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
Whilst I sympathise with that hypothetical situation, life for me as a single parent is hard enough without taking on other people's issues at the same time.
So the law should revolve around your family situation?
You might want to check up with the WHO and their stats on how many women are dying from illegal abortion to this very day. They're not in the UK, but still count, regardless.
Confidentiality doesn't just apply for the over 16s. Parents do not own their children. Gillick competence was put there for a reason. As said previously, it's up to the parents to provide a supportive, loving environment for their children to feel they can approach them in times of need - not the other way around where the young women have to do the 'notifying'. If they don't want their parents to know, they obviously have good reasons for it.
Brook recently did a survey and found that 3/4 of young people wouldn't use their services for advice or help if they knew that someone would be told about their visit. Parental notification is obviously a fab idea.
You mean by, for instance, directly going behind her back and breaking her wishes?
Good loving parents will get told. Bad ones won't.
Girls undergoing abortions are advised to seek help from friends and family. But not all families can be trusted.
Good to see you don't care about the girls who will be attacked or forced to become homeless if this amendment is allowed. So long as you can have your own way- regardless of your daughter's wishes- nobody else matters. At least you're honest about it/
It should take ALL situations in to account - conversely, why should the law revolve around other family situations?
Nice bit of mis-quoting, I suppose I'll have to redress this.
I didn't say I don't care - you must have missed the part where I say I sympathise - but as a single parent life is not a bed of roses for me but I manage. I'm not saying she should need my consent - however if I understand the operation correctly, there is an element of risk involved with all terminations. What if she died as a result? At least you get 'some' time to prepare should a loved one have a terminal illness.
When it's just me and my girl, I'll be informed of everything she does.
You may not be aware of this but at the moment girls under 16 would be able to undergo an abortion without their parents prior knowledge. I say things were fine as they were before this was introduced.
I'm already aware of that - my stance does not change that you either give parents full responsibilty or none at all.
The law is in place to protect kids who dont grow up in supportive families like yours. If you have a good relationship with your kids she will tell you anyway so the law means nothing.
Oh, and that isnt me you quoted the second time, it was Kermit.
When young girls are murdered for being seen in town with boys of the wrong colour or faith, what do you think parents will do if they find their daughter has been having sex?
The law is there to protect young women. It is nothing more sinister than trying to let girls get help without being beaten black and blue.
I fail to see what your problem with this is.#
You also need to work out what the meaning of responsibility is. You appear to be confusing it with ownership.
My problem is society deciding when a parent is and is not getting involved with their childrens' affairs.
Thanks but I'm 31 and I don't need to be told anything like that from you - I'm aware of the meaning of both.
You do not grasp the difference between this and controlling your child.
Society isn't telling anyone anything. Society is protecting children by allowing children to decide if they feel safe telling their parents or not.
Why are you so against protecting children? I'm genuinely interested why you might be against something that stops young girls being beaten, abused and sometimes murdered.
Do you seriously think that knowledge exists in a vacuum, and that a religious fundamentalist wouldn't prevent their child from having an abortion if they were notified. If you do then you are very very naive.
My view is that with this confidentiality removed, the child would have the choice of telling their parents or having the job done illegally. Or having a baby and risking the same reaction from their parents.
If their parents are supportive and not pro-life crackpots, this is fine.
But not all parents are pleasant people, and the children unlucky enough to have parents such as these need protecting.
If they go home pregnant, they're buggered, and if they have an abortion, they're buggered.
If they're forced into having an illegal abortion, they could also be in some pretty unpleasant circumstances.
Not literally I hope!
:eek:
:sour:
I mean "they're in a nasty situation"
The "changes" don't actually stop your daughter telling you, they just stop the doctor.
I'm 35 and I disagree with you. Responsibility doesn't mean that you should be told everything about your child, it's doesn't mean that you have the right to intervene if they do not want that.
Just out of interest, legally informed consent for procedures is determined by the doctor taking consent. If he feel that the patient understands what is going to happen, and what the consequences are then the patient can give consent. That appiles whether they are 5 or 105 and whether they are having a TOP or resetting their fractured nose.
A fantasy.
Difficult to find evidence on the net about self harm because it happened so long ago, and it wasn't necessarily recorded. I did find this information though...
Between 1955 and 1957 there were 141 women who died as a direct result to "backstreet" abortions. On average, 35,000 women per year were admitted to hospital due to botched operations until 1967 when the law changed.
Still, no reason to worry eh?
Why, they're only women, and if they decided to terminate that way, they obviously brought it on themselves.
Aborted Slippy still not man enough to debate properly yet?
This is also the point deliberately missed by My Sacrifice.
Just so you don't go banging your head against the wall next time you ask My Sacrifice to check it out...
Gillick Competence
I've yet to see that. But we did have a 12 year old in who was being raped by her foster brothers. The foster mother had known about it for quite some time.
Even if they don't tell their parents, most under 16s come with an adult they can trust. I don't see why it has to be the parents who are told if they don't want them to know in the first place.
For most cases it's not an issue because they are able to tell their parents and their parents support them. But not everyone has that luxury.
And if that parent is staunchly pro-life? Or from a cultural background where a woman having sex before she's married would warrant 'shame' on the family (for which one of our clients had to stay in a woman's refuge. Only she was 26 in that case, dread to think if she had been under 16 with parental nofications laws in place) etc? The Gillick priniciple is there for a reason, and one of those reasons is to protect those in the minority, because not all parents are good ones.
Victoria Climbie died as a result of the abuse and neglect she suffered, under the noses of the social services department employed to protect her. No social worker could help in a case like the one proposed here, unless you are suggesting taking kids into care. And that, I'd argue, is a lot worse than maintaining the right and proper medical confidentiality to a Gillickly competent child.
That's great. A family friend, an aunt or a teacher can offer support but unless there's a very good reason (e.g. the parent has a history of violence or something) I think the parent has a right to know.
A parent has a responsibility to their children; if the parent being pro-life wishes to dissuade their child (under 16) from having an abortion that is their right. Whether you agree or not being pro-life is not a crime and a parent who is against such a controversial practice is not a bad parent. And I don’t think a parent who advises their child against having an abortion is a bad parent; in many communities abortion is simply unacceptable and wrong. I don’t think it’s the state’s place to intervene over a matter which for under 16’s should remain primarily between the child and their parents.
If 'dissuade' means to lock them in their room for 9 months [I've heard some lovely stories from the other side of the Atlantic] is that their right too? Parents don't own their children, and using Gillick's guidelines, they have every right to confidentiality.
It depends on how far their 'advising' goes if they don't want their offspring to terminate. It's not their decision to make, the same applies to the parents who drag their children to the clinics trying to force them to terminate, it's not a matter of ownership.
And I thought it was between the pregnant woman and her doctor. The parents certainly had no part to play when the girl in question got pregnant. Confidentiality exists not just for those over 16 and like Brook found out, 3/4 of those who thought someone would be told would be put off from using their services. What next, married women need their husband's notification?
Like I said, the state put Gillick's prinicple there for a reason, it wasn't just pulled out of the air in an attempt to do 'do-gooding'.
Isolated extreme cases are not normal and there would be exceptions. If a parent has a history of violence, etc another responsible adult instead.
Abortion is invasive physically (except chemical abortion) and it is invasive emotionally. Kind of like cosmetic surgery...Cosmetic surgeons don’t perform surgery on someone under 16 without parental consent.
Anyway I've gave my opinion, I think parents should be able to know..I know you don't agree and I respect your opinion but don't see any point in discussing it further.