I'm going to need some help understanding this. When I see a child 17 y/o or younger, it is virtually always with one or both of their parents. The ONLY exceptions I can think of were in immediate (that means right now), life-threatening (that means if I don't do something they will die) situations such as uncontrolled bleeding from trauma, drug overdose or a diabetic hypoglycemic reaction. I treat people of all ages so I'm well aware that a mentally competent person 18 y/o and older does not need permission from anyone to receive treatment.
Setting aside your personal beliefs on abortion, do you think that a physician should be able to legally administer powerful drugs or perform surgical procedures in a non-life-threatening situation to minors, 17 y/o and younger, without one or both of the parents' consent?
It sounds like the Supreme Court will hear this case so I'd like to know the general consensus around here. Link
Here is your state's law as of 9/2005
Parental Consent By State
PC=Parental Consent (Parental Consent means that you will need to get permission from a parent if you are under a certain age, usually 18.)
PN=Parental Notification (Parental Notification means that you will have to tell a parent if you are under a certain age, usually 18, but you don't need their permission.)
NONE=No PC or PN are required now
2=Both parents required
State Status Comments
AL Alabama PC
AK Alaska NONE new PN law stopped by court
AZ Arizona PC
AR Arkansas PC
CA California NONE PC law stopped by court
CO Colorado PN
CT Connecticut NONE new law may be on the way
DE Delaware PN applies only to girls under 16years old; notice may also be to grandparent or counselor; doctor can bypass
DC Washington D.C. NONE
FL Florida PN New law started July 2005
GA Georgia PN
HI Hawaii NONE
ID Idaho NONE PC law stopped by court
IL Illinois NONE PN law stopped by court
IN Indiana PC
IA Iowa PN also allows consent of grandparent instead
KS Kansas PN
KY Kentucky PC
LA Louisiana PC
ME Maine NONE counseling on abortion or parental consent
MD Maryland PN doctor can bypass
MA Massachusetts PC
MI Michigan PC
MN Minnesota PN2
MS Mississippi PC2
MO Missouri PC
MT Montana NONE PN stopped by court
NC North Carolina PC Consent of parent or grandparent
NE Nebraska PN
NV Nevada NONE PN stopped by court
NH New Hampshire NONE PN law stopped by court
NJ New Jersey NONE PN law stopped by court
NM New Mexico NONE PC stopped by court; new law may be on the way
NY New York NONE
ND North Dakota PC2
OH Ohio PC
OK Oklahoma PN New law in 2005
OR Oregon NONE
PA Pennsylvania PC
RI Rhode Island PC
SC South Carolina PC Women under 17 years old; also allows for consent of grandparent
SD South Dakota PN
TN Tennessee PC
TX Texas PC Law since 10/99 Thanks to Gov. George W. Bush
UT Utah PN
VA Virginia PC also allows consent of grandparent instead
VT Vermont NONE
WA Washington NONE
WV West Virginia PN doctor can bypass
WI Wisconsin PC also allows other family members over 25 to consent; doctor can bypass
WY Wyoming PC
In a hospital setting aren't ALL patients given a consent form to sign notifying the patient of what the procedure is and acknowledging the risks associated with the procedure?
One would think that this could be a type of a contract and persons under 18 are not able to enter into written contracts.
Outside your life-threatening scenario where the patient cannot give consent, if the patient doesn’t sign the consent form then the procedure isn’t done.
I would think that treating a minor child without parental consent opens the hospital and doctor to a whole host of trouble should the parents not agree to the procedure.
I think Parental Notification Laws should be tied to the age of consent. If the age of consent is 17 in a state, then under 17 should be the age for parental notification, etc.
This can all be fixed by giving your child an " Implied Consent" sheet. Using a 3 x 5 card. Write down your ( as the parents) personal information, I.E. Name, DOB, SS#, and emergency contact number. This should also include something to the effect, of " I Mr. Smith do here by authorize any and all Medical treatments, procedures or blah, blah, blah to be given or administered to my child to prevent loss of life or limb". This will give the ER, permission to stabilize your child until you can be reached.
Exactly. Why would there be an exception for a non-emergency procedure such as an abortion?
Good idea. Maybe something the school could keep on file? But it still doesn't address non-emergency procedures such, say, an abortion.
I'm still shocked that the courts are trying to usurp parental authority like this.
Honestly? I'd like to see examples.
Because honestly? To hell with parental authority, in some instances.
If someone walks in and is 12, yeah. There's a chance they don't understand what they're asking.
What if they're 17 and nine months? Will they need those three months to gain the clarity necessary to decide what's best for themselves?
But all my personal opinions aside, and abortions aside... What kinds of things are people under 18 asking for? What is so utterly horrible that mommy and daddy need to be included in the decision. I'm not unable to be swayed in my opinions, and I'm curious.
You wouldn't care if your child was seeking treatment for:
1) drug abuse
without your knowledge as a parent? Would you let your child go on a school trip? To Washington, D.C. with adult supervision? To Mexico without adult supervision? Would you let your child drive your car without asking for permission?
If you're 'ok' with the above then I'm not sure what to say. I guess I find it surprising that people (not you specifically) wouldn't want to be involved more in their child's welfare.
The last two, I can see. If my child gets to the point of needing help for the first, and I don't know about it yet, then i'm not that great a parent anyway. But even asuming it did? What do I do, as a parent? 'Fuck no, Johnny. No rehab for you. You messed up big time now, boy. You're gonna shoot all the heroin. Nothing less than an overdose for you.'
And as for abortion, or HIV/AIDS? If my child is old enough to do it, they're old enough to live with the consequences. I'm not going to raise their illegitimate child. I'm damned sure not in a position to play nanny and force them to give birth to it, and raise it themselves, either. I don't like abortion. It's not a choice that I would want a woman I impregnated to take.
But I have no right to say anything about anyone else who wants to get it done. As long as it's still legal, it's still legal.
HIV/AIDS? What am I going to do? Say no? 'You made your mistake. Now we're going to lock you in your room until you catch the sniffles and die.'
Parental notification? Absolutely. Parental consent? No.
Unfortunately, I see a trend in this country where parents don't teach their children any sort of personal responsibility. I was raised to face my choices, be a man, and live with the consequences of my actions. Because of that, I examine every situation, and make my decision knowing the consequences of each action, and prepared to accept them. I did the same thing when I was 12, and when I was 17 and nine months. We should not need a bunch of laws that do a parent's job for them.
I hope that my children, when I have them, will do the same as I did, and exercise some responsibility.
And yes, that's right. I don't have children. I'm sure some of my views will change when I do. Very sure.
But I do know that my parents raised me, expecting that I would one day have to make my own decisions and be an adult. They raised me to be responsible. As such, I never got anyone pregnant. I never got an STD. I wrapped it up.
Ultimately, the child is going to be responsible for his or her own actions. They are the ones that will have to grwo up and deal with it. Their parents knowing is not going to affect that fact.
Isn't it more important that the child receive HIV treatment? Isn't it more important that they get the drug counselling? And, god forbid, isn't it more important that they be left to decide their own future, moral outlook, and deal with their own conscience, by getting an abortion? I don't have to like it. I can disown them if I like. But unless i'm willing to nurture, pay for, and raise that unborn child, then I have no say in what happens to it.
You have to be really careful with minors. We usually have the parents sign a waiver if they want the minor to make the descions.
When they have kids they become emancipated minors. I guess its kind of silly to have someone make a medical decsion for them but they can for their child.
Regardless of what the SCOTUS says, someone gives my daughter an abortion, a la California, they die. Period.
What happens to your daughter for making the decision to have one?
Woot.. name,. ssn, dob.. new credit cards for me!
Putting aside my personal beliefs on abortion there shouldn't be. Speaking as a parent I wouldn't want anyone touching my kids for any reason without my consent (unless it was to save their lives).
Then sir, I commend you on being consistent. And at this point, we'll have to agree to disagree.
At least until I have kids. I have this sickening feeling that about the time I see the head come out, all my personal choice ideals are gonna go right out the window in favor of protecting my baby.
Eh, you're probably right. I don't have kids either.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and that line has been drawn at 18 (19 and 21 in some states) for someone to be considered an adult as opposed to a minor. It is not the age of consent, it is called the age of majority. It has nothing to do with wether they suddenly receive enlightment from age 17 years 9 months old to 18 years old, but merely that the line has been drawn. Can someone below the age of majority receive all the rights and priveledges of an adult? Sure, it is called an emancipation process.
You can see all the states' "age of majority" laws here www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/age-of-majority.htm
This website actually breaks it down into a simple chart: marriage.about.com/cs/teenmarriage/a/majority.htm
So, until someone has reached the age of majority or been emancipated, the parent or legal guardian is fully responsible for that person, and all decisions pertaining to that person. In my opinion, any procedure done in a non-life threatening instance should require the full, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian.
Except for a few points, we're pretty well much on the same page. I don't think any parent would withhold treatment for their child if it was beneficial. And I'm not asking that a parent should be allowed to make decisions that are against the child's health or physical well-being.
If you don't allow for parental notification, then any and all costs involved in a non-emergency situation should be on the shoulders of the state.
[ 19 ] YES [ 31.67% ]
[ 41 ] NO [ 68.33% ]
I think parental consent should be mandatory tattoos, piercings and depilation too.