Parental Consent
- Thread starter sk8knight
- Start date
Crazy world...
It is required to have an ID for basic day to day requirements, but it is racist for voting. Sounds like a group wants to cheat...hummm
I was actually looking for a gif of Dr. Cox saying the correct dosage of Tylenol is to put a bunch in your hand and throw them at the patient, whatever lands in his mouth is the correct amount.
It’s the ignorance of society today. Politics ruins everything, instead of a two party system what we really need is the common sense party.
What's your opinion of the no-pill tolerance rule?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/04/no-pill_tolerance_rules.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/04/AR2009040402591.html
I’m generally opposed to all of the zero tolerance rules in schools. Like the rules where kids get expelled for making a gun symbol with their fingers in a non-threatening way or some kid cuts his toast into a gun and they get expelled. The rules are a substitute for actually engaging with the students and finding out what is going on, something we need to do more of, not less.
You’re spinning away from addressing the contradiction in the original post. Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the person performing the abortion be an actual doctor.
Is this a law, or a school policy? My guess is the schools do this to protect themselves from lawsuits.
They are state legislation (links below). The worry about lawsuits doesn't address the contradiction. If the minors were of the age that we trust them to make significant decisions about their own health, such as abortion, without parental consent, then why aren't they trusted to make insignificant decisions about their health, such as taking an Advil that they brought to school themselves? If it were consistent, they would need parental consent in all cases or in none.
https://legislature.vermont.gov/Doc...57/H-0057 As passed by the House Official.pdf
16 V.S.A. § 1387 – Possession and Self Administration of emergency medication http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/16/031/01387
A lot of things in life and law aren't consistent. I mean, we give 18 year olds the ability to sign up to go to war, but don't trust them to drink a beer at a bar while watching a football game. I would say that is pretty inconsistent in how the law looks at the maturity of 18 year olds. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that it is likely to protect the school from lawsuits. And in such a litigious society as ours, I don't really find that to be unreasonable.
Last edited:
Of course it's to reduce the government's exposure to lawsuits. This doesn't change the basic contradiction in values enshrined in the Vermont statutes.
There's a couple of others: minors 12 or over may give informed consent for treatment of alcohol, drug, and STDs and the parent doesn't need to be notified unless there is an overnight hospital stay; and minors may undergo treatment for rape, incest, or sexual abuse without parental consent or notification, although they must be reported to DCF within 24 hours. Children of any age may receive an abortion without parental consent or notification.
Parents need to be able to parent and we need to give them the tools to do so. I find it hard to believe that not informing the parent about treatment for drug issues is making most children's futures better.
Although, I guess you'll notify them when they get sent the bill. Maybe that should be part of the agreement; if you want to treat my kid without my consent, you pay the bill.
I think some of the issue though is that not all parents are good parents. I think it is a tricky situation. In an ideal world, I do think it would be nice if parents had to give consent for their kids to get these types of treatments. But when you bring up situations of abuse, often times the abuse is being done by a parent or close family member. If you make a kid have parental consent for treatment regarding abuse, then how many kids would be unable to get consent because it is one of their parents doing the abuse? That parent obviously isnt going to give consent, and the kid then doesnt get the help he/she needs.
A lot of these types of laws might not make sense on on the surface, but there is typically a reason for them.
Sure, there are horrific parents out there. Most parents are trying to do the best that they can. You're bringing up a fringe case and we're taking a tool away from all parents because a relatively small group are horrible. That's not the way legislation is supposed to work.
As for family abuse, it's not always the dad. It can be an uncle, step-dad, brother, sister, etc. I've heard the stories of the homes my wife has responded where the parent would've made changes if only they'd known. At least with the abuse, they're contacting DCF which should figure out how to deal with the parents. But if there's no report of abuse and the girl gets an abortion, then the abuse can keep going on because no one is telling the parent.
The parents who are doing the best they can typically have children that either don't need this type of help to begin with, or they are comfortable going to their parents first. These laws are in place to help kids who aren't in that situation and whose parents likely wouldn't help them.
A lot of parents are also in denial when there is abuse from a close family member or friend, and also wouldn't report it. These types of laws aren't about the parents, they are to protect the kids, and not all kids have reliable parents they can count on to help them.
If the child is aware enough to get an abortion, my guess is they are aware enough to tell someone about the abuse to get help.
The biggest lobby behind the abortion non-notification is Planned Parenthood. They're not doing it because it's good for the kids, they're doing it because the parents may stop the kids from getting abortions. PP can't have that happen. Unfortunately, PP won't be there in 10, 20, or 30 years when that now-adult is struggling with the decisions they made when they were too young to know better and no one made them go deal with their parents. But their parents will still be there trying to pick up the pieces.
Between talking to LEOs and working with youth in sports and other endeavors, most parents of troubled kids that I have experience with or have heard of are trying to do whatever they can to make a positive difference in their kids lives. I'm not going to go dig up statistics, but I believe there are far more parents trying to be good whose children are having severe issues with the ways of the world than there are straight up terrible parents. We just have to disagree because we have wholly different approaches to dealing with these children.
Which is an issue in and of itself, especially when their is abuse involved. These are tricky issues IMO.
I am not discounting there are a lot of good parents, I am just saying, not all parents are good. These types of laws are in place basically to protect the children whose parents aren't good.
Remember, the abortion lobby in this country is desperate to frame abortion as nothing more than a routine health care procedure. The intent is to eventually have it looked at as nothing more than an extension of normal care, like getting blood work done, a mammogram, etc
This is directly applicable to what you are discussing above.
Similar threads
