Idaho's new law requires parental permission for nearly all health care a minor receives. A 13-year-old’s pregnancy gets caught up in the consequences

[essentialsaltes]

The patient, 36 weeks pregnant, was having mild but frequent contractions. She had come to the emergency room in this small lakeside town because she was new to the area and had no doctor. In most cases, physician Caitlin Gustafson would have begun a pelvic exam to determine whether labor had started. This time, she called the hospital’s lawyers.

Mom-to-be Aleah was only 13 years old. And under a new Idaho law requiring parental consent for nearly all minors’ health care, Gustafson could be sued for treating her because the girl had been brought in by her great-aunt.

What followed were more than two frantic hours of trying to contact Aleah’s mother, who was living in a car, and her grandmother, who was the teen’s legal guardian. The grandmother finally gave verbal consent for the exam — from the Boise-area jail where she was incarcerated on drug charges.

Proponents of the law, which allows for emergency treatment, call it a reasonable step to prevent adolescents from discussing issues such as birth control and gender identity with doctors, counselors and other adults unless their parents are informed first.

Critics say the law — which also grants parents access to minors’ health records, doing away with confidentiality that providers and teen advocates call crucial — ignores the reality that parents aren’t always present or trustworthy. Three months after its implementation, they contend it is hindering adolescents’ ability to access counseling, limiting evidence-collection in sexual assault cases and causing schools to seek parental permission to treat scrapes with ice packs and Band-Aids.

Doctors are concerned that young lives will be put at risk. Crystal Pyrak, board president of the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians, has already heard of several cases. In one, a 17-year-old with a hornet allergy was stung but was unable to get a new epipen from his primary care physician or urgent care because his parents were traveling; by the time he arrived at a hospital, he was in anaphylaxis.

 

[RileyG]

This include life threatening emergencies? Yikes!!!

 

[DaisyDay]

I did read about this. This is one extreme of unintended consequences - unintended but totally foreseeable - of total parental rights over children's rights. One of the most concerning aspects of total parental rights has been the demonizing of teachers who put the students' interests before the parents'.

Sure, we are superb parents who not only know what's best but actually do what's best (or would undoubtedly be if we had children), there are other people who are mentally ill, addicted to drugs, alcohol or gambling, sadistic or simply neglectful.

 

[comana]

I wonder how this backfires with suspected abuse and still needing parental permission.

 

[Desk trauma]

I wonder how this backfires with suspected abuse and still needing parental permission.

How charitable to think covering up abuse is an unintended consequence.

 

[com7fy8]

I would think they could clarify and act according to the originally intented purpose and therefore the rightful interpretation.

And if you were a doctor who was told it is illegal to treat a person in your care who likely will die in a matter of minutes . . . I wouldn't blame the law if you let the child die.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I would think they could clarify and act according to the originally intented purpose and therefore the rightful interpretation.

And if you were a doctor who was told it is illegal to treat a person in your care who likely will die in a matter of minutes . . . I wouldn't blame the law if you let the child die.

If the hospital administration have to obey the law. Then these hospital administration have no choice. But to obey the law. So they don't go to jail.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The patient, 36 weeks pregnant, was having mild but frequent contractions. She had come to the emergency room in this small lakeside town because she was new to the area and had no doctor. In most cases, physician Caitlin Gustafson would have begun a pelvic exam to determine whether labor had started. This time, she called the hospital’s lawyers.

Mom-to-be Aleah was only 13 years old. And under a new Idaho law requiring parental consent for nearly all minors’ health care, Gustafson could be sued for treating her because the girl had been brought in by her great-aunt.

What followed were more than two frantic hours of trying to contact Aleah’s mother, who was living in a car, and her grandmother, who was the teen’s legal guardian. The grandmother finally gave verbal consent for the exam — from the Boise-area jail where she was incarcerated on drug charges.

Proponents of the law, which allows for emergency treatment, call it a reasonable step to prevent adolescents from discussing issues such as birth control and gender identity with doctors, counselors and other adults unless their parents are informed first.

Critics say the law — which also grants parents access to minors’ health records, doing away with confidentiality that providers and teen advocates call crucial — ignores the reality that parents aren’t always present or trustworthy. Three months after its implementation, they contend it is hindering adolescents’ ability to access counseling, limiting evidence-collection in sexual assault cases and causing schools to seek parental permission to treat scrapes with ice packs and Band-Aids.

Doctors are concerned that young lives will be put at risk. Crystal Pyrak, board president of the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians, has already heard of several cases. In one, a 17-year-old with a hornet allergy was stung but was unable to get a new epipen from his primary care physician or urgent care because his parents were traveling; by the time he arrived at a hospital, he was in anaphylaxis.

All the doctor has to demonstrate is a reasonable attempt to get consent, which this doctor can do. It didn't need to take two hours either. Then she can treat the patient.

 

[rambot]

I would think they could clarify and act according to the originally intented purpose and therefore the rightful interpretation.

And if you were a doctor who was told it is illegal to treat a person in your care who likely will die in a matter of minutes . . . I wouldn't blame the law if you let the child die.

Why not?

 

[com7fy8]

I would think they could clarify and act according to the originally intented purpose and therefore the rightful interpretation.

And if you were a doctor who was told it is illegal to treat a person in your care who likely will die in a matter of minutes . . . I wouldn't blame the law if you let the child die.

If the hospital administration have to obey the law. Then these hospital administration have no choice. But to obey the law. So they don't go to jail.

"People" can say something about that, if law says to let someone die because they can't reach the parents. If people understand that their own children could be allowed to die because the parents couldn't be reached . . . I suppose people might be saying "something", by now, if this was a well-known law.

What if your child was almost dead and you could not be reached; how might you handle things if later you were told the doctors and administration were obedient to the law and let your child die?????

 

[com7fy8]

By the way . . . what if an ambulance responds to a child in danger of dying, somewhere, like an innocent bystander who has been shot?

I would understand that there needs to be a line drawn, between emergency situations, and once a child is stable. You do what you can, right while there is enough effort to contact parents.

Or else . . . who made the law????? Do they consider it could be their children or grandchildren who die because of their law??????

One thing, then . . . if parents know there is this law, I suppose they can arrange for their consent to be established, somehow. Plus, maybe make as much effort as you can to keep your children near. But, of course, if the parent in a crash is dead of unconscious and the child needs treatment . . . that can be complicated . . . though you are near.

What is the purpose of the law? I suppose they do not mean to kill kids. So, may be they could make a law that calls for what they really mean.

I suppose they do not mean, "We want kids to die when their parents can't be reached." So, I would suggest writing at least something else.

 

[com7fy8]

I would think they could clarify and act according to the originally intented purpose and therefore the rightful interpretation.

And if you were a doctor who was told it is illegal to treat a person in your care who likely will die in a matter of minutes . . . I wouldn't blame the law if you let the child die.

Why not?

If it was your child . . . would you blame only the law?

There are people who will risk themselves to save someone else's life. They do not risk only going to jail.

So, if you were unreachable and a doctor let your child die because it was required by the law . . . would you only blame the law?

Doctors were required to screen Jews for Hitler, determining who was healthy to work in slavery and who would die. There were doctors who had a conscience, so at least that was very hard for them. Do you blame just Hitler?

Of course, if the doctor goes to jail . . . then he or she is not going to help a lot of people and help to save lives that it is legal to save.

But why would I blame the doctor and not the law? Because the ones who made the law do not have a functional conscience, and I mean if they require that a doctor let a child die because parents can't be reached. And I need to not go along with evil people who would require that.

 

[DaisyDay]

"People" can say something about that, if law says to let someone die because they can't reach the parents. If people understand that their own children could be allowed to die because the parents couldn't be reached . . . I suppose people might be saying "something", by now, if this was a well-known law.

What if your child was almost dead and you could not be reached; how might you handle things if later you were told the doctors and administration were obedient to the law and let your child die?????

The girl giving birth (her guardian on paper was in jail on drug charges, again) wasn't dying but she was not allowed painkillers during birth, either. Hospital admission was delayed but she was admitted once labor had progressed sufficiently to qualify as an emergency.

The hornet-stung boy was not allowed to die, but he did go into anaphylaxis shock before they treated him. So no, they are permitted to save the life, but that's all. Traumatic injuries can be treated without anesthesia which cannot be given without parental permission.

This is analogous to pregnant women in certain states having to be near death to get appropriate care. Hospitals aren't supposed to let them die, but they are supposed to let them get close before intervening. The gray area is how close is too close with foreseeable inevitability being not close enough.

 

[DaisyDay]

All the doctor has to demonstrate is a reasonable attempt to get consent, which this doctor can do. It didn't need to take two hours either. Then she can treat the patient.

Only to save the life of the child. Any further medical treatment is prosecutable. Broken bone? Meh, they'll live, probably.;

If the parent or guardian broke the bone, they still are in charge of treatment while they remain the parent/guardian. They can lose guardianship, but until its lost, they have it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is what can happen when, even if the underlying idea is/was a good idea, the legislations too hastily/vaguely with a "ready, fire, aim" mentality.

I understand what the law was aiming to prevent, but if this level of confusion was present in a medical setting bordering on an emergency, sounds like they needed to tighten up the wording in the laws prior to rushing it through the legislative chambers.

However, I don't think this makes a case for "total medical autonomy for minors" either.

No matter which direction it goes, you'll always be able to point to some outlier scenario that people can leverage to say "see, this is what happens when you do X!"

You can't legislate (in terms of broader public policy) based on the margins and "one in a million" scenarios.


It's what I've called "seatbelt logic". You can always find that one in a million scenario where a person gets killed by their seatbelt who would've survived had they not been wearing it, but that's not a compelling justification for "see, those mandatory seatbelt laws are bad, we need to repeal them"

 

[com7fy8]

having to be near death to get appropriate care

Only to save the life of the child. Any further medical treatment is prosecutable. Broken bone? Meh, they'll live, probably.;

If you hold off on certain treatments, it is possible for the condition to get worse plus not be as able to heal as if it was treated sooner.

So, any delay can be a problem.

In the case of a head injury, for example . . . I think . . . it is possible for the trauma to get worse and more or less more permanent if certain head problems are not taken care of as soon as possible.

If a child drowns in very cold water, while skating, ones have brought cold water drowning victims back; but I suppose it needs to be done as soon as possible. There is a time limit, more or less, I think. And if you delay restoration, I would think more and more permanent damage can set in. So, just getting the person to stay alive but not conscious could help him or her to become a "vegetable".

And children in football can get concussions; that needs to be handled very carefully. I suppose parents can sign a release, if they aren't going to be at a game or the practices.

 

[DaisyDay]

If you hold off on certain treatments, it is possible for the condition to get worse plus not be as able to heal as if it was treated sooner.

Sadly.

So, any delay can be a problem.

Parental rights trump child welfare in some states.

In the case of a head injury, for example . . . I think . . . it is possible for the trauma to get worse and more or less more permanent if certain head problems are not taken care of as soon as possible.

Yeah, but...parental rights.

If a child drowns in very cold water, while skating, ones have brought cold water drowning victims back; but I suppose it needs to be done as soon as possible. There is a time limit, more or less, I think. And if you delay restoration, I would think more and more permanent damage can set in. So, just getting the person to stay alive but not conscious could help him or her to become a "vegetable".

Yes, near freezing temps helps prevent brain damage. I've read that 4 minutes without oxygen in normal temperatures is the limit before damage sets in. That's not much time.

And children in football can get concussions; that needs to be handled very carefully. I suppose parents can sign a release, if they aren't going to be at a game or the practices.

They can sign a waiver for injuries, but for medical treatment of the injuries? I'm not so sure.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is what can happen when, even if the underlying idea is/was a good idea, the legislations too hastily/vaguely with a "ready, fire, aim" mentality.

It can also happen when the underlying idea was terrible to start with.

 

[rjs330]

OK, I read the law. Could rhe legislature have defined things a bit better? I suppose, but I think a fundamental right for a parent is to consent to medical/psychological treatment before its done. And I absolutely think emergencies trump this.

There is NO way to.list every possible medical emergency that might take place. I most certainly believe that doctors can make those determinations of what is a medical emergency and what isn't.

Might they have to defend it? Sure. Good grief they are not infallible. We already have malpractice laws. But we can't treat medical providers as some sort of god that can never be questioned.

We've had these kinds of things in place for ever. We all know that a kids.life is in danger if they are allergic to bee stings. Who in their right mind would say they can't have an epipen because we didn't get permission from the parent for it. If a kid dies becuae you didn't give it to them then you ought to be sued out of your mind. I'm not a doctor, but I know this.

We also know that if a kid goes into labor it's also a medical emergency. You don't need to find parent before you start taking care of the kid so they don't die during delivery.

If some stupid hospital can't figure that out, they shouldn't be in business.

 

[rjs330]

It can also happen when the underlying idea was terrible to start with.

How so? Should a child be able to just go to a clinic for anything and get medical treatment without parental consent? What kinds of treatments should a medical provider need consent of a parent for?