New pattern of responsibility

[Eamonn 61]

BSA24

I'm not really sure what your saying?

I was born at a time and place where whacking kids was seen as being acceptable.

My Irish Catholic parents and teachers, school masters seemed to take spare the rod and spoil the child to heart.

To this day, I'm never sure if I'm a good person? Or just a person who fears the consequences of my actions?

I'm really happy that we no longer live in the dark ages.

I believe that people who hit their kids need help, but before we can help the parents we need to take care of the child. - Most times that entails removing the child from the danger that he or she is facing.

In my book anyone hitting or harming anyone else is just plain wrong.

Someone hitting someone who can't hit back (A child!) Is even more wrong.

So you bet were I to see anyone smack their kid across the face. I'd step in and report what happened to the authorities. That kid needs to be saved from harm and that parent needs help.

Thanks to my job, I've met and talked with a fair number of child molesters. I don't by any means consider myself an expert.

Molesters come in all colors, sizes and walks of life.

I have only ever met one who said he seen an opportunity to molest a child and took the opportunity. (The child was nine years old and in a body cast, the molester worked in the hospital.)

The others had a relationship with the child, mostly they were related or they built up a relationship over time with the child.

I'd be far more suspicious of an adult who seemed to want to spend a lot of time with a kid than the guy who needs to go for a pee when there are kids in the rest-room. Of course if it seems that he is there every time that kids are there? I'd see the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

Many of us are guilty of not obeying every law all the time.

Most of us are aware of what we are doing and when we are doing it.

On my way to work at 04:00 I set my cruise control at 70 MPH. I know and I'm aware that 65 is the posted limit. Coming home when there is a lot more cars on the road I set it at 60.

When I have kids in the car I set it at 55.

Each of us decides what we think is acceptable or maybe we think about the consequences?

Ea.

[packsaddle 753]

Eamonn, you are a good person. Of that I have complete confidence.

[AZMike 173]

So, DeanRx, let's say you are working in a free clinic that offers abortion services. Your hypothetical 13 year old girl now appears as a patient to you asking for an abortion. She is accompanied by a 29-year old male that she tells you is her "boyfriend," and who is the biological father of the fetus. The boyfriend is a little surly and doesn't talk to you much, but tells you they don't have any money to pay for medical services. You saw them pull into the parking lot of your clinic in an 2012 Escalade, and he is dressed in expensive sport clothes. She treats the male with elaborate deference. You examine the girl and find no signs of physical abuse, but she has a tattoo on her back with a man's nickname surrounded by dollar signs. She exhibits a hypervigilant response when questioned and states she has trouble sleeping, as well as other symptoms of PTSD. You ask the girl who the name is on the tattoo, and she tells you that is the nickname for her boyfriend, out in the waiting room. You look at the medical form she filled out and see that she has been treated twice for STDs.

 

Now, you know that all these factors indicate she is being prostituted by the 29 year old, who is her pimp (if you don't recognize that, go talk to your nearest S.A.N.E. qualified nurse-examiner), who wants to dispose of the baby so he can go on prostituting her. You may not see any signs of the "physical" abuse to which you referred, but you know, and the law states, that a 13 year old cannot give lawful consent to a sex act with a 29 year old, or to anyone else. Medical confidentiality does not apply in this case, and as there is a hearsay exemption for statements made to a medical professional, you can offer testimony against her pimp in court. If you do not intervene and contact the police, yes, she will receive an abortion, not have an unwanted pregnancy, and go on her way, but she will continue to be sexually molested and exploited, both by the pimp and numerous johns, until someone else intervenes or she is killed or ages out.

 

Would you report this?

 

If you are the man I think you are, of course you would.

 

Why does Planned Parenthood fail to do so when this happens? Is protecting the right to a confidential abortion of more importance that the life and safety of a child who is being sexually exploited by an adult?(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[WasE61 23]

"To this day, I'm never sure if I'm a good person?"

 

In a similar vein, I once told someone that I'm certain that I'm not a good parent because I always question my decisions...even the trivial ones.

 

His response was that the fact that you question yourself so closely says that you far better parent than most.

 

 

[acco40 95]

Priests hear confessions, psychologist hear patients deepest secrets, medical professionals are privy to the records of minors. So, with confidentiality laws, HIPAA, etc. the answer is not black and white.

 

Fifty years ago, the issue of medical treatment of minor children under the age of 18 would never have been considered controversial. At that time, parental consent was required for almost any type of medical treatment, as it was required for any other situation involving children. Minors were simply not considered competent to make medical decisions.

 

However, the past 50 years have witnessed a gradual expansion of the rights of minors, and health care has been no exception. Minors who previously had no medical rights now found themselves in the position of making decisions about the most intimate medical procedures.

 

But the area of medical treatment of minors is still controversial, especially as it relates to certain procedures and conditions such as ABORTION and sexually transmitted diseases. Many states grant minors broad leeway to determine the course of their medical treatment, and others grant them very few rights. There is little agreement by either medical professionals or state lawmakers as to how far minor rights should go regarding medical treatment.

 

What is at issue in the debate over minor rights to medical treatment is a tension between the parental responsibilities toward the child, the immaturity and vulnerability of children, and the child's right to be emancipated from the decision of the parent. This tension has produced a patchwork of laws and makes it difficult to make any overriding statements about minor and parental rights in regard to medical treatment.

 

Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have laws that explicitly give minors the authority to consent to contraceptive services, and twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia specifically allow pregnant minors to the obtain prenatal care and delivery services without parental consent or notification.

 

Probably the most controversial area of family planning and minors is abortion. Two statesConnecticut and Maines well as the District of Columbia have laws that give minors the right to obtain abortions on their own. In contrast, 31 states currently have laws restricting minors' rights to obtain abortions by either requiring them to obtain the permission of one or both parents, or to notify one or both of them of the procedure. The rest of the states either have no laws regarding parental consent and notification and abortion or laws that are currently blocked from going into effect by the courts of the state. http://www.enotes.com/healthcare-reference/treatment-minors#confidentiality-medical-records

 

In twenty-five states, the clergyman-communicant statutory privilege does not clearly indicate who holds the privilege. In seventeen states, the penitent's right to hold the privilege is clearly stated. In only six states, both a penitent and a member of the clergy are expressly allowed by the statute to hold the privilege. wikipedia

 

The ethical principle of confidentiality requires that information shared by the client with the therapist in the course of treatment is not shared with others. This is important for the therapeutic alliance, as it promotes an environment of trust. There are important exceptions to confidentiality, namely where it conflicts with the clinician's duty to warn or duty to protect. This includes instances of suicidal behavior or homicidal plans, child abuse, elder abuse and dependent adult abuse. wikipedia

 

So, as with most things "legal" it is as clear as mud.

 

 

[DeanRx 69]

Yeh AZMIke, one of the many reasons I don't work for PP, however, they have their reasons for their policies (not that I agree with them). In your "what if", most if not all reasonable folks would report IF the victim is willing to back up the story.

 

Sorry to rain on your parade, but if the victim is unwilling to report - most folks will help as much as they can and keep their mouth shut. In your "what if" - you could just as easily be sending the poor girl off to an early death at the hands of her pimp once he finds out he's been ratted out.

 

More than likely - this senerio never plays out as you've outlined. WHY take her to PP or any free clinic for an abortion when the pimp can simply BUY Plan B OTC in most states (assuming he's over 18, no Rx needed). He need not be female to purchase and he need not disclose WHO its for. I would think the guy would just keep a supply on hand to dole out to his "girls" as need be.

 

I understand some folk's issues with PP. They do some good and not so good things in the communities they serve. But riddle me this, without them and in your "what if" land... the free clinic wasn't there to give the gal an abortion, then what? She's forced to an underground clinic? forced to have the child into that type of living condition? Not sure the issue is as cut and dried as "PP should not be shielding this molester". I agree they should not. But WHAT is your solution? You rat this couple (term used very loosely) out and you'll never see them again, and word on the street will spread and you'll never see any other girls like her = you are no help to anybody.

 

Its a very fine line to walk and what you are "legally" required to do is very seldom black and white.

 

Dean

[Peregrinator 85]

So you bet were I to see anyone smack their kid across the face. I'd step in and report what happened to the authorities.

 

For what reason?

[Eamonn 61]

Peregrinator,

To answer your question.

I'd report it because I see /think that hitting other people is just plain wrong.

I would hope that I'd do what I could to remove the child from the danger that he or she is facing.

By reporting it I would feel that I had done what was needed.

I don't in any way judge the person who was hitting the child.

I don't know what the authorities might or might not do.

I tend to think that people who hit kids are in need of some kind of help.

Help that I'm not qualified to offer.

When I see a convict hitting another convict. I report it.

Surely I would do the same thing for a kid?

Ea.

[Peregrinator 85]

I'd report it because I see /think that hitting other people is just plain wrong.

 

Always? You don't believe parents have a right to discipline their children, even corporally if they believe it to be necessary?

 

I can think of a few things kids would do that where getting smacked in the mouth would be a just punishment.

[Eagle92 110]

This topic is ironic as one of the hospital associations I get emails from had a link to a newspaper opinion piece by a pediatrician on this same topic. Basically he thinks that parents should be told as it helps the kids accept responsibility for their actions. But he knows he will lose his license if he does.

 

Me personally, my philosophy is this: if I am paying for something, I better know what's going on.

 

A tangent on the topic of medical ethics to scholastics. I personally was rath4er ticked off that when I was paying for college, as well as grad school both times, "to the parents of Eagle92" mail would constantly come to my house. One time I actually sent some mail back saying 'return to sender, addressee unknown" since it was during Katrina and mom was a refugee.

 

I find it kinda interesting that we think the parents should NOT be informed for serious medical stuff when they are paying for medical care via insurance(up to age 26 BTW) and copays, but must be informed when they have nothing to do with something.

 

 

[acco40 95]

I can think of a few things kids would do that where getting smacked in the mouth would be a just punishment.

 

Please enlighten me.

 

And if you feel a parent has that right, why not a Scoutmaster? Teacher? Coach? Grandparent? Stranger?

[Eamonn 61]

"Always? You don't believe parents have a right to discipline their children, even corporally if they believe it to be necessary?"

Yes always.

I don't care what tag you tie to hitting and hurting others. - It's just wrong.

Adults who hit children need help.

Ea.

[DeanRx 69]

I'm in need of some help, I guess... but what kind you're unsure of, and you're not qualified to offer.

 

That's nice - "I know when you are outside my moral boundries". But you will offer no solution to what should be done to correct the infraction?

 

Really, we need to justify WHY corporal punishment is OK for a parent, but not a coach, teacher, or scoutmaster? Its called they are the parent, therefore they have more right and influence over the child. I can be held civilly and criminally liable from my minor's actions, so WHY do I have to justify to some stranger the methods in which I enforce control over said minor? You can't have it both ways.

 

Most reasonable folks know the difference between discipline and outright abuse.

 

Dean

[packsaddle 753]

There was this other kid in school with me. He was a smart ass and got into lots of trouble. I did my share as well. But for some reason, if we both did exactly the same thing, for some reason I'd get a talking too. The other kid on the other hand would get bent over the principal's desk and then the principal would beat him with a 'board of education'. It was clear - the principal didn't like this kid. On one occasion, the kid snickered after the first whack. That was a bad mistake. He left in pain and tears. I vicariously learned that life is...mean. The other kid learned it empirically. Those beatings had little or no positive effect on him as far as I could tell. Years later I saw him in the distance during one of my visits home. From the look of him life really HAD been mean.

[acco40 95]

Dean - If most reasonable folks know the difference between discipline and outright abuse then why the "parents only" rule you and others seem to endorse?

 

If a parent can backhand their child for back talk, why shouldn't I, a "reasonable person" be able to do the same to the same child?(This message has been edited by acco40)