I guess these girls will have to resort to Plan C?

[Crezth]

Understand, but two questions:

1. Does that mean that said child should be able to circumvent parental authority to access abortion services or contraceptives?

2. If yes, then should parents go ahead and send the child out of the house to work and live on her own as soon as she menstruates so they won't have to worry about paying for it?

1. As far as a child is allowed to circumvent parental authority in the case of abuse, yes.

2. Assuming they'd do the same thing if the child rather had a child of her own, then yes. Really up to the parents, however.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

1. As far as a child is allowed to circumvent parental authority in the case of abuse, yes.

I agree for abuse, but that is not the norm.

 

[Crezth]

I agree for abuse, but that is not the norm.

The point being that it is recognized that the child has some rights which supercedes the natural rights of the parents to have authority over their children. You could easily argue that access to contraceptives and the MA pill are among these rights.

 

[Hygro]

Understand, but two questions:

1. Does that mean that said child should be able to circumvent parental authority to access abortion services or contraceptives?

2. If yes, then should parents go ahead and send the child out of the house to work and live on her own as soon as she menstruates so they won't have to worry about paying for it?

Yes, because pf children's rights.
No, because of children's rights.

Also, consequence of "yes" to "1" means less teenage pregnancy which would mean less fear of babies which means that your second scenario was a nonsequiter.

Don't you agree?

 

[Cutlass]

Understand, but two questions:

1. Does that mean that said child should be able to circumvent parental authority to access abortion services or contraceptives?

2. If yes, then should parents go ahead and send the child out of the house to work and live on her own as soon as she menstruates so they won't have to worry about paying for it?

Why should the parents have the right to block it? They're likely to do so for no other reason than punishment.

 

[Silurian]

In the UK this is the current case law

From NSPCC

The Fraser guidelines refer to the guidelines set out by Lord Fraser in his judgement of the Gillick case in the House of Lords (1985), which apply specifically to contraceptive advice:

"...a doctor could proceed to give advice and treatment provided he is satisfied in the following criteria:

1) that the girl (although under the age of 16 years of age) will understand his advice;

2) that he cannot persuade her to inform her parents or to allow him to inform the parents that she is seeking contraceptive advice;

3) that she is very likely to continue having sexual intercourse with or without contraceptive treatment;

4) that unless she receives contraceptive advice or treatment her physical or mental health or both are likely to suffer;

5) that her best interests require him to give her contraceptive advice, treatment or both without the parental consent."

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/questions/gillick_wda61289.html

 

[Cutlass]

Delete #2 and that's not so bad

 

[Silurian]

Well I think #2 is reasonable.

What is wrong with trying to persuade, which could result in a better out come. If she says no then it is her discussion.

 

[Cutlass]

Because if the parents were reasonable, odds are the girl wouldn't be there in the first place. And if the parents are not reasonable, then they won't have the girl's best interest in mind in any case.

 

[say1988]

What is wrong with it?

If the girl is willing to talk to her parents about the subject, they should be brought in on it.

If the girl is unwilling, she shouldn't be scared off by the threat to do so. Further, if she satisfies #1 she should be capable of making a devision as to whether to discus it with her parents.

Crosspost edit: I suppose it depends on how far a doctor has to go before he determines that she cannot be convinced. If it is just asking a couple questions, there is no reason not to. If he has to badger her, then it is stupid.

Personally, if just for advice I would take away all those rules and just let the doctor use his discretion as to how far it needs to go. Better that she knows more than she needs to than not enough. If actually prescribing or supplying drugs, then the rules seem perfectly fine.

 

[Silurian]

Because if the parents were reasonable, odds are the girl wouldn't be there in the first place. And if the parents are not reasonable, then they won't have the girl's best interest in mind in any case.

Often parents are more reasonable than children think. I do not think it would be unreasonable to explore that possibility. Many parents would be unhappy but would say ok; others would not be reasonable. I think it would be reasonable for the doctor to spend a few minutes asking a few questions in a non threatening manner.

 

[Crezth]

Often parents are more reasonable than children think.

Sometimes they aren't, though, which is the central issue Cutlass has here.

 

[Silurian]

Sometimes they aren't, though, which is the central issue Cutlass has here.

That is why the girl has the ultimate decision.

 

[Cutlass]

Often parents are more reasonable than children think. I do not think it would be unreasonable to explore that possibility. Many parents would be unhappy but would say ok; others would not be reasonable. I think it would be reasonable for the doctor to spend a few minutes asking a few questions in a non threatening manner.

Anyone with a brain knows that girls can potentially get pregnant as young as 11-12 years old. Anyone with a brain also knows that there is a lot of sex depiction culturally, and so it is out there and the kids know of it. Further, many kids do in fact engage in sex, and that is both with the consent of the parents, and in the ignorance of the parents.

And yet many parents refuse to discuss sex with their kids until long after it is too late. And many kids do not have access to real sex education. Parents aggressively blind themselves to their kids sexuality and likelihood of sexual activity. And this is the worst among those who use the "just say no" argument.

If the parents could be trusted to do the right thing, they would have done it already before the girl is going to ask a doctor for it. If the parents hadn't done if by that time, as far as I am concerned, they have fully abrogated their responsibility, and therefor their rights to intervene.

 

[Silurian]

Anyone with a brain knows that girls can potentially get pregnant as young as 11-12 years old. Anyone with a brain also knows that there is a lot of sex depiction culturally, and so it is out there and the kids know of it. Further, many kids do in fact engage in sex, and that is both with the consent of the parents, and in the ignorance of the parents.

And yet many parents refuse to discuss sex with their kids until long after it is too late. And many kids do not have access to real sex education. Parents aggressively blind themselves to their kids sexuality and likelihood of sexual activity. And this is the worst among those who use the "just say no" argument.

If the parents could be trusted to do the right thing, they would have done it already before the girl is going to ask a doctor for it. If the parents hadn't done if by that time, as far as I am concerned, they have fully abrogated their responsibility, and therefor their rights to intervene.

But unless the doctor asks a few questions in a no judgemental way they do not know the situation. As you noted

Parents aggressively blind themselves to their kids sexuality and likelihood of sexual activity

but that does not mean that if presented with the fact they may not agree to contraception. Some would just say no but others would say yes but not be over the moon about it.

You also have to consider that the parents may have raised the subject in a general way but the girl may not have wished to talk due to embarrassment.

They are still the parents and the doctor should try to find the facts rather than just assuming things.

 

[Cutlass]

But unless the doctor asks a few questions in a no judgemental way they do not know the situation. As you noted
but that does not mean that if presented with the fact they may not agree to contraception. Some would just say no but others would say yes but not be over the moon about it.

You also have to consider that the parents may have raised the subject in a general way but the girl may not have wished to talk due to embarrassment.

They are still the parents and the doctor should try to find the facts rather than just assuming things.

OK. But the doctor's first responsibility is to the patient. Not to the parent of the patient. What the patient wants, and what is best for the patient, has to override what the parents want.

 

[countrygrl]

Of course. However, I can understand baring a 14-year-old being barred access, without a parent's consent, birth control. After all, technically a crime is being committed.

edit: I don't agree with barring access to birth control to minors, I'm just pointing out a legal argument.

Follow up question though, should authorities be alerted by a pharmacist if a 14-year-old buys morning after in a state with an 18-year age of consent? Should a authorities be alerted to a 12-year-old buying morning after? At what point does a pharmacist have a duty to report suspected sexual abuse?

This is a good post. It should also be noted that sexual abuse isn't the only thing this law will encourage, but also sexual stupidity. Allowing teenagers to walk into a pharmacy and get Plan B is absolutely stupid. If this happens you'll see increases in sexually transmitted diseases, unhealthy teen relationships, and increased psychological problems in teenagers and young adults. Teenagers are only afraid of one thing when it comes to sex, if you make it THIS EASY to get rid of that problem then it's going to cause issues elsewhere.

 

[Silurian]

OK. But the doctor's first responsibility is to the patient. Not to the parent of the patient. What the patient wants, and what is best for the patient, has to override what the parents want.

I completely agree

 

[say1988]

It should also be noted that sexual abuse isn't the only thing this law will encourage

Why will this law encourage sexual abuse?

Allowing teenagers to walk into a pharmacy and get Plan B is absolutely stupid. If this happens you'll see increases in sexually transmitted diseases, unhealthy teen relationships, and increased psychological problems in teenagers and young adults.

These people are already sexually active and if they need these drugs the sex is already unprotected.

 

[JollyRoger]

Making it unavailable based on age is absolutely stupid. It will only encourage teen girls to have sex with a guy old enough to acquire Plan B for them.