.
It wasn't like 20 odd years ago were everyone didn't approve of teen pregnancies and abortions.
Never did I say, the doctor should turn his/her back on the girl and leave at that. They should either encourage the girl to speak to her parents or possilby offer to speak to them for her ensuring the she will not turn elsewhere.
Was that really needed? :-/
Unfortunately it is. But I can never look at a 14 year and feel she knows what's best for her. I'm 19 and feel I still have soo much more grown up to do, never mind thinking a 14 year old will have all the answers. She needs to be advised - not pressured - and have her legal guardian be there to support her. As the doctor will not be there all the time when she needs to talk.
Exactly - Kids lie to make them sound better not because they believe that's whats best for them.
The two positions are contradictory.
Either you believe in patient confidentiality and patient autonomy or you believe that doctors should go running to mummy and daddy despite the patient's wishes. It really is as black-and-white as that.
And the issue of "telling but without consent" is banal; the parent will lay into the child if the child does something the parent strongly disagrees with, perhaps for strong religious reasons. You know this as well as I do.
If the child doesn't trust the parent enough to tell them then there is no trust to betray.
Besides, there is a difference between lying and not telling everything.
when i was sleeping with my, then, boyfriend at 15, it wasn't because we were bored or because my friends were, because they weren't, but because we both felt enough for each other that we wanted to.
now we always used protection, but one time the condom split, neither of our faults, that's just what happens sometimes, and had i got pregnant, i would have had an abortion, simply because i knew that at 15 i was not in a position to have a child, it wouldn't have been fair on me, the child, or my ex. however i would never have told my mum i was having an abortion, not because she would have hit the roof and thrown me out, but because she would be
i think a lot of you are being incredibly unfair on teenage girls, i know some aren't mature enough to make that sort of desicion on their own, but in fairness, there's a huge amount of girls who do have their heads screwed on about this and would not see abortion as 'and easy way out' but as a back up to if protection doesn't work.
one of my friends is having an abortion tomorrow, she's 16, and her mum doesn't know, but the amount of support she's getting from her friends is incredible, you may think that it doesn't compare to the support a mother could give, but i think it's quite hard for a mother to give an objective point of view in this situation, and that's what a girl needs in my opinion
I'm sorry if me argument sounds edgy... I'm still trying to waken up here
When I say confidentiality for the child... I mean the doctor has no right to discuss her case with anyone else... except for the minors' legal guardian. We have to be aware of how this could possibly effect the child mentally. It's for the childs' own good that if the parent is aware of whats' happening then they can support her. But they won't be able to give her the care she needs if they are not told about it.
This is were they bring in a social worker or consellor to make sure the child isn't pressured in doing what she doesn't want to do. When it comes to religion - People aren't as old-fashioned anymore. I have already explained in my other post how many parents are starting to learn about the consequences.
True, but we can't speak for them all that; that is the case.
So if your girlfriend decided to not inform you she was sleeping with another guy a few weeks ago behind your back, that would still class as not lying to you?
We cannot use this assumption and think that clears that one up.
'Most girls know what they're doing'
you are assuming that they dont use it as a back up plan, you are also insinuating that they won't use protection just because they could have an abortion, which, in my mind, is absurd
Mine is made up from experience.
We have to cover our tracks here and know that not all girls know what is best for them. I did already say that is what I 'believe' could happen. You just assume that 'most' girls knows whats best for them.
Why do you believe it is 'absurd'?
Thus breaching the confidentiality you believe the child has the right to.
It's a simple concept. If the child (or any patient) wants confidentiality, they get it. There is no third way
Confidentility means that you do not discuss the case with anyone. There isn't the "legal guardian" get out you mentioned to Kermit. Case law covers that. It is simply not an option.
But in either even the wishes of the patient are ignored. Simply not acceptable.
Yes.
I was pointing out that you are talking about healthcare here. This isn't and should never be about the moral aspect of not telling parents.
As a parent, I would be motified if my children thought that they couldn't talk to me about such a thing. But I would be equally mortified if their GP - a relationship built on trust just like the one with a prarent, would breach the level of trust placed in them because of some moral concern.
I cannot over estimate the importance of confidentiality. It simple, if the patient has the mental capacity to understand the implications of any treatment or condition, then the doctor (of health professional) cannot discuss that treatment with anyone who is not actively involved in delivering that treatment.
And your arguments about the child's intellect are as spurious as thsoe who say the child is mature enough. How mature the child is is irrelevant.
The question is about patient confidentiality, and the right for the patient to make the decision as to who is told. The child is always encouraged to tell family, but if the child does not feel that he or she can do so safely then that decision should be respected.
People are not becoming less "old-fashioned" at all, some people are but they are not the issue. The issue is those that are not.
Like it or not, many girls would be thrown out or assaulted if they fell pregnant, and they should be protected. Counsellors provide enough protection for thsoe who suffer badly after the abortion, as do friends. It'd be nice if mum could help, and many mums would, but many mums wouldn't. And maybe the child doesn't want the mum's help.
It's up to the child to decide who knows and who helps.
Thta same argument could be put forward in any abortion case. Do you think it should be?
For example, should all husbands be told, afterall they will need to support their wife through the post-TOP care. Of course, the child may not have been theirs... but she needs emotional support at a time like this...
Going with what you said you also cannot just go on the assumption that most/all parents would be more understanding. Sure i'd like to think the majority would but then there are plenty who would go nuts and kick them out.
Just from personal experience i know of one girl who got kicked out of home and told never to come back again because she got pregant and her parents found out, luckily enough some of her relatives were a tad more understanding and she's now moved in with them but that wouldn't be the situation in all cases.
People should be able to expect that their medical history stays between them and their doctor. There are just some things that people can't or refuse to discuss with their families and would rather not to go a doctor than risk them finding out.
I know for certain that if when i had gone to the doctors to seek out help for mental health problems that he might have let my parents know then i wouldn't have gone, simple as that.
It is harder for a minor to depend on herself which is why they are given legal guardians.
If a person under 18 cannot vote and cannot marry without parental consent, how can they make this kind of decision that has emotional consequences for both mother and daughter, and also for building a strong family based on trust?
But as a father would you not like to be aware your daughter's situation so that you can take responsibility for your daughter's actions (illegal under-age sex) and help prevent her from getting into the same mess again?
which, i believe was passed after a girl went to get contraceptives from the doctor without her mothers consent, the mother found out, sued the doctor and lost the case. (im almost 100% sure thats what happend)
it is, interestingly enough, different at the dentists where you have to be 16 to have treatment or a check up without a parent present unless it is crucial emergancy treatment and the dentist thinks you understand the procedure etc.
When it comes to healthcare they don't. Confidentiality overides any parent/guardian relationship.
The voting age is not relevant (and in my opinion too high). This whole debate is about a person's abaility to comprehend the implication of treatment and their right to that treatment remaining confidential.
But basically your argument could be applied to any treatment, of anyone at any age. Just because the state assumes a cut off of 16 for guardianship (and 18 in some instances) does not mean that the person loses the right to confiendtiality in any sphere.
As far as health in concerned we encourage children to talk to their parents/a relative/other adult. But ultimately it is the patients choice.
Yes.
Doesn't mean I should have the right to that information.
As a child I would like to know what is happening to my parents, so that I can be there for them. They aren't getting any younger and I am in a better position to helop them than at any other time in my life. Should I therefore have the right to know? I am their next of kin...
Good quote. Fundamentally flawed because the person is mistaken about consenting rules. Parental consent is not required for any treatment where the doctor belives the patient understand the risks and implications of the treatment.
In theory a five year old can consent, although in practice doctors tend to look at 14 as being the earlies age of self consent.
There is also the possibility of parental consent being overruled by a court. This is usually only applied for life threatening conditions.
When the ‘quick-fix’ is available to teenagers, attitudes change. Teenagers are more likely to have sex, or less likely to use contraception - both of which have negative effects on health, by increasing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
Man Of Kent;
You still haven't answered my question as to why a child under 16 is classed as a minor and has to have a legal guardian unlike a grown woman/man who has recieved their rights when they reach 18 years of age ??
*ash*n*nick*;
I have not called teenagers dumb, so theres is no need to twist my words for your own ability. And as for your experience. You were 16 and has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Under-16s need parental consent for medical treatment and surgery: abortion should not be an exception. There are plenty of other things children are not allowed to do without their parents’ consent: tattooing, ear-piercing, school activities such as school trips; parents can withdraw their children from school religious activities without their children’s consent; under-16s are not allowed to get married without their parents’ consent. Abortion is at least as important a decision as any of these.
There are various legal ages of responsibility- a child can be tried as a criminal from as young as 12, just for the record.
If the child was under 13 the doctor would, as far as I am aware, be forced to report it as suspected child sexual abuse.
maybe it's just because we have extremely good sex ed teaching that the girls i know are so clued up about it, so maybe they need to increase the amount of attention in the ciriculum that covers sex ed.
Only that one is classed as a minor and the other isn't :-/
I mean what I don't get is were to people draw the line when they do believe the parent has the right to know? Or has parents lost their rights in protecting their children altogether?
I was wrong on the 'Consent to medical treatment' so you may exclude that from my argument as I wasn't fully aware of the rights they have under 16. I was only quoting what someone else said.
So you wouldn't be concerend if your child was at any threat to getting a sexual transmitted disease? Would you not feel like you failed as a parent if you did find out you child at say, 14 got HIV through unprotected sex?
Maybe it's just me but I would personally feel best to know as much as possible what my child is up to so I can be there for them and warn them what could happen if they don't take the right precautions and also support my daughter if she decided to have an abortion - As a parent you have a responsibilty to give the best possible care, support and guidance; without the knowledge of what your child i doing, how can you offer all these things to them?!
Of course children want to feel surperior and mature, tells the doctor she knows what's best for her, when really it is about them not old enough to face their mistakes by confronting their parents.
Just like when a kid skips school, because they feel want to but not telling their parents as they know they will be disappointed and so they lie/betray their trust and say nothing.
This proves my point on why children under 16 are classed as minors for a reason.