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

[ThatRobGuy]

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

So... wanting parental buy-in on big decisions involving minors was a "terrible idea"?

Pretty sure that's always been the status quo, but if it's not...

Perhaps this "new thinking" is why Democrats are having a harder time than they should beating a reality show host with felonies on their record.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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?

As I mentioned in a prior post, mistakes and "margin cases" can happen going in the other direction even under their ideal system as well...so not sure why they use these margin cases as a basis for "see, this is why the law should be structured around our ideal"

Hypothetical:
15 year old goes to a clinic to get some meds for an STD they caught that they don't want their parents to know about, perhaps there's a antibiotic they had an allergic reaction to when they were 3 that their parents remember but they don't, they check "no" on the "are you allergic to any medications" box. That could be a problem.


A non-hypothetical (direct from the NIH):
If it's a minor suffering a mental health episode due to something like schizophrenia, and they're seeking gender affirming care without their parents knowledge, when in fact, it's a symptom of an impending mania episode due to not taking their medication, they deny having any history of mental health issues, and insist the doctors don't notify their parents because "they'll abuse me if they find out"

Cases like that do exist in the NIH case history:
The authors present clear pattern of gender identity variations coinciding solely with psychotic episodes during schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. The authors postulate that gender dysphoria can co-occur with other psychiatric disorders or may correspond only during acute psychosis. The distinction is critical to make to ensure accurate diagnoses regarding whether gender dysphoria is a symptom only during an acute psychotic illness, or if there is a longer-standing concern as to the patient’s gender identity and assignment.

In this case report, the patient will be referred to without using pronouns given fluctuations in pronouns over time. A Hispanic person, assigned male at birth (AMAB), identified as female upon admission. The patient denied any significant or contributing past medical history. The patient had a past psychiatric history of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and presented involuntarily to the psychiatric inpatient unit for bizarre behavior and hallucinations for the past three months. Per the patient’s mother’s report, the patient had been refusing to eat, was easily agitated, and was exhibiting signs of mania, including decreased sleep, and increased sexual behavior. The patient reported medication nonadherence for an unknown amount of time. The patient denied the previous existence of a female identity. Upon admission, the patient presented in masculine clothing and identified as a female, requesting that staff use she/her/hers pronouns.

In this scenario, prompt notification to the parents could alert practitioners to what the actual issue is, and it could be a case where they don't need hormones, they need to be given a dose of their anti-psychotic meds.

In this case referenced by the NIH, the only reason doctors found out that the person was lying about not having contributing past medical history, and in fact, had been involuntarily committed previously, and had been refusing to take their meds, was precisely because they got ahold of the mother who explained the situation to them.

Given that the prevalence of schizophrenia 50 times higher in youths (ages 10-17) who identify as gender nonconforming...the potential concern I laid out above is a completely valid one.

 

[KCfromNC]

So... wanting parental buy-in on big decisions involving minors was a "terrible idea"?

The evidence presented in the OP sure points in that direction.

 

[KCfromNC]

How so? Should a child be able to just go to a clinic for anything and get medical treatment without parental consent?

Sure, why not? Why would anyone support a law which puts children at risk like this?

I mean, if we're asking emotionally charged leading questions rather than discussing why this law was actually passed.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The evidence presented in the OP sure points in that direction.

That's one margin case...which as I noted, we can't broadly legislate based on that.

That's what was referring to before when I said "seatbelt logic"

I'm sure I could find a dozen straggler cases where people were killed/trapped in a burning car by their seatbelts, that's not a compelling case for repealing mandatory seatbelt laws as the margin cases don't negate the fact that the seatbelt laws are a net-good.

 

[BCP1928]

That's one margin case...which as I noted, we can't broadly legislate based on that.

That's what was referring to before when I said "seatbelt logic"

I'm sure I could find a dozen straggler cases where people were killed/trapped in a burning car by their seatbelts, that's not a compelling case for repealing mandatory seatbelt laws as the margin cases don't negate the fact that the seatbelt laws are a net-good.

It might be, if the purpose seat belts served was to protect people from "trans ideology."

 

[essentialsaltes]

We also know that if a kid goes into labor it's also a medical emergency.

Natural childbirth benefits from medical care, but is not an emergency.

 

[Larniavc]

minutes . . . I wouldn't blame the law if you let the child die.

Why not? It would the law’s fault. If you are suggesting a the correct course of action is it ignore the law why not change the law?

 

[rjs330]

So... wanting parental buy-in on big decisions involving minors was a "terrible idea"?

Pretty sure that's always been the status quo, but if it's not...

Perhaps this "new thinking" is why Democrats are having a harder time than they should beating a reality show host with felonies on their record.

I totally agree. Parents have always been involved in those medical decisions. It wasn't until the Democrats decided parents shouldn't be that we started having it codified in law. In my state we have a similar law to Idaho regarding medical consent.

 

[rjs330]

Sure, why not? Why would anyone support a law which puts children at risk like this?

But it didn't put her at risk did it. The law allows for medical intervention when necessary. They didn't leave her out in the parking lot to have the baby on her own. The law provides for cases like this. And anyway this is such an outlier marginal case.

It's pretty obvious you are part of a set of people who desire to remove parental rights.

 

[rjs330]

It might be, if the purpose seat belts served was to protect people from "trans ideology."

Ah and there we have it folks. The real reason they want to remove parental consent for medical treatment.

 

[rjs330]

Natural childbirth benefits from medical care, but is not an emergency.

Okay if it's not then why the whole angst over parental consent?

 

[rjs330]

Why not? It would the law’s fault. If you are suggesting a the correct course of action is it ignore the law why not change the law?

What are you talking about out? The law doesn't allow fir children to die. It expressly defines that in those types of emergencies parental consent isn't necessary.

 

[BCP1928]

Ah and there we have it folks. The real reason they want to remove parental consent for medical treatment.

The real reason is to require that such laws be crafted more carefully such as to not leave medical care providers in any doubt as to what they can and cannot do.

 

[rjs330]

The real reason is to require that such laws be crafted more carefully such as to not leave medical care providers in any doubt as to what they can and cannot do.

So you support a law requiring parental consent for medical treatment?

We can talk about how that should look later. I just want to know if you would support such a thing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Okay if it's not then why the whole angst over parental consent?

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.

In the specific case of pregnancy in the OP, non-emergency medical treatment was warranted, but parental consent for medical treatment was difficult to obtain.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's one margin case...which as I noted, we can't broadly legislate based on that.

Still, good laws occasionally having bad consequences doesn't mean that a law occasionally having bad consequences means this is a good law. That'd be a logical fallacy, plus the nagging issue of not really getting a straight answer of what the point of this law is in the first place.

That's what was referring to before when I said "seatbelt logic"

I'm sure I could find a dozen straggler cases where people were killed/trapped in a burning car by their seatbelts, that's not a compelling case for repealing mandatory seatbelt laws as the margin cases don't negate the fact that the seatbelt laws are a net-good.

That's nice. What's the rationale for this particular law and the obvious metric tons of quantifiable benefits it had provided society? You know, the facts that make it like seat belt laws and not just pandering to made up culture war issues.

 

[KCfromNC]

But it didn't put her at risk did it. The law allows for medical intervention when necessary. They didn't leave her out in the parking lot to have the baby on her own. The law provides for cases like this. And anyway this is such an outlier marginal case.

Everyone see the cascading excuses - it didn't cause harm, well, at least not big enough harm, and by the way, whatever it did is an outlier so let's ignore it.

It's pretty obvious you are part of a set of people who desire to remove parental rights.

Speaking of pretty obvious, posts which attempt to make this about the posters rather than addressing what they wrote are.

 

[rjs330]

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.

In the specific case of pregnancy in the OP, non-emergency medical treatment was warranted, but parental consent for medical treatment was difficult to obtain.

Critics are wrong. Minors should have no expectation of privacy for their medical records. They are just trying to hide things from those who are responsible for them. There should be some court hearing to provide proof that the parent isn't trustworthy. If rhe parent isn't trustworth6 enough to have access to the child's medical records then the parent isn't trustworthy enough to be a parent. The child should be removed and placed in foster care. This is actually all about teens and advocates trying to hide things from the parents.

As for the other stuff, I want evidence that it's hindering evidence collection. Secondly, I'd like to see some evidence that a parent is going to sue rhe pants off a school for giving the kid a bandaid or an ice pack.

We have rhe same law in my state and the schools do just fine. I wonder why? Could it be that the parental fill out a form every year allowing the schools do that?

As you pointed out it was non-emergency in the OP. And even though it was difficult they found the guardian. They did their due diligence.

 

[rjs330]

Still, good laws occasionally having bad consequences doesn't mean that a law occasionally having bad consequences means this is a good law. That'd be a logical fallacy, plus the nagging issue of not really getting a straight answer of what the point of this law is in the first place.

Just as the law having a rare bad consequence doesn't make it a bad law either. I think point is pretty clear. Parents, who are responsible for their children should be involved in medical issues with their kids. It's not that hard to figure out. Before my kid gets medical treatment I want to know what's going on with them.