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
Again what rights. They don’t exist.
I don’t have the right to know anything about my children’s health. They are still young enough at the moment for doctors to believe that they do not have the mental capacity to understand their treatment. I therefore have the responsibility to make that decision on their behalf.
You seem to be muddle between the right of being a parent and the responsibilities. Parents have very few rights when it comes to their children, but we have shitload of responsibility.
Er... yes. So can anyone with mental disorders, spouses, partners etc
Some do.
But it isn’t possible to control what your children do, all the time. Jesus, what kind of control freak are you? You are talking about individuals here, not possessions. Children have to be allowed to learn, have to be allowed to make their own mistakes otherwise they will not be able to look after themselves in the future.
I know more about healthcare than you. Does that mean I should have extra rights than you?
No, every person, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc should have the same rights. That is the whole basis of rights, but that is weighed up against responsibility and mental capacity.
Welcome to parenthood. Perhaps you should remember this next time you think that your parents are being difficult.
Certainly you will find a huge number of fathers who feel that they have little say following divorce/separation. Which just underlines my earlier point - parents have no rights over their children.
You don’t understand, do you? If your child feels that he won’t be able to tell you then you have failed in that area of being a parent. Not being allowed to be told by a doctor is completely different to not having a good enough relationship with your children to ensure that they talk to you.
Oh FFS. It’s not new. Confidentiality has been in place for donkeys.
If you come out with a "the Courts would decide" argument then you ahve to back it up with an illustration of how the system would work. Here's two words to start you off : it wouldn't.
Either you learn to debate maturely (without the name calling) or you leave. Because having a dissenting opinion doesn't make RB, MoK or anybody else wrong, just as you are not "wrong" for thinking what you do.
Clarify your points. I've read this from the beginning and saw no real way in which those in danger could be dsistinguished from everyone else, or why there should be such a distinction. "Because the parents ahve a right to know" is an incorrect argument, so come back with an expansion of your argument.
Oh, and as this is a debating forum, opinions are challenged. You can eitehr leave or learn to clarify your opinions more concisely, BeckyBoo managed it quite painlessly.
As for you kermit, do you have anything specific to add or are you just nitpicking my posting style? How long have you been a mod in charge of board policy?
Ergo, a girl who falls pregnant has not breached the law, therefore there is no duty to inform parents. Also, doctors cannot breach patient confidentiality by reporting a suspected crime.
These guidelines are not new, they are very old and are just an aide memoire. Caselaw over the last fifty years or more has established that patient confidentiality is of upmost importance, and it is only when a petient is unable to make a decision by themselves that a legal guardian has a legal duty to make a decision for them.
A parent has a legal duty to ensure that a child receives medical attention should the child require it, there is no right for the parent to know what that medical attention is, unless the patient is either too young to understand or the patient tells parents themselves.
These are all facts, and cannot be disputed. And, therefore, cannot be used to justify a position.
Now, to get back to the debate:
a) Why SHOULD the parent have the right to know? Them simply being a parent is not, as shown above, a sufficiently good reason to allow them to know, so give another reason.
b) Where, and how, do you draw the line between a child "at risk" and any other child?
c) How do you justify this distinction?
d) How do you enforce this distinction?
And no, I am not a moderator, but saying that Rainbow Brite is someone that you "do not have time for" simply because she argues contrary to you is rather immature. As I simply pointed out.
pssst Is that a compliment
It did take a while for me though didnt it. I see whats happening here, person A has a view and when persons B C D E F G and H all the total opposite.......so then person A 'thinks' that everyone is out to get them. So person A needs to sit back and think before they post and realise that this being the debating forum is exactly that 'debate' subjects and try to get people to your way of thinking.
rambling now so I will leave it to you
Interesting, at 14 you can't legally consent to sex, but you can legally consent to an abortion.
This law does highlight a number of contradictions about a young adult's ability to determine herself as opposed to the rights and responsibilities of her parents in helping her make such decisions or indeed making them on her behalf.. This puts parents in a difficult position. If they are aware of their under 16s having sex they could theoretically risk prosecution for aiding and abetting the unlawful intercourse. Also the Government attempts to make parents increasingly responsible for their children's actions with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and prison sentences for children's non school attendance.
In some cases of sexual abuse which have resulted in pregnancy, abusers have taken their victims to have an abortion without the knowledge of the victims’ parents. Requiring parental consent could help to uncover such cases of abuse.
Also requiring parental consent will lead to a fall in the number of abortions. In Minnesota, the number of legal teenage abortions fell by 25% when this measure was introduced; in Virginia it fell by 20%. This proves that asking for parental consent will encourage children to avoid getting pregnant in the first place.
(Already mentioned in last few pages back) In exceptional cases, we appreciate that it may be inappropriate for a child to tell her parents she is pregnant: where she is estranged from them, for example, where she has been abused by them, or where telling them would present a serious foreseeable threat to her safety. In such cases, the courts could allow a waiver so that she would not have to tell them, as happens in those US states where this policy exists. In normal circumstances, however, they should be informed and consulted, and these unusual cases do not affect the principle.
How would you make the differentiation? The question was not to whome should the buck be passed, but how would you do it?
Oh, and I refer you to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 again: it states, quite clearly, that the person has to be aged over 18 and not reasonably expect that the other person is aged over 16. Ergo, your point about underaged girls participating in illegal activity is rendered meaningless.
The law makes different differentiations because it is assumed that a girl aged over 13 knows what she is consenting to, but not all the consequences, so someone taking advantage of her youth should be punished. It has no relevance to the topic in hand, except to show that making abortions hardder would result in problems.
:yes:
The thing with a debating forum is that people debate, and try to show that otehr opinions are incorrect. Sometimes it looks like we'rer making it pout to be the otehr person is a moron, but we aren't. Mostly.
It proves no such thing.
It will reduce abortions, but not pregnancies. Instead of girls getting abortions they will be having children aged 15.
And that, as I'm sure you'd agree, isn't exactly preferential.
1. It. Is. Not. A. New. Law.
2. The courts have already decided. Confidentiality is paramount.
How would you identify that this threat exists?
Surely the views of the patient would dictate that. Then they would say "I don't want my parents to know because..." and that doesn't really differ from the status quo.
Time to take your own advice, don't ya think.
"New government guidelines confirm that doctors will be able to arrange abortions for girls under the age of 16 without their parents' consent."
This is what I have been referring to. Following me now?!
This is when a child comes forward to her doctor or health worker, etc that and says she has been physically abused by her parents or feel her parents will make her keep the baby through religion reasons, etc.
Like any other girl/boy that has suffered by sexual abuse,etc. The only way it can be sorted is to confront someone about it.
And it sin't new, it's clarifying the position. The caselaw indicates that it is old not new.
1. The government guidelines are CONFIRMING what was already law - just so its clear, after the hoo-har with the case recently where the mother went mental after a girls school helped her get an abortion. The guidelines are just confirming that what happened there was right and legal.
It is NOT a new law.
2. The thing about abortion, is that time is of the essence. You cant have someone wait around for a court case to decide whether the parents should know.
Should they even have someone of 15 in court without their parents knowing?
Surely if it was a known previously abusive home, then the girl wouldnt be living with them anyway?
I think that a 15 yearold finding out she is pregnant, is likely to be traumatic enough in itself, without thinking that she either has to tell her parents, or go to court to tell everyone why she doesnt want them to know.
Oh, and if they did decide that the parents would be abusive possibly, would the parents be then made aware of the allegation against them? Surely theyd have to be really, and then the whole thing is blown.
Like anything else, if her parents are breaking any laws by the way they are treating their family or whoever else... they should be told about to the police. If the girl feels shes under any threat by her family she needs to confront someone she can trust.
Oooo... but a 15 year should be old enough to make her own decisions, even if it means confronting a judge, surely?!
If theyre good parents, then shes bound to tell them.
If theyre dodgy, she wont want to. Why make her go to court. Why why why???????????????????
It just seems pointless and cruel.
What you seem to be consistently overlooking, is that there is nothing in the law to stop a girl from telling her parents. Its only saying nobody else is going to break her confidence.
Of course its best if she has support, but that doesnt have to come from the parents.
You think shes not capable of consenting to her own abortion, but shes capable of standing up against her parents in court, making allegations in a court is serious, and I really dont think theres ever going to be a law where someone can say those kind of things without proper evidence, or without the accused being able to try and defend themselves (ie. being unaware that its even going on)
Not necessarily - I only told my mum about my abortion as I couldn't face seeing the disappointment on my dads which was the only reason why I didn't tell him. Does not make him a failed parent. It made me to be a coward which proved my age as I couldn't face my responsilbities. Only when it suited me, like most kids.
Just like when a victim of sexual abuse has to stand up in court just to prove herself that she was infact raped by whoever.
But what is is doing is giving girls the chance to to have random unprotected sex if they wish, putting them in in danger is multiple abortions and sexual transmaitted diseases... as instead of using the method as a second chance for them from learning from their mistakes; they are just using it as another 'quick fix' contraceptive.
But we arent talking sexual abuse here. That has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing.
I personally would prefer all parents to know that thier child was going into hospital for any operation not just terminations, but we dont tell our parents many things.........and many teenagers wouldnt want their parents to even know they were sexually active, let alone pregnant.
How can the girl prove her fears to be correct? What happens to the girls who are forced to tell, then get thrown out?
Why make it all so pointlessly difficult? You're backing yourself into a corner, she isn't old enough to decide on abortion, she is old enough to tell a court her parents might possibly throw her out?
And, what happens if a parent is told, but decides differently to what the child wants? Whose will wins out?
I explained to RB why going to court is never nice. That was my example; this wouldn't be the only case were someone young would have to go to court if they wanted the law to protect them.
As I have already explained, thank you - Yes it seems to be a minor can have rights when it suits them and then parents will be held responsible for others - Which proves how the law contradicts itself.
For this girl to have fears like this in the first place, she must have reason why she believes her parents would be forceful/abusive with her; possibly from previous experience in living under their care.
I don't believe the parent should have to give consent as this is the girls decison and the doctor and consellor who will speak to her first will verify that this is defintely what she wants to do. To inform the parents is to protect the minor from making the same mistake and to confont her with a the most traumatic time she will experience in her life.
And how would "no consent" work? Girl asks for abortion, parents get told behind her back, they say she can't have one. Does she have one and ignore her parents, ruining a familial relationship? Does she accede to her parents wishes and has a kid aged 14?
Y'see, "parents should be told" sounds great from a moralistic point of view, but life isn't that simple. You can't tell parents without them effectively giving or declining consent, and it isn't them who will be having a child so young.
See that is my point with you Kermit... you answer to questions always says, 'That's Life'
Parents and their children very rarely agree on anything. Like when a parent suggests she stops seeing her boyfriend. She storms upstairs. The child wants to stay out a bit longer. The parents shouts and sends her to her room. They rarely agree.
But in serious cases such as this. The child will be able to give her consent to the abortion if that is what she wishes but with the Parents awareness to help her from not getting in that situation again, which is the parents 'responsiblity' - which is why the parent needs to know and as well give their child the support and guidance she needs.
But it doesn't happen like that.
On something so serious there is likely to be a serious clash of wills, if you go down the road of telling the parents then you have to decide whose will is more important. And if you decide the kid's view is more important, then why go to the hassle of going behind her back to tell the parents?
I say "that's life" because life doesn't fit into neat ideological ideals. If it did I'd be driving a Bentley.
And you think giving the child a choice to get pregnant and terminate it, everytime she slips up is going to help her learn her lessons?
At least before, when they needed the parents consent they tried to avoid going down that road again by being more careful... but kids will simple see it as a 'quick fix' they can use anytime they want without having to be caught out by their parents, knowing they're doing something wrong.
Cause kids always underestimate what help and support their parents could really give them. Not all, I understand and I have already explained what they can do in those situations.
But a kid needs to learn, rather than letting them go and say, 'hey, that's life'
We achieve nothing by just saying that.
You still don't seem to be quite grasping the concept that the idea of patient confidentialitry has been ensconsed in the caselaw for fifty years or more.
As for the "quick fix" argument, there is no proof of that argument. Prove it or discard it.