The once sacrosanct parental right to determine their children’s health care (in all but extreme circumstances) seems to be under constant assault as the lawmakers and bureaucrats apparently believe that school-based and special interest advocates are better able to decide what is best for kids than parents. Take California’s AB 499, as one example. It would allow children over the age of 12 to obtain medical treatment without parental consent for treatment of reportable contagious or venereal diseases. From the legislation:
SECTION 1. Section 6926 of the Family Code is amended to read: 6926. (a) A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who may have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease or condition is one that is required by law or regulation adopted pursuant to law to be reported to the local health officer, or is a related sexually transmitted disease, as may be determined by the State Director of Health Services Public Health Officer.
(b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.
This is awful. Children can contract serious reportable diseases–such as anthrax, diphtheria, toxic shock syndrome, and SARS–and if this legislation passes, parents could be kept in the dark.
But let’s be honest: We all know that such conditions are not what this legislation is all about. Rather, supporters desire to allow children to be treated for sexually transmittable diseases such as syphilis and HIV without parental knowledge or consent. Moreover, the “prevent” STDs is about giving 12-year-olds the HPV vaccine without parental knowledge. Thus, to put it bluntly, the law seeks to make it easier for underage children to be sexually active without worry that their parents will find out. And it substitutes parental authority for those who would smile benignly on such activities.
AB 499 is a cultural attack against parents who hold traditional mores and values, plain as day. Parents in California aren’t entitled to know if their minor daughters have abortions or obtain birth control. Now, they are on the verge of being excluded from other important and intimate aspects of their children’s lives. In short, the legislation is an example of moral and cultural imperialism.
June 23rd, 2011 | 6:43 pm
Do other states already have similar laws to this? I was under the sad impression that they do.
June 23rd, 2011 | 6:46 pm
The downside of mandating parental involvement is that it will discourage some children from seeking treatment for their STDs — with potentially deadly results. Ideally children and parents should be able to communicate with each other about sexuality issues. That, obviously, is far from being the case in California.
HW
June 23rd, 2011 | 6:57 pm
another troubling problem: it allows authorities not to report sexual abuse of preteens.
Did you read this report: LINK
…”Across the nine sites (Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Boston, Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco) that assessed having had sexual intercourse for the first time before age 13 years and sexual identity,
the prevalence of having had sexual intercourse before age 13 years ranged from 4.3% to 11.2% (median: 4.8%)
among heterosexual students, from 13.3% to 28.5% (median: 19.8%)
among gay or lesbian students, from 9.0% to 23.3% (median: 14.6%)
among bisexual students, and from 5.7% to 23.6% (median: 13.1%) among unsure students (Table 55)”
so there is a need to treat these kids, but also a need to check who is abusing these kids, especially the gay one…and no, I don’t think they were all abused by Catholic priests…
June 23rd, 2011 | 7:05 pm
Typical left wing desire to separate rights from responsibilities.
More rights for themselves, but not the responsibilities.
Sexual activity should be only for those over the age of consent. Whether you set that age of consent at ten or twenty, if you’re not old enough to consent, then your parent should be notified if you’re sexually active.
If the parent is not fit to be a legal guardian, then why should they be left in charge of the child at all? If they are not responsible enough to make the right choices re: sexual morality, then have all the parental rights, responsibilities, and obligations terminated.
But of course that is the whole point: the left wants the powers that come with decision-making, but they want someone else – parents – to be stuck with the obligations, the hard work, and – of course – the consequences of whatever happens as a result of their little decision-making social experimentation.
June 23rd, 2011 | 8:20 pm
We had something similar in Nevada in SB 247 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/SB/SB247.pdf. It was a bill to establish school based clinics in Nevada. While the text linked to here included written parental requirements for any services received, that language was gutted in a work session-along with other language keeping the SBC out of abortion and contraception counseling and referrals. Fortunately pro-life and pro-family groups pushed that language back in. The bill eventually died.
Bills like the CA and NV bills undermine parental authority. Parents can’t be responsible if they don’t have authority-in this instance the right to know.
June 24th, 2011 | 7:02 am
I agree it’s a bad bill, but oddly Wes you seem to be having an entirely wrong justification for it.
It’s bad because a minor simply cannot give informed consent to treatments for the diseases mentioned. Parents also cannot be kept in the dark about the medications their kids take due to complications and side effects.
The “traditional values” argument makes sense for lack of consent for obtaining contraceptives. But this is something that would neither encourage sexual activity (news flash: if your kid has an std, they already are active) or defeat traditional mores.
You don’t need to use the “parental authority” argument: a stronger one is that this has grave potential to harm the child by forcing them to agree to treatment they aren’t capable understanding “informed risk,” and by keeping parents in the dark when it comes to treatment, drug interactions, and risk of symptoms or complications.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
DBlade: That is true about informed consent–except when it isn’t, which is defined in laws like this. A minor cannot bind him or herself in a contract, for example. Thus, sometimes a minor is allowed to consent to medical procedure–but would not be liable to the provider for the cost if sued for payment. Ironic, no? And it isn’t when certain agendas are being pushed.
Lydia Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
@Dblade, the issues you are raising are all legitimate. But the question you need to ask yourself is this: Assuming you wd. consider yourself to be more or less “on the left,” why are those on the same side of the aisle as yourself not sufficiently concerned about the issues you are raising to prevent them from trying to pass laws like this? The answer is that many of them consider sex so incredibly important that they want everything relating to it–whether before or after–to be directly between the minor and people they expect to hold their own value system regarding sex. And to make sure that happens, they’re willing to put minors at risk in various ways.
The traditional values argument makes more sense than you might think in any event. For example, the law talks about consenting to “prevention” of an STD, so a minor might not already be sexually active but might receive, as Wesley suggests, a vaccination that would make her (in this case it would be a female) feel less vulnerable to an STD in future sexual activity. The bill would keep parents in the dark about this.
Moreover, it is possible that even if a minor is already sexually active parents might put a stop to this through various modifications of the child’s other activities, discouraging particular friendships, not allowing people to use their home in various ways, etc., so that the minor’s overall continuing sexual activity would be prevented or lessened if parents knew.
And finally, as another commentator brought up, these sorts of laws typically interact with statutory rape laws in such a way that the latter are, in effect, partially nullified because medical personnel (who might otherwise be in a position to report suspected statutory rape) will no longer do so. Again–putting the minors at risk for the sake of an agenda.
In short, both sides of the “traditional values” agenda–both those for and against–have a dog in this fight. The interesting point is that the problems which you note are being so ignored by those who favor the law. Apparently their goal of preventing parents from knowing about their children’s sexual activity is their priority.
June 24th, 2011 | 7:18 am
I’m with you on deploring this further encroachment on our lives by Big Brother.
However, it wouldn’t happen without first the family breaking down. Without absentee parents. Without 70% illegitimacy among blacks (or something close to that number) and 40% overall. Without a culture of use your spouse, then throw him or her away when it suits you.
We should actively resist such legislation, yes. But let us urgently work, through good example, religion, media choices, and our own bully pulpits, whatever they may be, to try to reverse the moral decay.
HistoryWriter Reply:
June 24th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
@Joe DeVet,
Since the institution of family, as you describe it, has become so dysfunctional, and so many parents are absent from their broken families, what makes you think the children affected by this legislation would have talked about it with their parents in the first place? Time for a reality check.
HW
June 24th, 2011 | 1:01 pm
The downside of mandating parental involvement is that it will discourage some children from seeking treatment for their STDs
And yet, all this sex ed and all the free condoms and all the free medical care has not done what it has promised.
Could it be that glorifying sex – and teaching our kids that “everyone does it” – actually does more harm than good?
Could it be that the “good” of saving a child from the consequences of his or her sexual behavior could be offset – more than offset – by the harm we have done in our role, our participation in the process of shoving that child into premature sexuality in the first place?
June 24th, 2011 | 2:50 pm
Informed Consent, the right to know the risks and alternatives of any treatment prior to giving consent, has been around for hundreds of years and is still around. Anyone who wants to uphold that right can simply read about the history of informed consent and stand by that right.
June 24th, 2011 | 4:17 pm
Since the institution of family, as you describe it, has become so dysfunctional, and so many parents are absent from their broken families, what makes you think the children affected by this legislation would have talked about it with their parents in the first place? Time for a reality check
So naturally we should hand power over to the same groups that first waged open war on the family-as-institution?
The political group that is grabbing power now is the same one that enacted the policies that broke the family.
For example, see Thomas Sowell’s arguments (or at least the evidence he presents) re: the actual number of broken black families over the various decades of the 20th century: the left wing “Great Society” did more to break the black family than slavery ever did – and they’re the same people, with pretty much the same policies.
Maybe instead of trusting the same people whose policies have already failed, we should instead stop listening to them when they argue that we should encourage and reward dysfunctional, unhealthy behaviors, while starving out or even punishing healthy behaviors.
Of course, the real agenda here is that these people who “care so much” about the poor people they “help” don’t really care about these poor people at all, but merely want to keep them as – again borrowing from Thomas Sowell – “mascots”, don’t they? Because their real agenda is rage – sticking it to the authority figures, because they aren’t about actually helping poor people (if they were, then the fact that their policies don’t actually help poor people would mean something to them). They are just a bunch of people with mommy-issues and daddy-issues, and they’re using these destroy-society policies to enact their rage on a large scale. Can too have sex! Do not need your permission! Got your kid! Neener neener I win!
HistoryWriter Reply:
June 25th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
@Blake,
Oh, come on. If you want to blame anything for the decline of the black family structure you can blame the Jim Crow laws that prevailed until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. — and those good ol’ boy racist Southern Democrats who made an instantaneous conversion to Republican when LBJ signed it.
Thomas Sowell is a conservative jackass who’s in the same league as Star Parker and Clarence Thomas.
HW
Blake Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
@HistoryWriter,
Oh, come on. If you want to blame anything for the decline of the black family structure you can blame the Jim Crow laws that prevailed until the Civil Rights Act of 1964
I was arguing not on the authority of Thomas Sowell, but on the authority of the evidence he put together.
He demonstrates that, statistically, the black family did not break down until after the implementation of the Great Society. He has also offered arguments I find persuasive as to exactly how Great Society policies impacted the black family (for example, rewarding poor women for out-of-wedlock birth).
While I have no idea whether Thomas Sowell is or is not a “jackass” (have you met him personally, or are you just miffed that a black man dares to refuse to play along with the role you’ve set for him – a role he would describe using the word “mascot”?) –
The fact is that whether Sowell is an ass or not is irrelevant. (If being an ass made you automatically wrong, who would ever listen to you?)
If you have a problem with the evidence I’ve cited, that would be relevant.
June 24th, 2011 | 11:21 pm
…moral and cultural imperialism and BANKRUPTCY
June 26th, 2011 | 6:42 am
Contrary to the impression given by Wesley’s post, minors in California already have the right to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of reportable disease.
Section 6926(a) is existing law (and has been on the books for years, if I’m not mistaken). The (b) section, which refers to the prevention of sexually transmitted disease, is the amendment.
The stated justification for this amendment is that “the omission of consent for preventative services creates a barrier to time-critical preventive services” such as prophylactic HIV medication (which has to be given within 72 hours of exposure) and HPV vaccination (which is most effective when administered prior to the onset of sexual activity).
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 7:52 am
I knew about abortion and contraception, to which I alluded. It’s wrong whenever it was allowed. And the agenda is very clear: emancipate minors when it comes to sexual ethics. Moreover, I don’t think the age was 12!
Raven Chukwu Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 8:45 am
@Wesley J. Smith, The age was and is 12 (a fact you would have discovered if you had bothered to glance at the text of the existing law). State laws allowing minors to consent to treatment for reportable diseases are the rule rather than the exception – and the reasons for this are, I hope, obvious. There are similar provisions in Texas, for instance, (see Sec 32.003(3) which has been on the books since at least 1983), Pennsylvannia, Tennessee etc
In fact, according to the Encyclopedia of Everyday Law,
And the moral of the story is: do some fact-checking before rolling out the reflex outrage.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 9:25 am
@Raven Chukwu, The Encyclopedia of Everyday Law link was meant to be to this page on the treatment of minors.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Then the legislation is superfluous? I doubt it. The point remains, whether in CA or 50 states, the powers that be want children to be emancipated from their parents’ moral teaching and medical control. They want school authorities and agenda interests groups to teach morality and protect children to pursue what should be adult sexual activities. They want to get children the HPV vaccine without parental consent, abortions without consent or notice, contraception, mental health treatment, etc. Yet, kids can’t get their ears pierced without consent or get tattoos, or as one commenter noted, bind themselves in contracts. It is wrong. It is the state assuming unwarranted power over children, which it should not do absent abuse or neglect, and all without due process of law.
You might think that is acceptable, I think it is morally wrong and politically authoritarian. Why not just say all kids are to be raised by the state, according to state dictated values and precepts, and allow parents to do the job only if they follow the state’s instructions. Because that is about where we are.
So, I hope CA will defeat AB 499. And someday, turn back the clock on this cultural imperialism over parents authority and control of their children. And the agenda is clear because AB 499 exempts the parents from being financially responsible for the cost of the medical care obtained by their children.
And who is going to get these kids the care? Planned Parenthood. School-based clinics. Other non profits. In a word, strangers.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 11:35 am
@Wesley J. Smith, I hardly know where to begin.
(1)“AB 499 exempts the parents from being financially responsible for the cost of the medical care obtained by their children.”
AB 499 does not “exempt the parents from being financially responsible for the cost of the medical care obtained by their children”. That is the status quo – it’s the way things have been under laws which have been on the books for decades. All AB 499 does is add “medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease” to the other forms of healthcare to which minors are already able to grant consent.
(2) “Then the legislation is superfluous?”
See (1) above. The page you linked to (but apparently only skimmed) clearly states: “Existing law allows minors to consent to specified forms of medical or dental treatment. This bill would, in addition, allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a
sexually transmitted disease.”
(3) “The point remains, whether in CA or 50 states, the powers that be want children to be emancipated from their parents’ moral teaching and medical control”.
Really? What proportion of elected officials want children to be “emancipated from their parents’ moral teaching”? Do all the state legislatures have majorities with these intentions? These laws have been passed independently in all parts of the country, liberal and conservative. You are, needless to say, reading this wrong.
(4) “It is the state assuming unwarranted power over children, which it should not do absent abuse or neglect, and all without due process of law.”
The state is not, with regard to healthcare, assuming power over children – it is rather allowing children to, in very limited circumstances, exercise power themselves. The state does not, in these cases, make decisions on behalf of the parents – it allows the children to make some decisions on their own because this is deemed to be, in these very limited cases, in the public interest.
And since this is all done by following legislative procedure and legal precedent it is, by definition, with due process of law.
(5) “You might think that is acceptable, I think it is morally wrong and politically authoritarian.
I, like every reasonable adult, feel that parents ought to be involved in the moral instruction of their children. This, obviously, is something for which they are crucially responsible. However, I do not view these consent laws as an attempt to usurp these important parental rights. Many American children are, unknown to their parents, sexually active. Many acquire STDs. Making treatment of these infections contingent on obtaining parental consent would lead many young people to avoid seeking treatment, delaying presentation until the symptoms of disease become too distressing to ignore. This would increase the probability of complication and further transmission. Laws allowing minors the right to consent to some treatments are about public health and the best interests of children – not about fostering a society in which juveniles may indulge in sex without parental supervision.
Societies are imperfect – and this is something all good lawmakers (and sober thinkers) know. Making laws for the real world is about finding the right compromise between our lofty moral ideals and the messiness of the situations the laws are actually meant to regulate. Take a deep breath, Wesley, take a step back, and you may begin to understand why this is not even close to being a “cultural attack against parents who hold traditional mores and values”.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Big of you to think they “ought” to be involved. Unless, of course, it stands athwart the reigning sensibilities. So, strangers get to decide what children do, and exclude parents as a means of harm prevention. Phooey.
The children aren’t “assuming power over themselves.” They haven’t the maturity or ability. They won’t make an appt. and go to a doctor’s office, to seek a VD blood test. They won’t say one day, “Hey, I think I want an HPV vaccine to prevent cancer someday!” Strangers will do that. Strangers that troll for minors to “guide” and “help” through these processes on the Internet or in ads or at youth concerts, etc. Good grief, at least be honest about what is really going on.
Your justification is a mere rationalization. The point of these laws is to exclude parents from important life events experienced by their children, and deny them the right to guide their children through these matters, and to intervene in and interfere with their moral upbringing. AB 499 would allow children to receive a vaccine without parental consent that does not involve an infectious disease that could easily spread to other children, like measles. This is pure imposition of a worldview into family life. Or, a “compromise” that furthers the erosion of family intimacy and parental control. You can state it in cool, oh so rational passive language all you want, because I assume, as a good rational “bioethicist” you agree (demonstrating that bioethics isn’t just a discourse anymore, if it ever was, but as I noted in COD, seeks to achieve results and particular outcomes consistent with its overarching worldview). The intent and outcome are purposeful and clear.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, Actually, Wesley, children in their early teens do turn up in hospitals for tests when they suspect they’ve acquired STDs. They do book doctor’s appointments. The fact that you do not know this (and think it’s such a far-fetched scenario) is, I think, telling.
If these children know that a visit to the hospital will result in their parents being notified about the fact that they have been sexually active, a lot of them just won’t go in the first place. That would be a great victory for traditional morality, wouldn’t it?
Once again, if the true intent of these laws is to “exclude parents from important life events experienced by their children” then how come they’ve been passed in virtually every single state (from the reddest of the red to the bluest of the blue). Good grief, Wesley, similar laws have been passed by the Utah State Legislature! Are the good people of Salt Lake City also bent on attacking traditional mores?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
So, we agree on the purpose of these laws and proposals, e.g. excluding parents from these intimate issues–which was, after all, my point–but not their wisdom. By definition, doing so interferes with parental authority and guidance. Fine.
I could give you as many countervailing points, such as parents seeing their child experiencing adverse symptoms unaware they have received medical interventions. That could prevent them from obtaining needed medical care for their child or keep the doctor from accurately diagnosing what is causing the problem. Or, I could point out how an adult sex abusers could be sure to prevent a minor child from disclosing the inappropriate contact, which I will bet is far more prevalent than abusive parents punishing their sexually active children. Privacy from parents keeps parents from protecting their children from abusive relations with adults or from engaging in further activities that take them down a destructive path. Keeping the parents in the dark has consequences, known, unintended, and intended.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, We agree on the purpose of these laws!!? Please re-read my previous response.
You’re worried that the child’s health may be endangered if his or her parents are unaware of the child’s full medical history i.e. the drugs he or she is taking and the procedures he or she has undergone. This is a valid concern. But you seem to feel that a wayward child from a dysfunctional family would be better off with the complications of an untreated venereal disease than with the possible complications of its treatment. This is a strange way to look at things. Anyway, a child who tells one doctor that he or she would like to be treated for an STD could just as easily tell a second doctor that he or she has, in fact, undergone such a course of treatment (secure in the knowledge that this admission would be in handled confidentially). Once again, this is not how things would work in a perfect world, but let’s leave utopian fantasies to the dreamers, shall we?
In cases of sex abuse the relevant section of the Family Code (which you apparently still haven’t bothered to read) requires that healthcare professionals attempt to contact the parents of a child who they feel has been sexually assaulted or abused (even though parental consent is not required for actual treatment). This applies only when the healthworkers do not believe the abuse to have been perpetrated by the parents themselves.
There’s no question about it: keeping parents in the dark is, all other things being equal, not a good thing. Unfortunately, when it comes to the things their kids get up to, many already are in near total darkness. Legislatures across the country have come to the conclusion that some minors who are compelled to involve their parents in these sorts of healthcare decisions would turn away from both family and the health workers, seeking refuge in the advice of their ill-informed friends and the million contradictory voices of the Internet. Did it even occur to you that in an America without these minority consent laws, our hypothetical abuser might have even greater success concealing his activities because his victim (who might have otherwise presented for the treatment of an STD, management of an early pregnancy or simply to access contraceptives) would be less likely to come to the attention of a concerned healthcare professional?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
But Raven, if protecting children is really the goal, if abuse is such a problem that the child will go untreated, the very people who now take over the parental role could call the authorities and seek state protection. Instead, in the name of preventing abuse, or in the name of making sure the child receives care, they push the parents out of their rightful place. And this is just part of what is going on in this regard.
June 27th, 2011 | 8:04 am
Indeed, fearing a parent’s judgment, a child could avoid treatment and risk their life. But, what if a child uses this law and goes for treatment behind his parents’ backs, and the treatment fails. Then the parents will have lost a child, and there would have been others involved, all keeping it from the parents. It simply does not matter what the arguments, one cannot override a parent’s right to decide for a child, unless that decision itself jeopardizes the child. What we should always be doing is ensuring the parents are learning to make the right decisions for their children, not teaching children to grow up and become parents who expect not to be involved.
HistoryWriter Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 6:13 am
@Conor,
If the treatment fails, what difference does it make whether the parents knew about it in the first place? No, the purpose of these so-called parental consent requirements is not to help children; it’s to intimidate them with the equivalent of “we’ll tell your mommy on you.”
HW
June 27th, 2011 | 3:16 pm
We speak of ethics and parental control. The problem is how it jives with reality.
To simplify things, and in example, I was raised in a good Christian home. But my parents didn’t — couldn’t — (or so I thought) understand me. So eventually I met a boy, fell in love and one thing led to another. Did I talk to my parents about my “coming of age?” No. Then I moved away, met another boy and again fell in love. And again one thing led to another and a couple of years later wouldn’t you know I find myself with child out of wedlock (I should mention to a man I am married to, albeit two years after our first child was born).
Upon reflection (and now being in the position of parent myself) my parents did everything right. However, it wasn’t entirely, or even remotely, up to them. So herein lies the dilemma: if your child won’t talk to you for whatever reason (family dynamics, stubborn/rebellious child etc) where do they go when they make some bad decisions (of which none of us are immune) and need help? There has to be a second option, whether it be extended family (our hope), friends, or even the state in one form or another (teacher, doctor etc).
Now as a parent I want to know the inner and outer happenings of my children. But entering the stage of being a parent to a teenager, I can already see the challenge ahead. We have always been open with them and encourage them to be open with us, but we know this won’t necessarily always be the case.
So you can preach abstinence and morality and all of that to your children, but that doesn’t stop the problem that arises that the more we do this, there is a possibility that divergences from these teachings will have the ill effect of creating a barrier as to what the child will be willing to divulge for fear of punishment, humiliation or simply because they don’t think parents understand what they are going through (regardless of what you, the parents, say).
Now, I don’t want my child to visit the doctor without me or be treated for anything without my consent etc…but I would rather that someone knowledgeable and responsible be there for them when I cannot be (and this is, again, not necessarily up to me). So in the end, all I can say is that I am torn on this issue.
That said, abortion should necessarily require parental consent, considering what is at stake. Though in terms of desired outcomes, I personally know of situations where parents were consulted and abortion was actually an option preferred by the parents in order to “save” their children from the effects of their poor decisions, so this too is less than a guarantee against it. Better would be that we educate kids that the result of sex (contraception or not) can likely be a unique and beautiful human being, and only when you feel responsible enough to take on the task of raising a totally independent person (potentially on your own), should you be engaging in such activities. Yeah, it can be fun, but it is not without consequences, be it life-long and life-endangering STD’s or pregnancy, so that “being ready” literally means being ready for all that might potentially come with it.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:07 pm
Big of you to think they “ought” to be involved. Unless, of course, it stands athwart the reigning sensibilities. So, strangers get to decide what children do, and exclude parents as a means of harm prevention.
If the parents are harming the children, then the people intervening have a moral obligation to rescue the child from ALL contact with that parent.
Blake Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
@Blake,
If the parents are harming the children, then the people intervening have a moral obligation to rescue the child from ALL contact with that parent.
Oh, and there should be a burden of proof involved.
And state-ordered visitation rights (supervised if necessary).
If you are really concerned about those awful people hurting the child, why are you neglecting your moral duty? Get out there and PROVE that those kids need to be taken away from their parents!
June 29th, 2011 | 1:37 pm
Now, I don’t want my child to visit the doctor without me or be treated for anything without my consent etc…but I would rather that someone knowledgeable and responsible be there for them when I cannot be (and this is, again, not necessarily up to me). So in the end, all I can say is that I am torn on this issue.
It’s really very simple.
If the relationship is so bad that the parents cannot take care of the child, the child needs to be emancipated – or given foster parents.
What’s so hard about that?
(I’ll tell you what’s so hard about that: the people who are so devoted to criticizing and meddling are not interested in doing the real work necessary to solving the problem. They just want to separate rights from responsibilities – rights for me, responsibilities for you. That’s just how they roll.)
Raven Chukwu Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
@Blake, The questions facing lawmakers are simple ones: Will insisting that parents be informed before treatment of a child’s STD commences have adverse effects on public health? Would these adverse effects be serious enough to warrant creation of these legal exceptions? Every state legislature in America has answered these questions in the affirmative.
Your problem here is that you’re thinking of individual cases without broadening the analysis to include the broader penumbra of actors who may be affect by your proposed policies:
Child A presents at a clinic with an STD. We ought to inform his parents, you feel (and this is an understandable sentiment). If the parent-child relationship is so damaged that this disclosure would not be in the child’s interest then we ought to take steps to either remedy this or remove the child from his unhealthy or unsupportive home environment.
The problem with this (otherwise acceptable) line of thought is that it ignores the effect our policy would have on other children who hear about how we treated Child A. How many would be willing to turn up for testing or treatment if they came to believe that this would lead either to (1) their parents being informed or (2) the heavy handed intrusion of the state into their private family lives?
You write that “they just want to separate rights from responsibilities”. First of all, I’m not sure who your “they” is meant to refer to. These laws, as I have repeatedly pointed out, have been passed in every single state, even those with solidly conservative state legislatures. There is a widely understood pragmatic basis for these recommendations which has nothing to do with ideology.
Secondly, I think you have become so used to parroting your formula that you have begun to forget what it means. It seems clear to me that when a child is granted the individual “right” to make certain healthcare decisions, there is an acknowledgement of the fact that she (rather than her parents or the state) bears the responsibility for the actions which have led her to that point, and for their consequences.
[Rights in general, of course, are not always accompanied by corresponding responsibilities for the rights-holder. A "right to life" is not accompanied by a responsibility to live ones life in a certain way, neither does a "right to be free from unreasonable searches" lead to any responsibilities for its bearer.
The "Rights for X, Responsibilities for Y" formula is, in some circumstances, what one would expect. When individuals are granted a right to life, liberty or access to certain standards of healthcare or education, this saddles the state, and not the individuals themselves, with corresponding responsibilities.]
July 7th, 2011 | 5:41 pm
The fundamental idiocy here is this notion that society should be making laws to accommodate children having sex. Let’s start undoing these laws, rules, and reg-s that insulate children from poor choices – choices that, being children, they’re not even entitled to make. The reality of course is that 12 year olds don’t even want to be having sex – they may doing it because of (a likely false) perception that everyone is doing it or because they are coerced or manipulated into it. The kind thing for grown-ups to do for them is to back them up in saying No, not “make California safe for child-sex”.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact