Minor's Right to Medical Privacy WITHOUT parents knowing, includes contraceptives, mental health,std

[uppityperson]

It seems that a fair amount of people do not understand that minors have certain legal rights to medical privacy and certain rights to medical services WITHOUT parental notification or involvement. In some cases a minor can get medical care, have the parent's insurance billed, yet have the right to not have their parent(s) know what the care was.



Here is some information to peruse.

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8b-MedFAQ.htm#7

Can a minor consent to health care without parental notification?

It depends on the situation. HIPAA, the federal privacy law, says generally that parents may receive protected health information of minors. However, HIPAA sets a minimum standard, which allows states to create stronger laws.

Some states have enacted laws allowing minors to consent to certain types of medical treatment. To see if a minor can consent to a particular treatment you should consult state law.

The Guttmacher Institute has a guide to state laws, available at www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/4/gr030404.pdf (2000)

For general information on your state's medical privacy law, go to http://ihcrp.georgetown.edu/privacy/records.html and choose your state from the list on the right.

Here is a state by state list. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OMCL.pdf

The legal ability of minors to consent to a range of sensitive health care services—including sexual and reproductive health care, mental health services and alcohol and drug abuse treatment—has expanded dramatically over the past 30 years. This trend reflects the recognition that, while parental involvement in minors’ health care decisions is desirable, many minors will not avail themselves of important services if they are forced to involve their parents. With regard to sexual and reproductive health care, many states explicitly permit all or some minors to obtain contraceptive, prenatal and STI services without parental involvement. Moreover, nearly every state permits minor parents to make important decisions on their own regarding their children. In sharp contrast, the majority of states require parental involvement in a minor’s abortion.
In most cases, state consent laws apply to all minors age 12 and older. In some cases, however, states allow only certain groups of minors—such as those who are married, pregnant or already parents—to consent. Several states have no relevant policy or case law; in these states, physicians commonly provide medical care without parental consent to minors they deem mature, particularly if the state allows minors to consent to related services. The following chart contains seven categories of state law that affect a minor’s right to consent. Further information on these issues can be obtained by clicking on the column headings.

Contraceptive Services: 26 states and the District of Columbia allow all minors (12 and older) to consent to contraceptive services. 21 states allow only certain categories of minors to consent to contraceptive services. 4 states have no relevant policy or case law.

STI Services: All states and the District of Columbia allow all minors to consent to STI services. 18 of these states allow, but do not require, a physician to inform a minor’s parents that he or she is seeking or receiving STI services when the doctor deems it in the minor’s best interests....

[baldguy]

1. Children are people, too.

Sometimes adults forget that - with disastrous results.

[uppityperson]

2. Indeed. Thanks for the kick

[tammywammy]

3. Or people forget there are some fucked up families out there

Where having a discussion about sex, STDs, etc isn't allowed. Or where the children are victims of incest.

There are good reasons that teens should be allowed to receive medical treatment without their parents knowing.

[uppityperson]

6. While it would be great if they were able to have parental involvement,

they do have rights that involves parents only IF the teen choses.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. But not responsible people.

While I think that access to medical care is one thing children *should* be able to do without their parents' consent, but I don't think it's a precedent for most other similar issues (holding them legally responsible for their actions, letting them vote, giving them the right not to attend school, and similar).

[uppityperson]

8. Even many adults aren't responsible people. This line emphasizes why health care matters are...

"This trend reflects the recognition that, while parental involvement in minors’ health care decisions is desirable, many minors will not avail themselves of important services if they are forced to involve their parents."

When my teen got some care without telling me, I was shocked. I thought we had an open enough relationship that would tell me first. Then I realized that my teen was being responsible on own, not involving parent but starting to take responsibility that would increase as became adult.

Teenagehood, preteens, are times when you act oddly and are treated oddly. The breaking away, becoming your own responsible person is rarely easy for any. Not only do you have to let go, but so often they have to demonize you so they can let go of you.

There are good reasons why minors need to be able to get health care, and mental health care, on their own.

[Blasphemer]

62. Very true

Also, though a teen may not feel comfortable discussing certain issues with their parents, they may seek the advice of other adults. Sometimes, your parents are simply not the adults that you trust the most or confide in. It could be that other older relatives, family friends or a friend's parents are consulted and competent advice and emotional support is given where needed. Parent/child relations are often complicated, especially during adolescence. It's most important that minors have options that will ensure they get the help they need even if they don't desire parental involvement.

[uppityperson]

89. I think it also involves the breaking away process, breaking away from parents

which is why adolescents can often ask for and take advice from adults who aren't their parents. It is a difficult time for all.

It's most important that they have options that will ensure they can get the help they need even if they don't desire parental involvement, indeed.

[bettyellen]

4. it blew my mind how some DUers thought a Mom "forcing her involvment" had to be a good thing!

they just do not get the privacy thing. thanks for this!

[tammywammy]

5. Kick n/t

[uppityperson]

9. Thanks for the kick tammy, not that The Rally is over, hoping more people notice this

[pruple]

10. Thanks for posting this.

[uppityperson]

11. You are welcome. Many people don't know this until it happens to them or they read

about it. It is good to know, for parents, kids, providers.

[AngryAmish]

12. My friend, you do realize what is legally correct and morally correct are two different things?

It is morally repugnant for somebody to give my 12 year old (who will be 12 in a decade, but the point remains) drugs without my wife and my permission.

[uppityperson]

13. Sounds like you have a decade to build on with her/him.

"This trend reflects the recognition that, while parental involvement in minors’ health care decisions is desirable, many minors will not avail themselves of important services if they are forced to involve their parents."

Having raised my child to adulthood, being involved personally with many kids, been a child myself, been on the provider side, morally it is fine with me. I would rather they get the important services they need than not. If they can involve parents, more power to them. If they cannot, they still need to be able to get those services.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. What if she has an STI and will go untreated rather than tell her parents?

She might potentially be infecting one of MY sons which I find morally repugnant.

[boppers]

29. Your child will be giving *themselves* drugs, without your permission.

They don't stay helpless forever, and will start doing things on their own, long before you think it's a good idea for them to do so.

Happy parenting!

[CommonSensePLZ]

43. Adding to that they would under direction of their doctor

So it's not like they have no knowledge at all.

[boppers]

44. At what age should a person be allowed to control their reproduction?

I'd say the age of their ability to reproduce, what is your opinion?

[Iggo]

66. I'd say the same.

[uppityperson]

86. Indeed, it would be under the direction of an AMA health care provider

They would have knowledge.

[uppityperson]

34. Is it morally repugnant to you to have your 12 yr old be sexually active?

Is it morally repugnant for her to made sure she wouldn't get pregnant or get a sexually transmissible disease, even if she didn't have your permission?

[boppers]

46. No.

And no.

Some mammals become sexually active within a year or so from birth. All the delusions of "parental control" do not stop basic biology.

[Cleobulus]

35. If your kid needs such medication, for any reason, who are you to ask permission from?

You do not own your child, that is what is morally repugnant.

[MedicalAdmin]

48. I run a clinic. Are you SURE you want us to make moral decisions ?

Understand that we follow the law, and more important a set of ethical principals and guidelines.

Following a moral belief ( please note the accompanying language to both ethical and
Moral - it's an important distinction) leads to things like pharmacists refusing to fill birth control pills.

Understand that we would encourage any 12 year old to involve their parent up to and including having them talk to our councilor at no charge as often as needed, but in the end they need and deserve care. FYI it is unlikely that any of our docs would prescribe pharmacological treatment unless it was critical.

[hack89]

56. + 1 nt

[WinkyDink]

69. Take it up at the ballot-box. (P.S. "Morally repugnant" is, in this case, in the eye of the

beholder.)

[uppityperson]

14. At least 1 person unrecc'd this. Unrec for providing legal info. Funny

If you don't like your state's laws, work on them. Unrecced for showing what the law is. Too funny. Not that I really care, but funny nevertheless

[Withywindle]

15. Good post. People need to be aware of this.

And especially of the fact that there are good reasons why the law is this way. Not every teen has parents worth confiding in, and those kids who are at serious risk for abuse and worse from their own families NEED this protection.

[tammywammy]

16. Exactly!

"Not every teen has parents worth confiding in, and those kids who are at serious risk for abuse and worse from their own families NEED this protection."

[uppityperson]

18. Indeed.

And as long as that other thing is being posted on, so will this one. Need to get info out there not just "OMG my BABY!!!!!" xguvv.

[Hello_Kitty]

82. Exactly!

All families are not alike.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. K&R

:kick:

[RainDog]

20. these rights are to protect children from bad parents

people who object to teenagers being able to receive wanted health care are not doing those teenagers who need this option one bit of good.

[Withywindle]

22. Agreed. I thought social justice was supposed to be about "the least among us."

Well, who's more "least" than kids whose own families are the worst enemies and have no adult they trust to advocate for them at all. Victims of incest and sexual abuse. GLBT teens in hostile, hateful fundie families. Sexually active girls in repressed, partiarchal fundie families. Children of totally checked-out druggie/alcoholic families. Kids shuffled from foster home to foster home and never build up trust with anyone. The list goes on and on. I understand the visceral reaction that parents who care about their kids might have, but unfortunately the types of cases I listed above are NOT RARE. Who will stand up for those kids? The law may not be perfect in all ways, but it's sure as hell better than nothing for those kids.

"Your parents would beat you and throw you out on the street and maybe kill you if they knew you needed this service? Oh, well, that's too bad, we gotta have that permission slip, that's the law." Let's not go back to that, ever.

[MedicalAdmin]

49. Great point.

This is probably the most important post in this discussion .

Thanks

[uppityperson]

64. Don' t know if I ever welcomed you to DU. Welcome.

It is an interesting group of people here. Please keep reading and posting.

[tammywammy]

21. Kick n/t

[lightningandsnow]

23. Thanks for posting this!

This is definitely a reproductive justice issue, but it is also a disability rights issue as many teenagers with mental illness have parents that are in denial about their illnesses. I was one of those teenagers.

Also, if you needed to be 18 to access birth control without parental permission, we'd have a lot more pregnant teenagers.

Personally, I went on birth control when I was 14. I had severe, painful cystic acne.

[Withywindle]

24. Mental health services are a big one, you're right!

And frankly, I think children and teens have a right to speak freely to a counselor and know the information will NOT be relayed to the parents without permission. (How else could they really speak freely? Even kids in really good families still sometimes feel the perfectly legitimate need to speak privately to a more neutral adult.)

Denial is a big issue. And think of the horrors some of the more extreme fundies can visit on their children. Doesn't a teen who thinks s/he might be queer have a right to talk to someone about it without being shipped off to an abusive de-programming camp? Doesn't a teen who might have, say, autism or bipolar or something like that have the right to real counseling and treatment, even if his/her parents think those things are caused by demons and ought to be treated by exorcism? For that matter, doesn't a kid have the right to life-saving things like chemotherapy or blood transfusions even if the parents think those things are against their religion?

I know there is a real desire to believe that all parents have their kids' best interests at heart and are always the best people to make decisions in that interest, but it is just NOT the case all the time. Do we throw those kids who got unlucky in the birth lottery to the wolves?


I took the Pill for years because of endometriosis, BTW. :hi:

[lightningandsnow]

26. Damn, girl! I wish I could recommend individual replies!

:hi:

[Withywindle]

27. You're too kind.

:hi:

I love your posts too. Keep up the good work!

[tammywammy]

28. Great post!!! n/t

[Withywindle]

32. Thanks!

:hi:

[uppityperson]

33. My teen got health care and didn't tell me. It was painful to find out and to find out that I had no

right to what was said or done unless my teen gave permission. Briefly painful. Then I realized the wonderfulness that the teen could speak and act freely without worrying about any parental involvement or reactions.

It was a moment of realization that everything I'd done up until then for my child, every time I did something good or bad, it all came to that moment of letting go.

For those who have parents making unwise choices, limiting their kids in negative ways (beyond what we all end up doing in some manner), these laws are absolutely necessary. For the rest of us, eventually they may tell us, or they may not. In the meantime, we must have faith in them, and do the best we can.

[Withywindle]

36. Thank you for this post.

I'm not a parent - I'm just someone who has grown up with a lot of friends who were from very bad homes, and every one of them has a story about a friend who didn't make it. So I think, if I like them, I would probably like their friends, too- the ones who didn't make it. I suspect the world is worse off without them.

And I'm also someone who, as a teen, took advantage of some counseling that my parents never knew about (as well as the one they forced me to go to). My parents are very, very good people and I recognize that I was fortunate enough to have a really good childhood. But we still had a lot of conflict, and it was SO important to me at that stage in my life (our lives) to speak to a trained professional, who was emotionally neutral, who could help me pinpoint which points of conflict were "my fault" and which weren't--and I didn't have to worry about my parents shouting me down at the time or taking it out on me later.

Which is not something they did very often--but they certainly did sometimes, because they're human beings and they got angry. And that was silencing to me, because there is, of course, a certain power dynamic. Which is natural and exists for a reason, sure--but that doesn't mean they were always right and I was always wrong. It was so very important to talk to a professionally trained adult who could acknowledge that, in privacy.

And again--I had GOOD parents. I'm 41 now, and they are two of my very best friends. But when I was struggling against their expectations and hopes, just to learn what my own WERE, just to learn who this independent person I was expected to became was, I felt so lucky to be able to tell my story.

What about kids who don't have good parents? I worry about them. I know that the only reason that didn't happen to me was a matter of luck.

It sounds like your child is lucky, like me. But part of the whole point of adolescence is carving out a separate identity and learning how to seek out help for one's own needs. Even kids from the best homes will start seeking out privacy. I'm glad your kid knew how to do that. I'm glad you accepted it so readily, even after the pang.

I don't know how old your child is, or even hir gender, but I bet decades down the line, you'll be where I was just two weeks ago: senior-citizen mother and middle-aged adult child sitting at an amazing seafood restaurant, outdoors on the balcony in a beautiful sunset, talking openly and honestly (while laughing a lot) about all the ways in which she "failed" as a mom and I "failed" as a daughter---but more importantly, all the ways we succeeded. I wish that for you and your child. :hug:

[tammywammy]

92. After I turned 16 I drove myself to almost all my dr appts

Anytime I was sick, I took myself. I didn't want my parents having to take off work.

When I was 17 (just a week shy of 18), I went to the doctor for a pain in my leg, turned out to be a bulging disk. I even took myself to the MRI, thought both parents (they were divorced) attended the visit where my doctor gave the results.

I was comfortable enough when I was 18 to tell my mom that my boyfriend and I were thinking about sex. She went to that appointment with me, after asking if I wanted her there. So many teens don't have that relationship to talk about sex, but my mom was frank with me. "I think you should wait until you're married, but if you don't please come and talk to me first."

[laughingliberal]

25. K & R nt

[petronius]

30. I presume you posted this in response to the the SC thread, so it raises a question:

what is a "mature minor" in South Carolina? :shrug:

[uppityperson]

31. I'd hazard a guess that it is one who is ready to take control of her decisions regarding protecting

herself when sexually active. Someone seeking help rather than simply ignoring the possible issues.

That's my guess but hey, I'm not in S.C. but in WA where things are a bit more open. Though, to be fair, there was an outcry in WA a yr or so ago about the same sort thing. "How COULD my child allowed to take a but to a contraceptive clinic during school hours?" I think it was a bus, or taxi, but still a lot of people were amazed to find out it was legal and why.

[uppityperson]

80. found something on "mature minor exemption". Have questions but here you go...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/456472_5

Mature Minor Exemption

Under the mature minor exception, a minor may consent to receive medical care without parental consent or notification if the court determines that the minor has the maturity to make independent decisions. A minor may seek medical care without parental consent if she can convince the court that she is mature enough to act in her own best interest and thus make an independent judgment to consent to treatment.<18, 19> Once a finding has been made in court that a minor is sufficiently mature enough to act in her own best interest and make an independent judgment to consent to treatment, it is unconstitutional for judicial authorization to be withheld.<18, 19, 22> The process that allows the minor to be declared a mature minor is known as judicial bypass. Judicial bypass has consistently allowed minors another option to consent for care in states with parental notification or parental consent requirements for adolescents seeking abortion. The Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that judicial bypass is constitutionally required if state law requires parental notification or consent.<23> Opponents of judicial bypass believe the process of seeking judicial bypass places an undue burden on adolescents seeking abortion.<24> The determination of maturity provides sufficient authorization for a minor to exercise her right to privacy without confirmation by third parties.<25>

The laws affecting a minor's right to privacy for health care, and specifically abortion, continue to change according to current interpretation of the law.<18> The Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v Danforth struck down the parental consent requirement for minors in 1976.<13> In the 1981 case H.L. v Matheson, a law that parents should be notified "if possible" was upheld.<26> The Supreme Court upheld a parental consent law with judicial bypass provision in 1983 in Planned Parenthood v Ashcroft.<27>

[uppityperson]

81. more on Contraceptive privacy...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/456472_6

Confidentiality for Adolescents Obtaining Contraception

Despite the legal requirements of HIPPA and FERPA, confidentiality for minors seeking contraceptive services has had a separate and convoluted legal course. Since 1942, the Supreme Court has considered the individual rights related to sexual activity and the extent to which the government may interfere with these rights. Over the past two decades, the Court has struggled with the minors' right to privacy against the value of parental guidance with regard to contraception.<12, 25>

In 1970, Congress passed Title X of the Public Health Service Act.<38> This law established a program to create a nationwide system of health care clinics that provided family planning services to anyone wanting to receive them. When the Title X program was initiated, services to adolescents were included; however, the growing rate of teen pregnancy alarmed Congress, which then became concerned that teens did not have enough access to services.<38> To ensure adolescents did have sufficient access to services, the language of Title X was expanded. The legislative history of Title X reflects a congressional commitment to two policies regarding contraceptive services for adolescents: 1) encouraging family involvement in a teenager's contraceptive decision and 2) maintaining patient confidentiality regarding personal facts during provision of services.<39> DHHS regulations originally adopted in 1972 pursuant to Title X expressly protect confidentiality. "All information as to personal facts and circumstances obtained by the project staff about individuals receiving services must be held confidential and must not be disclosed without the individual's consent, except as may be necessary to provide services to the patient or as required by law, with appropriate safeguards for confidentiality."<38, 39>

In 1978, Congress amended Title X to require recipients of funding to provide treatment to adolescents.<40> Congress rejected all attempts to undermine confidentiality by a vote of 45 to 10 in the Senate, including the care of minors. Congress amended Title X again in 1981, requiring funded recipients to "encourage" minors they were treating to involve their parents in making reproductive health care decisions.<41>
(clip)
In 1983, the Federal Court case Planned Parenthood v. Matheson found mandated parental notification to be unconstitutional as an infringement of privacy interests, including a minors' constitutionally protected right to decide whether to bear or beget a child by using or not using contraceptives.<44> Because there was no conflict among the circuit courts, the Reagan administration decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court.<41>

Currently, there are no state laws that bar minors' access to confidential contraceptive care, but this continues to be under attack by Congress.<18> In 1999, Representative Ishtook (R-OK) offered an amendment to the Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill. The bill would require recipients of Title X funding to obtain consent from parents prior to prescribing contraception to minors or obtaining written notice 5 working days before prescribing contraceptives.<41> Representative Greenwood (R-PA) offered an alternative to this initiative by proposing a measure to have clinics emphasize abstinence, counsel minors on ways to avoid the pressures of sex, and encourage parental involvement in reproductive decisions.<41>
(clip)
Minors now have access to confidential contraceptive services and the earlier cases set legal precedent for Roe v Wade in 1972 and legal abortion services.<48> The Court held a Texas law criminalizing all abortions except those to save the mother's life violated the constitutional right to privacy. Justice Blackmun stated, "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."<48> It has been 30 years since the Supreme Court ruled that the relationship between a woman and her provider was a private matter, not subject to government interference in Roe v Wade. Justice Harry Blackmun declared that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution extends the right of privacy to women "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."<48> This landmark case, along with previous contraceptive cases, allows adolescents access to appropriate information and crucial contraceptive services including abortion. Table 1 outlines the legal history of the abortion debate.

[madinmaryland]

37. I actually have to call bullshit on most of the commentary so far on this.

Take a minute to flip the situation around.

Your child 12, 13, 14, or 15 was denied coverage or was instead given a massive dose of homepathic medication. Would you be upset?

It is about you, yes YOU, as a parent having the ability to be consulted about what is given to your child.

[Cleobulus]

38. If denied coverage, that's terrible, as far as the massive dose of homepathic...

"medication", well, I'd tell them they got scammed, and that its just water.

[bettyellen]

39. i call bullshit on your "what if" this is about providing AMA approved care for kids + not some

flaky homeopathic bullshit, and it sure isn't about denying them care.
You;re the one here advocating to deny kids care because in your ignorant view all kids have good parents to ehem "consult". good grief, that;s incredibly naive and selfish.
must be nice when everythings about "you and (literally) yours".

[madinmaryland]

40. A couple of things for you to chew on betty...

I'm glad to see that you have the same opinion as we do about "homeopathic medicine".

Secondly, we have a really good relationship with the school system here and do respect their treatment of children. My wife "AHEM" works in the school and knows that they don't do the shit the is reported. Of course we live in an AHEM a progressive state.

After that, you seem to be losing steam by making personal attacks on my family.

[donco6]

52. What do you mean "don't do the shit the is reported"?

?? If they're giving care outside of the program, or not giving care that's supposed to be provided by the program, someone should be reporting on them. That can't be healthy, appropriate or legal.

[bettyellen]

57. im not sure what that post meant at all or how i insulted their family

[uppityperson]

83. "they don't do the shit the is reported."? what?

[crazyjoe]

60. what if your child believes in homeopathic medice? acording to

you, children have the right to make there own health care decisions without informing the parents. I suppose if they die from lack of real medical care, that's alright with you?

[uppityperson]

84. Regarding care associated with sex? Yes, they have the right to not use

contraceptives. They have the right to not be checked/treated for std's. And if they die from lack of real medical care, like not getting prenatal care, or getting a back alley abortion since real medical care either isn't available to them or it is in a state that requires parental notification and they won't do that? Then it is really a shame and not alright with us.

How about you?

[MedicalAdmin]

54. No it's not. I have several issues with your post, and none with your desire to protect your child.

First, your understanding of homeopathic medicine seems to be incorrect. There is no such thing, in my understanding, of a massive dose, at least in terms of overdosing. Perhaps I don't understand your point in using this as an example.

My main point of contention is that it is not about you. As a clinic administrator, it is about a patient, yes a patient, recieving adequate and appropriate care. I must tell you that if you, a parent, came in and demanded/ asked for info/ control of your kids / our patients care I would have to deny you, even to the extent of not confirming your kid was a pt. At least not without written and verbal permission to do so.

Understand that medical personal are responsible to their patients, not their parents.

[bettyellen]

58. "it is not about you" yep or "yours", i was not slamming her family, but the sense of ownership

as well as the lack of understanding that they are refusing to consider the desperate needs of kids from other family.
it kills me to see how many DUers are comfortable by refusing to acknowledge or discuss how needed this law is for many kids out there. i don;t think they have rose color glasses, I think that they are putting themselves first. I hate seeing this sense of entitlement, it;s short sighted and totally lacking in empathy.

[uppityperson]

90. If denied coverage, that is really bad. If OD on homeopathic medication, so?

Does that mean they'd OD on nothing? More of less=nothing?

[verdalaven]

41. EOB

How exactly can an insurance company be billed without parents knowing? The EOB discloses everything. And when parents get a bill in the mail from a doc, there might be questions.

We have BCBS, and still cover our almost 21 yr old daughter, and though she lives 90 miles away, and doesn't tell us everytime she goes to the doc (no reason to, really), once the EOB comes in, I have a detail of every test run, and the basic services rendered. We sometimes get her bills, too, because a docs office will bill the insurance holder automatically, if they don't have an address for billing. And, if a parent was curious, asking the insurance company for an itemized script detail would tell them everything that everyone in the family is taking, if those who are covered are using the plan to get prescriptions.

And so......I am not sure how a child could keep their parents out of the loop if they wish to use their parent's insurance plan to pay for their medical expenses.

[Cleobulus]

42. Hmm...good point, sounds like another good argument for UHC...

Children could be issued their own medical cards, at, for example, birth, or if not then, then around 10 years old. After that point, their parents wouldn't have access to their medical history without their permission. The parents aren't going to be billed for anything, so it wouldn't be their business.

Of course, you forget another thing, charity, quite a few kids go to charities for contraceptive or mental health services and aren't billed at all. So no bills to send.

[tammywammy]

63. Mine just says that I went to the doctor

and lab service, but it's not on there a detail of what it was for.

[uppityperson]

65. The EOB will show "visit to dr X on date) but not what was done.

It will show lab tests, but not details about the provider visit beyond who was seen, where, when. It has been a problem for some teens in that the parents get the EOB and have questions about it.

The teen is legally allowed privacy, but if they send it through their parent's insurance, the parents will find out some info. If they don't want parents to know anything, they need to direct pay.

If it goes through ins and the parents question the EOB, then it will be up to the kid to decide how to handle it.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bliss_eternal]

47. kicking...

:kick:

[TheKentuckian]

50. The impression feel a sense of ownership over their children reinforces my feeling that parent's

roles must advisory at the discretion of the children. It seems too easy for some parents to make the calls best for themselves and their beliefs and not what is in the best interest of their children.

The kids must live to grow up, become adults, and grow old under the weight of decisions made as teens. They own their bodies and must inhabit them for a life time, not the parents.

[uppityperson]

88. I find it interesting that adolescents are unable to take responsibility for

preventing pregnancy, yet are considered responsible enough to deal with the pregnancy.

Adolescents need to learn to take responsibility for themselves and their choices, including sexuality. This does not mean that parents have no role, but that we parents have the very difficult task of allowing them choices.

[The Straight Story]

51. we need to lower smoking/drinking age cause kids will do it anywway (nt)

[donco6]

53. Yeah, and if we hand out condoms, it'll MAKE them have sex.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

67. Preventing stds and pregnancy=lower smoking/drinking age. Fail

I'll put you on the side of "condoms make kids have sex" AND "kids are too immature to PREVENT std or pregnancy but are mature enough to deal with HAVING stds or parenthood".

[Hello_Kitty]

85. The drinking age should be lowered to 18

The current age is unconstitutional bullshit.

[crazyjoe]

59. Sorry, BS. I have a 14 yr old. and there is no way in hell

i want her making her own health care decisions. Kids cannot sign contracts, cannot drive, cannot do alot of things because they don't have the mental capacity to make fully informed adult decisions. I would sue any "social services" type person who presumed to know more about the health and welfare of MY child than I do.
stupid.

[bettyellen]

70. so you'd want her to suffer without help if she was afraid? good to know.

And the rest of America's children can go to hell because you think your family is perfect.
Good fucking luck with that.

[uppityperson]

71. In Mass minors have the legal right to contraception, std prevention/care without parental notificat

You don't want your 14 yr old to make her own health care decision about preventing pregnancy or avoiding stds IF she's sexually active. Gotcha.

Not even if legally allowed and done under the care of a health care provider (not sue what "any 'social services" type person" means since it is medical people who provide such things).

[bettyellen]

76. it's interesting that the same parents who would deny access to care to these kids are most often

the ones who swear up and down that their kid would come to them if they needed help. Makes me wonder why they have such a huge fear of this service being provided at all?
no one wants to admit they may have a kid that's afraid to tell all, but you can smell their fear here. it;s so unfair to the kids from really messed up homes that their fear of not being perfect is a bigger issue in their lives. it's very ego driven and selfish

[treestar]

72. What about kids who have abusive and neglectful parents?

Not all parents are as perfect as you are.

[Rage for Order]

61. Kids need a parent's consent to get a tattoo until they're 18

But surgery at 12 without a parent's knowledge or consent is fine? All I can say is, if you perform medical procedures on my child without my knowledge or consent you'll be taking your health into your own hands.

[uppityperson]

75. argh, not dupe.In TX, you are a restrictive state. Can get some contraception, std care without

parental notification. The health care provide MAY but is not REQUIRED to notify any parent. However, parental consent is needed for abortion services.

This means kids can have sex, but may not be able to get contraception to prevent pregnancy. It means they may or may not be able to get tested or treated for STDs.

However, pregnancies typically become obvious after 6 months so you most likely can tell then. And untreated STDs like chlamydia can cause PID and make females sterile so you won't have to worry about overpopulation.

[Cleobulus]

77. So if your kids gets needed care without you knowing...

You would threaten violence against the people who helped your child? You are a perfect example why such laws are in place.

[uppityperson]

78. +100000 Threatening violence against people who legally helped your child

rather shows why a child might not choose to involve said parent.

[Rage for Order]

95. It depends on your definition of "helped"

If my child is involved in an accident and is going to bleed out or die without immediate medical attention then that is an emergency situation that can't wait for a parent to be notified.

If, on the other hand, my 14 year old daughter wants to quietly obtain the morning after pill or get on birth control so she doesn't get pregnant by her 18 year old boyfriend while he gets her drunk and statutorily rapes her then that is definitely not okay.

The whole issue is that teenagers' brains are not developed enough to be able to weigh all of the long term consequences of their actions. Isn't that why we don't try them as adults? Hell, I've seen more than a few posters here argue adamantly against allowing military recruiters onto college campuses (that accept federal funding) because the "kids" at college might get duped into signing up for the military. If at the age of 18 or 19 they're not smart enough to protect themselves from signing up for the military, how, at 13 or 14, are they smart enough to make a sound judgment about any medical care they may or may not require? And if something goes horribly wrong during a procedure or administration of medication will the do-gooder medical volunteers offer to have their wages garnished for the rest of their lives to support someone who became disabled as a result of their practicing rogue medicine?

[uppityperson]

98. Statutory rape is illegal. Tha is not what we are talking about here

If it is legal for a 14 yr old to get the morning after pill after being sexually active, or getting contraception before being sexually active, that is a far different thing than talking about if statutory rape or getting a minor drunk is ok.

If an adolescent is mature enough to be sexually active, they sure as hell are mature enough to be allowed to take precautions for their actions. If some 14 yr old is gotten drunk by an 18 yr old and raped, I guess you'd prefer her to get pregnant instead of having the morning after pill?

We are talking AMA medicine/health care and TRYING to AVOID you "rogue medicine" that you fear. Being able to legally obtain contraception (along with getting a full exam by a qualified doctor or nurse practitioner) is MUCH preferable to going to an unlicensed "rogue medicine" or sharing OCs with a friend.

You don't want "rogue medicine" yet also don't want established AMA certified health care.

WTF are you going on about?

Good grief.

[uppityperson]

87. Threatening violence against people who legally helped your child

Well, that rather shows us why an adolescent might be unwilling to talk with you and get your permission.

[Rage for Order]

96. Perfectly legal and morally right are often entirely different things

It's perfectly legal for the KKK to march in Skokie, for example.

And I wouldn't physically harm my child, but I might not be so understanding with those who would abduct my daughter to further their own anti-parent agenda.

[uppityperson]

97. Who the fuck is talking about abducting anyone's adolescent?

The discussion is adolescents having the right to choice of their reproductive health care. Threatening violence against someone who helped your adolescent with her legal choice? And saying they "abducted" her? I can see more why she might be reluctant to talk with you.

[JerseygirlCT]

93. No one needs a tattoo. nt

[uppityperson]

94. comparing a tattoo with reproductive/sexuality planning/care is idiotic indeed.nt

[WinkyDink]

68. Does the law say anything about school personnel driving said minor for health-care?

[uppityperson]

73. That I don't know. I'm adressing rights to health care here.

You could check with each state's law though since it's a good question. I assume (note the word assume) that there would be a conflict of interest there, or potential liability issue, so would think not.

[uppityperson]

74. dupe

[ismnotwasm]

79. Thank you

Thank you, thank you

[uppityperson]

91. kicking