Schools Helping Kids Get Secret Abortions?

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, have you been talking to Jesus again?

I've you about that before.............

This has nothing to do with Jesus.

Being an atheist doesn't mean one has to be libertine or tow a particular political party line.

[Santa_Claus]

CES, have you been talking to Jesus again?

I've you about that before.............

This has nothing to do with Jesus.

Being an atheist doesn't mean one has to be libertine or tow a particular political party line.

If it walks like a Fundie, quacks like a Fundie - it is a Fundie.

[Seth]

Everybody seems to be missing the point.

Whether a sixteen year old is lawfully able to get an abortion without parental consent or notification is a matter of law. The propriety can be discussed certainly, but what everyone is missing here is the OP, which is about SCHOOLS (school employees actually) assisting students to get abortions.

It may be within a doctor's authority to treat a 16 year old without informing parents, but since when is it lawful or appropriate for SCHOOL OFFICIALS to so deeply interfere with the parent-child relationship by assisting a schoolchild to obtain a medical procedure.

School officials have a duty to the parents in addition to a duty to the student, whereas doctors may have a superior legal duty to their patient alone.

The actual issue is whether or not SCHOOL OFFICIALS should be involved in such things at all, because abortion is not part of the school curriculum in any school I know of.

[Rob]

This article is badly written. It is confusing the counselor with the teachers. I know in my high school they were never the same. Additionally it mentions the pseudonym Helen who makes many claims and then says:

Helen has been too upset to approach the school. "Afterwards I was too wild, and I probably still am."

So if she hasn't talked to the school then how did she receive all this information? It certainly wouldn't be from the her daughter who is afraid to even tell her of an abortion.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, have you been talking to Jesus again?

I've you about that before.............

This has nothing to do with Jesus.

Being an atheist doesn't mean one has to be libertine or tow a particular political party line.

If it walks like a Fundie, quacks like a Fundie - it is a Fundie.

Well, the last thing I've ever been in my life is a "fundie," or even moderately religious.

[Coito ergo sum]

This article is badly written. It is confusing the counselor with the teachers. I know in my high school they were never the same. Additionally it mentions the pseudonym Helen who makes many claims and then says:

Helen has been too upset to approach the school. "Afterwards I was too wild, and I probably still am."

So if she hasn't talked to the school then how did she receive all this information? It certainly wouldn't be from the her daughter who is afraid to even tell her of an abortion.

Or, gasp, the kid might have told school officials she was "afraid" but in reality there was nothing to fear. It's human nature to want to avoid aggravation. If the parents don't find out, there won't ever have to be any conversation about it - nobody can be upset or disappointed - nobody will ever counsel the teen - it'll be over as if it never happened, without consequence.

Just because a teenager says she is afraid that mom and dad might find out doesn't mean mom and dad will do anything inappropriate. Sometimes, kids are afraid that mom and dad will find out precisely because mom and dad will act appropriately - as parents - and not like buddies.

[Rob]

The way I read the article, CES, It seems the school counselor talked with the student, did what was required then referred them to a doctor. According to the guidelines of whatever privacy act they are under it seems they were not required to contact the parents. Most likely the teen did want the parents contacted. At the age of 16, which is the age of consent, do you think they have a right to breach confidentiality of the student?

I don't disagree that teenagers would like to avoid responsibility for their actions and often enlarge the true consequences of facing their parents, but I don't think the counselor should breach confidentiality for this. Do you?

Do you think she has the right to confidentiality about this choice given her age?

[borealis]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Obviously school counsellors have to guarantee confidentiality to any child or teenager who approaches them, otherwise there would be no point in having them, because nobody would approach them.

+1

[Ronja]

Coito and Seth: It's the law in New Zealand - live with it. Alternatively, emigrate to NZ and devote your lives to changing that law.

If the school counselor or school nurse did not help the girl get the treatment she wants and needs (in this case: abortion) they likely would loose their jobs and possibly also their professional licenses, at least for a few years. If they told the parents, they would be against this (quoted from the article linked to in the OP, emphasis mine):

Under section 38 of the Care of Children Act 2004, a female of any age can consent to an abortion. In 2004, then opposition MP Judith Collins put forward an amendment to prevent girls under 16 from having an abortion without their parents' knowledge. The amendment was voted down.

So they have a law in NZ that some RatZ (who are not from NZ, BTW) consider stupid.

So what?

[Coito ergo sum]

The way I read the article, CES, It seems the school counselor talked with the student, did what was required then referred them to a doctor. According to the guidelines of whatever privacy act they are under it seems they were not required to contact the parents.

Yes, of course. In case there was any question, I think the guidelines are bollocks.

Most likely the teen did want the parents contacted.

The teen would not want the parent contacted if she got detention for chewing gum. Of course the teen did not want the parents contacted. Nobody ever wants their parents contacted by the school.

At the age of 16, which is the age of consent, do you think they have a right to breach confidentiality of the student?

At the age of 16 and unemancipated, I think that student/school-counselor confidentiality ought to allow for disclosure to the parent/legal guardian, but not other third parties.

I don't disagree that teenagers would like to avoid responsibility for their actions and often enlarge the true consequences of facing their parents, but I don't think the counselor should breach confidentiality for this. Do you?

Absolutely. I think that the parents should know if school officials learn their child is pregnant, or has impregnated a girl.

Do you think she has the right to confidentiality about this choice given her age?

Yes, but not from her parents. Not an absolute confidentiality. She has legal guardians for a reason -they make legal decisions for her. She can't even go on a school field trip to a museum without a signature from a parent or guardian. She can't even sign up for a frickin' sport without parental permission.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito and Seth: It's the law in New Zealand - live with it. Alternatively, emigrate to NZ and devote your lives to changing that law.

What an insipid, inane comment.

Next time you comment on anything that relates to the US, or some other country outside of Finland, I'll point out your "argument" here.

If the school counselor or school nurse did not help the girl get the treatment she wants and needs (in this case: abortion) they likely would loose their jobs and possibly also their professional licenses, at least for a few years. If they told the parents, they would be against this (quoted from the article linked to in the OP, emphasis mine):

Under section 38 of the Care of Children Act 2004, a female of any age can consent to an abortion. In 2004, then opposition MP Judith Collins put forward an amendment to prevent girls under 16 from having an abortion without their parents' knowledge. The amendment was voted down.

So they have a law in NZ that some RatZ (who are not from NZ, BTW) consider stupid.

So what?

Already explained my position on it. I realize the law says what it says. I'm against it, for the reasons stated.

[Dreamer]

I'm not certain how that relates. Up to a certain age, the sex involved might be statutory rape. The article discusses how school officials hushed it up out of fear the parents might want statutory rape prosecuted. I raised an eyebrow at that, because it sounds like being an accessory after the fact.

No, the article states that the GIRLS were hush-hush because of fear about statutory rape prosecution. Not the school; the girls.

[Ronja]

Coito: in this thread several people have pointed out rational, pragmatic reasons and ethical principles that likely were behind why that amendment in NZ was voted down. Based on your comments, you seem to not accept that those reasons are valid. And then you repeat your view. And repeat your view. And repeat your view. Without ever indicating that you realize that this issue is totally outside your sphere of influence.

That gets a bit stupid (looking like you don't know or care where in the world the news was from, 'cause you have the "right" argument in any case) and a lot repetitive. Hence the reaction.

When I comment on US politics, I hope I make it clear that I know it is not up to me to decide for you. Basic respect for other countries' sovereignty, you know? It does not take many words to express such respect, if only to avoid being mistaken for a pompous know-it-all.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito: in this thread several people have pointed out rational, pragmatic reasons and ethical principles that likely were behind why that amendment in NZ was voted down. Based on your comments, you seem to not accept that those reasons are valid. And then you repeat your view. And repeat your view. And repeat your view. Without ever indicating that you realize that this issue is totally outside your sphere of influence.

Almost every issue we discuss here on these forums is "totally outside our spheres of influence," Ronja.

Yes, I have heard the opposing arguments, and I have responded to them. I haven't just repeated the same thing over and over again. I have responded to the different arguments presented. Why is it wrong that I not "accept that those reasons are valid" but those that opposing me are not chastised that they ought to accept that MY reasons are valid, Ronja? Why are you not excoriating others for "repeating" the "confidentiality" issue over and over?

That gets a bit stupid (looking like you don't know or care where in the world the news was from, 'cause you have the "right" argument in any case) and a lot repetitive. Hence the reaction.

Hence the reaction from you and you alone. The rest of the folks were discussing it pleasantly, and we were having a discussion about the matter in principle. Nobody gets their panties in a bunch when Brits or Fins discuss the goings on in Washington or Los Angeles. Nobody is warned about "spheres of influence" when a relatively local issue in the US is argued and debated by the predominantly European denizens of this website. The fact that the issue is from New Zealand doesn't mean that it's not good fodder for discussion. Do you think New Zealand is the only country where this issue is a concern? Or, do you simply think that only American issues are open to foreign debate, and New Zealand issues are none of anybody's business because it's outside their "spheres of influence."

Debate the issue or don't. Lambasting me for daring to raise the issue because it's from a country other than my own doesn't make any sense.

When I comment on US politics, I hope I make it clear that I know it is not up to me to decide for you. Basic respect for other countries' sovereignty, you know? It does not take many words to express such respect, if only to avoid being mistaken for a pompous know-it-all.

Oh, FFS, Ronja. It's not up to me to decide for New Zealand what they do.

Basic respect for sovereignty? LOL. Discussing a legal issue is an invasion on a nation's SOVEREIGNTY? Give me a break.

You comment with wild abandon about non-Finnish issues all the time and never once have I seen your silly disclaimer, and I certainly don't ever see it from anyone else, and you never raise the issue as if it's a requirement when any other issue is being discussed. Did you do so on the McDonald's threads? Did you do so on the Obamacare threads? Or, the US election threads? No, of course not. You never instructed anyone else that in discussing a legal or moral issue on this forum that one must always evince a "basic respect for other countries' sovereignty," and you've never made such a statement in any discussion about non-Finnish issues on which I've ever seen you comment.

[Rob]

On a side note, CES, what would you say of a household where the parents would kick the teenager out if they decided to get an abortion? Does your ethical guideline dictate that the parents are informed? I know many people, coming from a Mormon background, that would do just that.