|
One difference between Britain and US: no "right to know" required for abortions
|
View this Thread in Original format
| HardTranceProd |
While America is gradually restricting abortion rights and most Americans believe that under-16-yr-olds must inform their parents, Britain has affirmed that under-16-yr-olds are NOT required to inform their parents if they don't want to, because their lack of confidentiality might lead to disaster.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/child...1692999,00.html |
|
|
| Shakka |
But are those ramifications any of the government's business? I'm not sure I think it's a good idea. Just because something "might" or "might not" happen as a result doesn't make it legal or smart on the government's part.
I guess a flip side of this coin is that it gives minors carte blanche to go out and have all of the unprotected sex they want without having to worry about telling their parents when they truly have a crisis on their hands. Is this a good thing? Why are parents painted to be the bogeyman in all of this when a minor is clearly facing consequences of their indiscretions? IMO, this could backfire in more ways than one.
Furthermore, this decision does nothing to promote more responsible behavior on the part of kids. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I guess a flip side of this coin is that it gives minors carte blanche to go out and have all of the unprotected sex they want without having to worry about telling their parents when they truly have a crisis on their hands. |
Yeah, bet there are a lot of kids that would consider not having unprotected sex if they had to tell their parents if they got pregnant! Get real man :p |
|
|
| Chris Larkin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I guess a flip side of this coin is that it gives minors carte blanche to go out and have all of the unprotected sex they want without having to worry about telling their parents when they truly have a crisis on their hands. Is this a good thing? Why are parents painted to be the bogeyman in all of this when a minor is clearly facing consequences of their indiscretions? IMO, this could backfire in more ways than one.
Furthermore, this decision does nothing to promote more responsible behavior on the part of kids. |
I'm not sure you've entirely understood the way this is seen over here. This is really a case on the idea of patient confidentiality. If you go to a doctor, then you have the certainty that they will not tell anyone else at all, without your permission. With under 16s, things are more tricky because the parent is the legal guardian of the child. What today's case was re-affirming is that an under 16 still has confidentiality over abortions, as with all other cases of consulting medical staff.
I think it's a good decision. Children who have good relationships with parents will still tell them, and those who don't will not face any repercussions they might fear. Therefore, they are more likely to seek help from medical professionals who can help them. It's the same with contraception (although today's ruling did not cover that) - young people can be more confident in seeking advice if they know parents will not find out and disapprove.
It isn't about responsibility on the child's part, it's about relationships between parent and child.
For some more public opinion, try HERE. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chris Larkin
I'm not sure you've entirely understood the way this is seen over here. This is really a case on the idea of patient confidentiality. If you go to a doctor, then you have the certainty that they will not tell anyone else at all, without your permission. With under 16s, things are more tricky because the parent is the legal guardian of the child. What today's case was re-affirming is that an under 16 still has confidentiality over abortions, as with all other cases of consulting medical staff. |
Well I didn't read the article in its entirety, but that's essentially what I thought it meant.
| quote: | | Children who have good relationships with parents will still tell them, and those who don't will not face any repercussions they might fear. Therefore, they are more likely to seek help from medical professionals who can help them. It's the same with contraception (although today's ruling did not cover that) - young people can be more confident in seeking advice if they know parents will not find out and disapprove. |
But is that any of the government's business? i.e. being able to get in between a parent and their own child, for whom they are the legal guardian to? IMO, no.
| quote: | | It isn't about responsibility on the child's part, it's about relationships between parent and child. |
Indeed. The child was likely quite irresponsible if they got pregnant at 16 in the first place. |
|
|
| josh4 |
the battle wasn't over if the parent has a right to know the child had an abortion
it was over if the parent has a right to know if the child is being advised about getting an abortion
| quote: | | The mother of two teenage daughters today lost her high court battle for parents' "right to know" whether girls under the age of 16 were being advised on obtaining an abortion. |
this is why its good to follow etiquette and quote the article |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
But is that any of the government's business? i.e. being able to get in between a parent and their own child, for whom they are the legal guardian to? IMO, no.
|
This argument could be used to disprove your own viewpoint. Since it's not the government's business, it shouldn't make any restrictions. Right? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
the battle wasn't over if the parent has a right to know the child had an abortion
it was over if the parent has a right to know if the child is being advised about getting an abortion
this is why its good to follow etiquette and quote the article |
Thanks for pointing out the subtle, yet important difference.
Do you stay up at night practicing your "emoticon faces"? I must admit, I'm getting a kick out of them. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
This argument could be used to disprove your own viewpoint. Since it's not the government's business, it shouldn't make any restrictions. Right? |
Agreed, they shouldn't. But if they're going to open that Pandora's Box to begin with, you know where I stand!;) |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Thanks for pointing out the subtle, yet important difference.
Do you stay up at night practicing your "emoticon faces"? I must admit, I'm getting a kick out of them. |
nah the talent is innate |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
nah the talent is innate |
A face only a mother could love...:p
You gonna use shoe polish for this one?:toothless |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
A face only a mother could love...:p |
yeah, your mom last tuesday
| quote: | | You gonna use shoe polish for this one?:toothless |
some of them cant be done or im too lazy to try |
|
|
|
|
