Schools Helping Kids Get Secret Abortions?

[PsychoSerenity]

Just because a teen might be afraid of the massive lecture they are going to get from their parents for falling pregnant while still at school doesn't mean they should have the right to keep something of this importance from their parents.

Sorry just to be clear, are you saying that a teen doesn't have the right to keep something secret from their parents?

[pErvinalia]

Just because a teen might be afraid of the massive lecture they are going to get from their parents for falling pregnant while still at school doesn't mean they should have the right to keep something of this importance from their parents.

Sorry just to be clear, are you saying that a teen doesn't have the right to keep something secret from their parents?

Ok, I should have been more precise. A teen has the right to keep anything they want from their parents. Whether they should or shouldn't is another matter. But when a parent entrusts a school to care for their child during the day, the school shouldn't have the right to arrange serious medical procedures without the parents knowledge and consent.

[Seth]

A school counselor is not an on-site psychologist.

Nor are they gynecological physicians with any qualifications to counsel children on the pros and cons of abortion, including the grave physical and psychological harm that may result.

They should stick to education and career counseling and leave the medical counseling to medical professionals.

[Seth]

Just because a teen might be afraid of the massive lecture they are going to get from their parents for falling pregnant while still at school doesn't mean they should have the right to keep something of this importance from their parents.

Sorry just to be clear, are you saying that a teen doesn't have the right to keep something secret from their parents?

Ok, I should have been more precise. A teen has the right to keep anything they want from their parents. Whether they should or shouldn't is another matter. But when a parent entrusts a school to care for their child during the day, the school shouldn't have the right to arrange serious medical procedures without the parents knowledge and consent.

I disagree in part. While a teen is the legal ward of his/her parents, that teen's rights are not absolute or as broad as those of an adult, and the teen does NOT have a right to keep secrets from the parents, who are legally responsible and legally liable for their welfare and behavior.

The parent who fails to recognize the signs of drug addiction or serious illness and fails to obtain proper care and treatment of the youth is legally liable and can be sent to jail for child abuse and neglect for failing to take action. That dominant status in the parent-child relationship removes any right that the child might have to keep secrets from the parent.

Only if the child is legally emancipated and is fully responsible for their own life are the parents absolved of legal liability. And so long as they bear legal liability, the child has no right to privacy at all, particularly not when it comes to important and dangerous medical procedures or conditions.

The axiom "so long as you are living under my roof, you'll obey my rules" is perfectly apt here.

[pErvinalia]

I think we more or less agree. But I don't think a teen has a legal obligation to tell their parents everything, do they? A teen can't be taken to court and found guilty for not answering a question their parents ask them. Even if the teen was witness to a murder say, they still have no obligation to tell their parents. They have a legal obligation to tell the police/prosecutors, but not their parents, surely?

[Cunt]

I think deciding to undergo an abortion or deliver a child is an adult decision. If someone is making it, about their own body, I think it is well worthwhile to leave it in their hands. Even to the point of legislating parental consent out of the equation.

Coito, who should decide whether you may evict someone from your body?

I'm prochoice. I haven't said a 16 year old ought not have the choice to get an abortion.

So if she can choose abortion, and asked her attending physician to keep it secret, why do you think he should be required to tell anyone? She is 16, and that means (at least in my country) that she can move out on her own, get a job, have consensual sex in the missionary position and take birth control measures without asking ANYONE for permission. In this real world, why on earth should she have to tell her folks that she had a D&C?

-o-o-o-o-o-o-

A school counselor is not an on-site psychologist.

Nor are they gynecological physicians with any qualifications to counsel children on the pros and cons of abortion, including the grave physical and psychological harm that may result.

They should stick to education and career counseling and leave the medical counseling to medical professionals.

Sorry, I didn't read the article, Seth. Did the counselor reach up her cunt and scrape the uterus out? Or did he leave the medical procedure (and counseling if the doc thought it warranted) to the doctor?

-o-o-o-o-o-o-

It would seem to me that the parents have the welfare of the child most at heart.

It would seem that way if you lived in a dream world. Many parents do not have the welfare of the child in mind. As an example, some parents only have a child so that they can be ON welfare.
Remember, this is reality, Coito ergo sum.

If that's not the case, then we ought to reconsider whether people are allowed to be parents.

It's not the case, and I have often considered that thorny question.

If some dopey school counselor can be said to have a child's best interest at heart more than the child's own parents, that would be odd indeed. And, I fail to see how informing the parents of their child's medical condition can be assumed to not be in the best interest of the child.

It would be breaching the confidentiality of the child. Why make the (low-level) counselor do it? Why not lay the responsibility on the doctor?

However, failing to fully apprise parents of medical issues associated with the child may wind up causing the parents to make medical decisions based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge. A doctor might ask, "has the child undergone any surgeries or medical procedures," and the parent may check a box on the form "no" and not disclose that an abortion occurred, and may not know of complications that arose. The parent has the legal duty to make medical decisions for the child, or at least counsel and participate in the child's medical care.

Yup. I would presume that the doc performing the procedure on a minor who refused to include their parents would know whether to advise the patient of that risk.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-

I agree with both of you ... but that doesn't account for the double standard wrt how teens are treated in matters of lesser concern. Granted, matters of lesser concern (decisions about school sport, excursions, etc) are not the main issue raised in this thread, but it's a real double standard, nonetheless, and therefore a very relevant consideration. In fact, I think it ties in to how society considers young people generally, and the freedom of society, including parents, to manipulate (maintain control of) young people on the one hand, while agonising over the rights of the individual on the other.

I have always looked at it that kids, like any oppressed minority, have to free themselves. I think if a kid is old enough to ask for medical help outside of their parents influence, they are old enough to get it. Why make it more complicated?

-o-o-o-o-o-o-

[pErvinalia]

It would seem to me that the parents have the welfare of the child most at heart.

It would seem that way if you lived in a dream world. Many parents do not have the welfare of the child in mind. As an example, some parents only have a child so that they can be ON welfare.
Remember, this is reality, Coito ergo sum.

Eh?!? I'm sorry, but that's not reality. Maybe in FundyLand, but not in the vast majority of cases. Parents do care about their kids. Some are misguided in that caring, but most do care about their kids. To default to the position that the parents are evil ogres who will force the kid to have a child is cynical at best.

[Cunt]

It would seem to me that the parents have the welfare of the child most at heart.

It would seem that way if you lived in a dream world. Many parents do not have the welfare of the child in mind. As an example, some parents only have a child so that they can be ON welfare.
Remember, this is reality, Coito ergo sum.

Eh?!? I'm sorry, but that's not reality. Maybe in FundyLand, but not in the vast majority of cases. Parents do care about their kids. Some are misguided in that caring, but most do care about their kids. To default to the position that the parents are evil ogres who will force the kid to have a child is cynical at best.

Sorry, but I live in reality, with warts and everything. There are MANY kinds of parents. I am not defaulting to the 'parents are evil' position, but acknowledging the reality of it. If you have good parents in charge of this kid, very little harm was done. If the parents WERE 'evil', then MUCH harm (such as the girl being forced to go through with it - YES this happens) could be done.

[charlou]

It would seem to me that the parents have the welfare of the child most at heart.

It would seem that way if you lived in a dream world. Many parents do not have the welfare of the child in mind. As an example, some parents only have a child so that they can be ON welfare.
Remember, this is reality, Coito ergo sum.

Eh?!? I'm sorry, but that's not reality. Maybe in FundyLand, but not in the vast majority of cases. Parents do care about their kids. Some are misguided in that caring, but most do care about their kids. To default to the position that the parents are evil ogres who will force the kid to have a child is cynical at best.

Sorry, but I live in reality, with warts and everything. There are MANY kinds of parents. I am not defaulting to the 'parents are evil' position, but acknowledging the reality of it. If you have good parents in charge of this kid, very little harm was done. If the parents WERE 'evil', then MUCH harm (such as the girl being forced to go through with it - YES this happens) could be done.

Yep. There are as many unique family dynamics as there are families. It's naive to think that all parents are going to be supportive and/or 'do what is right' for their child. Many parents are struggling with or incapable of managing their own lives, let alone that of children. In any case, pragmatism is part of the ethical consideration.

Just because a teen might be afraid of the massive lecture they are going to get from their parents for falling pregnant while still at school doesn't mean they should have the right to keep something of this importance from their parents.

Sorry just to be clear, are you saying that a teen doesn't have the right to keep something secret from their parents?

Ok, I should have been more precise. A teen has the right to keep anything they want from their parents. Whether they should or shouldn't is another matter. But when a parent entrusts a school to care for their child during the day, the school shouldn't have the right to arrange serious medical procedures without the parents knowledge and consent.

I may have misunderstood, but from what I gathered from the article, the school did not 'arrange' anything. The school provides a counselling service for students, and the counsellor has given some pregnant students, who wanted it, information about abortion. After that, the students have done the 'legwork' so to speak ... contacted the clinic, arranged appointment, showed up for procedure, etc. IOW, the students involved take the decision and responsibility for acting on it upon themselves.



There's another aspect to this that's niggling at me and it's not a small niggle ... the concern about accusations of sex crime (statutory rape, as some people call it) being a motivator for keeping pregnancy and abortion secret. If this concern is a major contributing factor for secrecy, it certainly should be looked at and addressed realistically. If teens feel that they can't be open about their real life issues because the law will give one or both of them a hard time, there's something very wrong with the law ... and if teens feel they can't be open with their parents about sexuality, what does that say about the culture they're raised in? Let's face it, sex is part of growing up. People are sexual beings, nascent to begin with, moving into experimental and enthusiastic ... This must be acknowledged so people can be more open about any problems arising from the consequences of sex.

[charlou]

I agree with both of you ... but that doesn't account for the double standard wrt how teens are treated in matters of lesser concern. Granted, matters of lesser concern (decisions about school sport, excursions, etc) are not the main issue raised in this thread, but it's a real double standard, nonetheless, and therefore a very relevant consideration. In fact, I think it ties in to how society considers young people generally, and the freedom of society, including parents, to manipulate (maintain control of) young people on the one hand, while agonising over the rights of the individual on the other.

I wouldn't say it's double standard, just that in each case they are protecting against the worst possible outcomes, and the standards change depending on the potential effect on the welfare of the child. The more serious an issue it is, the more weight is given to the child's welfare, and the less weight to the will of the parent.

With school trips or whatever, ideally a child capable of deciding for themselves would get a say, but the school is forced to ask parents for permission because if something went wrong, with the culture we have, some parents might try and sue the school - and the consequences of a parent denying a child the chance to go on a school trip is unlikely to ruin the life of the child. - Whereas if the parent wanted to do something that would have a serious negative impact on the child's well-being e.g. deny the child any education at all, then that wouldn't be allowed (I hope? and I must admit I'm not sure how the home-schooling thing works either) and the same goes for medical issues. If the child decides they want things dealt with confidentially, they have to protect against the worst-case-scenario of abusive parents.

Some people might not like it that parents are only allowed parental freedom in the more trivial matters, but if you take it to extremes I think it becomes obvious why. Parents can choose what clothes to dress their children in. Parents cannot chose which of their children's limbs to eat for dinner.

Again ideally, parental control should be reduced gradually over a number of years as teens grow up, but in serious circumstances their welfare comes first.

Re the part I've bolded in red ... interesting point, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I think it fits in with the general conflict in determining the best ethical course to take wrt rights and responsibilities of parents and 'minors'.

[nellikin]

What gets me is that the people here who are opposed to the counsellor being obliged to tell the parents/the parents' right to know about sex/abortion, are somehow being treated as if they think all parents are "evil" (whatever that is) and all children would cover something up to their parents. I do not think this is the case at all. I actually believe that most children would probably disclose a pregnancy to a parent and ask for help. But if a child feels the need to not disclose it, then perhaps there are very good reasons for it and that decision has to be respected. BTWE - a 16 year-old has the right to have sex at least over here (unless you're a gay male) - parents are no longer legal guardians of this domain of their lives and don't have the right to have a say in it. So why should the parents be seen as legal guardians of the outcomes of that sexual behaviour?

[charlou]

I actually believe that most children would probably disclose a pregnancy to a parent and ask for help. But if a child feels the need to not disclose it, then perhaps there are very good reasons for it

I agree. I also agree with Coito's point that the reasons for not wanting to include the parents may seem very good to the child, but may not be the reality ... ie, that the child's idea of how the parents will react may be mistaken ... and with cunt's point that not all parents are capable of acting in the best interests of their child ... and also with the view that many parents think they're acting in the best interests of their child, while completely overriding the autonomy of the child wrt matters of his/her own body and future.

I don't think anyone here believes all parents are 'evil' (why did the word evil come into this, anyway?). From what I can tell from the discussion so far, the main trains of participants' opinion are (1) parents are interested in their child's welfare and should be entitled to be involved in all aspects of knowledge and decision making wrt their child's lives, and (2) children are entitled to privacy and confidentiality, and to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies (decisions about their lives, in general, such as school activities, are in some kind of parallel conflict with this).

[Hermit]

There's another aspect to this that's niggling at me and it's not a small niggle ... the concern about accusations of sex crime (statutory rape, as some people call it) being a motivator for keeping pregnancy and abortion secret. If this concern is a major contributing factor for secrecy, it certainly should be looked at and addressed realistically. If teens feel that they can't be open about their real life issues because the law will give one or both of them a hard time, there's something very wrong with the law ... and if teens feel they can't be open with their parents about sexuality, what does that say about the culture they're raised in? Let's face it, sex is part of growing up. People are sexual beings, nascent to begin with, moving into experimental and enthusiastic ... This must be acknowledged so people can be more open about any problems arising from the consequences of sex.

That's a whole new way of looking at the issue. Like others, the conflict between parents' right to know and children's right to confidentiality with counsellors had me stumped, but what if sex (and its consequences - in this case pregnancy) had no greater potential for fear of moral condemnation ("not my daughter!") than, say, school excursions, would there even be a perceived need by pregnant girls to keep knowledge of their pregnancy from their parents? That fear seems to be the greatest motivation for secrecy, and as a number of other posters have anecdotally confirmed, it is by no means limited to school children either.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think deciding to undergo an abortion or deliver a child is an adult decision. If someone is making it, about their own body, I think it is well worthwhile to leave it in their hands. Even to the point of legislating parental consent out of the equation.

Coito, who should decide whether you may evict someone from your body?

I'm prochoice. I haven't said a 16 year old ought not have the choice to get an abortion.

So if she can choose abortion, and asked her attending physician to keep it secret, why do you think he should be required to tell anyone? She is 16, and that means (at least in my country) that she can move out on her own, get a job, have consensual sex in the missionary position and take birth control measures without asking ANYONE for permission. In this real world, why on earth should she have to tell her folks that she had a D&C?

The article was not just about 16 year olds. 13 and 14 year olds were also mentioned.

I'm not talking about what she should do. But, counselors and medical professionals should involve the parents and/or legal guardians in any medical decision of a minor who is their responsibility.

If some dopey school counselor can be said to have a child's best interest at heart more than the child's own parents, that would be odd indeed. And, I fail to see how informing the parents of their child's medical condition can be assumed to not be in the best interest of the child.

It would be breaching the confidentiality of the child. Why make the (low-level) counselor do it? Why not lay the responsibility on the doctor?[/quote]

They both should. It's not a breach of confidentiality, it's an exception. Third parties aren't to be told, but parents/legal guardians of an unemancipated minor ought to be told, IMHO.

[

However, failing to fully apprise parents of medical issues associated with the child may wind up causing the parents to make medical decisions based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge. A doctor might ask, "has the child undergone any surgeries or medical procedures," and the parent may check a box on the form "no" and not disclose that an abortion occurred, and may not know of complications that arose. The parent has the legal duty to make medical decisions for the child, or at least counsel and participate in the child's medical care.

Yup. I would presume that the doc performing the procedure on a minor who refused to include their parents would know whether to advise the patient of that risk.

13 to 16 year olds are not adults, they're minors, and they aren't able to understand the risks as well as adults. That is the whole reason they are considered minors and parents are considered legal guardians in the first place.

[
I have always looked at it that kids, like any oppressed minority, have to free themselves. I think if a kid is old enough to ask for medical help outside of their parents influence, they are old enough to get it. Why make it more complicated?

-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Because just because you're old enough to ask for something, doesn't mean you're old enough to make mature decisions about it. I could ask for a pack of cigarettes when I was 6, did that mean I was old enough to judge whether to start smoking?

[nellikin]

So Coito, do you think parents should be asked before their 16-year old children have sex?