Schools Helping Kids Get Secret Abortions?

[Coito ergo sum]

If my kid chooses to go to a doctor (or any other health care or social services professional, which in Finland includes school counselors) without me, or asks me to wait outside the actual examination/appointment room, I would be outraged if the professional(s) involved would breach her confidence or forcefully question her decision. If she is old enough to manage making the appointment, she is old enough to decide who among her near and dear is welcome into the care process and how.

A gentle "Are you sure?" from the professional(s) at the beginning of the proceedings could IMO be OK, and a thorough talk about all possible sources of support that the kid has or that can be arranged - if the diagnose is serious enough - at the end. However, the thought of anything more forceful than that from the professionals towards the kid patient/client makes me seriously uncomfortable.

Yeah, me too. If my 13, 14, 15 or 16 year old child gets cancer and goes to the doctor, and would rather not say, then that's her business. The doctor shouldn't be able to tell me anything about it, including diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plan, unless and until she signs an express written waiver. Being the minor's legal guardian, responsible for the legal decisions with respect to the minor child is irrelevant.

And, if he or she has a drug problem which she won't tell me about for fear of disappointing me, then whether she goes to a rehab facility without my knowledge really is her business. I may ask nicely where she's off to on a given day, but if she chooses not to tell me and just states that she needs some personal time away, then that's just the way it is. I would wait at home without knowing and respect his or her privacy.

[PsychoSerenity]

A school counselor is not normally trained in adolescent psychology or in psychotherapy, or to provide general psychological treatment or care to students. Unless New Zealand is very different in this regard, and from my googles I don't think it is, their job is to guide and help children and adolescents to structure their educational programs and determine career or vocational directions.

What you're describing, I know as a "Careers Advisor" - which is something very different to a school counsellor, who is trained in psychotherapy and specifically dealing with issues that young people might be facing.

[Coito ergo sum]

A school counselor is not normally trained in adolescent psychology or in psychotherapy, or to provide general psychological treatment or care to students. Unless New Zealand is very different in this regard, and from my googles I don't think it is, their job is to guide and help children and adolescents to structure their educational programs and determine career or vocational directions.

What you're describing, I know as a "Careers Advisor" - which is something very different to a school counsellor, who is trained in psychotherapy and specifically dealing with issues that young people might be facing.

The article in the OP refers to "Guidance counsellor Helen Bissett" - this is what I understand the "counselor" at the school to be. A counselor of that sort is of the sort I described.

I am extremely doubtful that every high school, or equivalent, has a psychologist on site. A school nurse, yes, but a psychologist? I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[charlou]

A school counselor is not normally trained in adolescent psychology or in psychotherapy, or to provide general psychological treatment or care to students. Unless New Zealand is very different in this regard, and from my googles I don't think it is, their job is to guide and help children and adolescents to structure their educational programs and determine career or vocational directions.

What you're describing, I know as a "Careers Advisor" - which is something very different to a school counsellor, who is trained in psychotherapy and specifically dealing with issues that young people might be facing.

The article in the OP refers to "Guidance counsellor Helen Bissett" - this is what I understand the "counselor" at the school to be. A counselor of that sort is of the sort I described.

I am extremely doubtful that every high school, or equivalent, has a psychologist on site. A school nurse, yes, but a psychologist? I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Side note: In 2006, the Howard government introduced counsellors to schools in Australia* ... of the Christian persuasion ... otherwise known as The National School Chaplaincy.

Upshot: 'Counsellor' can have different meanings and connotations.

* More recently: http://www.deewr.gov.au/ministers/garre ... 90613.aspx

[Coito ergo sum]

But Mr Taylor, the director of a private counselling practice in Auckland, said the Code of Ethics allowed exceptions to client confidentiality in certain circumstances.
"For any counsellor (in the absence of a disclosure of severe parental abuse or abject neglect) to even briefly consider that they hold more authority in a decision for a young person than the young person's own parents is either personally ignorant, or professionally arrogant on behalf of the counsellor- probably both," Mr Taylor said.

"The law currently means that while a parent has to sign a letter for their daughter to go on a school trip to the zoo or to play in the netball team, they are totally excluded from any knowledge or granting of permission for that same child to be put on the pill, have a vaccine, or have a surgical abortion."

http://www.3news.co.nz/Schools-accused- ... t.aspx#top

[Pappa]

"The law currently means that while a parent has to sign a letter for their daughter to go on a school trip to the zoo or to play in the netball team, they are totally excluded from any knowledge or granting of permission for that same child to be put on the pill, have a vaccine, or have a surgical abortion."

I think that's a good thing.

[Coito ergo sum]

"The law currently means that while a parent has to sign a letter for their daughter to go on a school trip to the zoo or to play in the netball team, they are totally excluded from any knowledge or granting of permission for that same child to be put on the pill, have a vaccine, or have a surgical abortion."

I think that's a good thing.

Sounds totally crazy to me.

[charlou]

"The law currently means that while a parent has to sign a letter for their daughter to go on a school trip to the zoo or to play in the netball team, they are totally excluded from any knowledge or granting of permission for that same child to be put on the pill, have a vaccine, or have a surgical abortion."

I think that's a good thing.

Which part?

It does seem an obvious double standard. If a person's considered capable of making their own decision about the latter, then they certainly don't need anyone else deciding whether or not they can participate in the former.

[Pappa]

"The law currently means that while a parent has to sign a letter for their daughter to go on a school trip to the zoo or to play in the netball team, they are totally excluded from any knowledge or granting of permission for that same child to be put on the pill, have a vaccine, or have a surgical abortion."

I think that's a good thing.

Which part?

It does seem an obvious double standard. If a person's considered capable of making their own decision about the latter, then they certainly don't need anyone else deciding whether or not they can participate in the former.

School trips, zoos and netball teams are unlikely to ever negatively effect the rest of someone's life. An unwanted pregnancy could ruin it. Many teens may have parents who wouldn't allow them to have an abortion, or would make then feel unable to admit they want one. I agree that the parents should be told if possible, and that teens shouldn't be encouraged or persuaded to make decisions that aren't theirs by councillors, etc.. But nobody should have the right to insist that somebody else carries a baby to full term against their will (or deny them contraception, vaccines, etc.).

[rachelbean]

"The law currently means that while a parent has to sign a letter for their daughter to go on a school trip to the zoo or to play in the netball team, they are totally excluded from any knowledge or granting of permission for that same child to be put on the pill, have a vaccine, or have a surgical abortion."

I think that's a good thing.

Which part?

It does seem an obvious double standard. If a person's considered capable of making their own decision about the latter, then they certainly don't need anyone else deciding whether or not they can participate in the former.

School trips, zoos and netball teams are unlikely to ever negatively effect the rest of someone's life. An unwanted pregnancy could ruin it. Many teens may have parents who wouldn't allow them to have an abortion, or would make then feel unable to admit they want one. I agree that the parents should be told if possible, and that teens shouldn't be encouraged or persuaded to make decisions that aren't theirs by councillors, etc.. But nobody should have the right to insist that somebody else carries a baby to full term against their will (or deny them contraception, vaccines, etc.).

It reminds me of a conversation I witnessed when my ex's niece was 14, with her mom, about the HPV vaccination. She said that she had read about it and would like to go to the doctor soon and talk about getting it herself. Her mother said unequivocally no and that it had bad side effects. The daughter explained that she understood the possible side effects but believed it was worth the small risk and that it would be HER who had to deal with them, or the possible cervical cancer if she didn't get it. She also explained that it was something she needed to do before she had sex, and that was a reason realistically why she didn't want to wait until after she was 18. Her mom said then it was even more of a reason not to let her get it. Understandably, she got really frustrated, and walked away calling her mom ignorant under her breath.

[charlou]

"The law currently means that while a parent has to sign a letter for their daughter to go on a school trip to the zoo or to play in the netball team, they are totally excluded from any knowledge or granting of permission for that same child to be put on the pill, have a vaccine, or have a surgical abortion."

I think that's a good thing.

Which part?

It does seem an obvious double standard. If a person's considered capable of making their own decision about the latter, then they certainly don't need anyone else deciding whether or not they can participate in the former.

School trips, zoos and netball teams are unlikely to ever negatively effect the rest of someone's life. An unwanted pregnancy could ruin it. Many teens may have parents who wouldn't allow them to have an abortion, or would make then feel unable to admit they want one. I agree that the parents should be told if possible, and that teens shouldn't be encouraged or persuaded to make decisions that aren't theirs by councillors, etc.. But nobody should have the right to insist that somebody else carries a baby to full term against their will (or deny them contraception, vaccines, etc.).

It reminds me of a conversation I witnessed when my ex's niece was 14, with her mom, about the HPV vaccination. She said that she had read about it and would like to go to the doctor soon and talk about getting it herself. Her mother said unequivocally no and that it had bad side effects. The daughter explained that she understood the possible side effects but believed it was worth the small risk and that it would be HER who had to deal with them, or the possible cervical cancer if she didn't get it. She also explained that it was something she needed to do before she had sex, and that was a reason realistically why she didn't want to wait until after she was 18. Her mom said then it was even more of a reason not to let her get it. Understandably, she got really frustrated, and walked away calling her mom ignorant under her breath.

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

"The law currently means that while a parent has to sign a letter for their daughter to go on a school trip to the zoo or to play in the netball team, they are totally excluded from any knowledge or granting of permission for that same child to be put on the pill, have a vaccine, or have a surgical abortion."

I think that's a good thing.

Which part?

It does seem an obvious double standard. If a person's considered capable of making their own decision about the latter, then they certainly don't need anyone else deciding whether or not they can participate in the former.

School trips, zoos and netball teams are unlikely to ever negatively effect the rest of someone's life. An unwanted pregnancy could ruin it.

That would appear to me to be all the more reason to involve parental guidance in the decision. The importance of the decision, I would argue, militates in favor of parental involvement. Irrelevant things that have little bearing on a child's life or future would seem to be things more in line with unrestricted childhood decisionmaking. That's why we let 15 year olds decide what clothes to wear, but we don't let them decide to drive.

Many teens may have parents who wouldn't allow them to have an abortion, or would make then feel unable to admit they want one.

Many teens have parents who would be supportive and provide guidance, consultation, education, advice and the benefit of experience coupled with legitimate care and concern, and a vested interest in the child's best interest.

I agree that the parents should be told if possible,

Oh, well, then we agree.

and that teens shouldn't be encouraged or persuaded to make decisions that aren't theirs by councillors, etc.

...and we agree again.

. But nobody should have the right to insist that somebody else carries a baby to full term against their will (or deny them contraception, vaccines, etc.).

And, we agree again.

[PsychoSerenity]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Not in this issue. All we're talking about is whether a counselor can affirmatively act relative to the child without informing the parents. It would seem to me that the parents have the welfare of the child most at heart. If that's not the case, then we ought to reconsider whether people are allowed to be parents. 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.

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.

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.

[pErvinalia]

"The law currently means that while a parent has to sign a letter for their daughter to go on a school trip to the zoo or to play in the netball team, they are totally excluded from any knowledge or granting of permission for that same child to be put on the pill, have a vaccine, or have a surgical abortion."

I think that's a good thing.

Which part?

It does seem an obvious double standard. If a person's considered capable of making their own decision about the latter, then they certainly don't need anyone else deciding whether or not they can participate in the former.

School trips, zoos and netball teams are unlikely to ever negatively effect the rest of someone's life. An unwanted pregnancy could ruin it.

That would appear to me to be all the more reason to involve parental guidance in the decision. The importance of the decision, I would argue, militates in favor of parental involvement. Irrelevant things that have little bearing on a child's life or future would seem to be things more in line with unrestricted childhood decisionmaking. That's why we let 15 year olds decide what clothes to wear, but we don't let them decide to drive.

Exactly!

And this thread seems to be going down the line that most parents are evil ogres who would force their kids to have babies. I don't know about the states (with the religious fundies), but in Australia I suspect most parents would in the end support their daughter in making her own decision about what to do. 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.