Skip to comments.Hospital Tries to Force Mom to Let It Have a Private Talk With Her Daughter About Birth Control
Posted on 06/17/2014 11:07:15 PM PDT by Morgana
A hospital in Michigan is coming under fire from a parents after its staff attempted to take a Mothers daughter and give her a private talk promoting birth control and sexual relations.
The story is coming out on the same day LifeNews is reporting that Justina Pelletier is finally heading home to her parents custody after a lengthy headline-grabbing legal battle with the state of Massachusetts, which took their daughter away from them.
OneNewsNow has the full details on this story, which should come as a warning to parents:
michigan2After running up against an alleged state law that sweeps aside parental rights, a Michigan mom is warning parents about the direction health care is headed in America.
The mother of a 17-year-old daughter was shocked by what she believed to be a foreboding sign of the times when she arrived at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Michigan. Fearing her parental rights had stealthily been swept out from under her, heres what she had to say:
Lets get one thing straight: no doctor or nurse is going to sequester my children in an exam room and talk to them privately. Period.
Parental notice at Mich. hospitalArriving at the doctors office to have her daughters foot checked out for a recent appointment, Christy Duffy came face-to-face with a sign posted on the receptionist window stating that new laws require a nurse to have a short 5-minute private conversation with your child.
I asked if this policy was in effect and if so, how could I opt out, Duffy explained in her blog post. The receptionist told me its a new law and there is no opting out.
Both sides stood their ground.
Working to keep my cool, I said, Im sure there is, Duffy recounted. She said, No there isnt. At which point I asked if I needed to leave and go to the urgent care center because I was not submitting my daughter to such a conversation.
At this hospital, evidently, parental rights were something that simply werent tolerated.
That did not go over well, Duffy explained. The receptionist closed the window Almost immediately the office manager turned the corner and said, Mrs. Duffy, may I speak with you? She said there was a new policy that would allow a child to access his/her medical records online and the child would be allowed to block a parent from viewing the website.
Then the confidential nurse-to-child conversation was addressed.
The nurse would also inform my children that the doctors office is a safe place for them to receive information about STDs, HIV and birth control, Duffy continued. That is what the nurse would be chatting about with my children without any pesky parental oversight.
This message was received with composure, but not compliance.
I kindly informed her that no one would be talking with my children privately, and I needed to know how to opt out of this policy before bringing Amy back for her physical next month, Duffy relayed. By this time, the doctor was ready to see Amy, so I had to cut the conversation short because I was not letting my girl out of my eyesight or earshot
Not when it was clear that these people were angling to undermine my parental authority.
It’s good that this mother is observant, but we are talking about a 17 year old person here, not a 7 year old child. I don’t think they were completely out of line to presume this 7 y/o could speak for themselves w/o Mommy hovering in her helicopter.
If 17 year old “persons” want that level of autonomy they can file for emancipation.
That appears to be the purpose and effect of this Michigan law. If the sign is accurate, it says that a child must submit to private instruction by a nurse of the institution or the child will not be treated. The story says there is no possibility of an "opt out" by the parent.
The constitutional question is obvious, in a world in which the court requires hospitals to treat everybody and sometimes requires people to submit to treatment, may the state require as a condition of that treatment that a child submit to indoctrination? Should the decision turn on what the enabling legislation authorizes or requires by way of indoctrination? Or is it enough simply to say that there is an inherent right in the child and in the parent to be free of brainwashing?
if that child gets pregnant or gets an std as a result of this talk can the parent/child sue the hospital????? Children have been known to ignore advice and proceed with irresponsible action anyway.
No opt out = you have no rights
And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? bring them out to us, that we may know them.
In short they can go to a doctor, get an abortion, get a morning after pill, be treated for STD's and get birth control, all without the parent being alerted, asked for permission, or for that matter even allowed to access their minor kids medical records.
Unless the doctor or a nurse takes a personal legal/civil liability in telling you then you'll never know unless the kid tells you.
Please people don't flame me I'm only explaining this due to some unpleasant experiences I had with a minor who was in my custody. I don't think it is right, I certainly do not agree with it. But that is why they passed the law. The village Idiots have taken the place of parent and that is not aimed at the doctors or nurses. They can have their butts sued off and in these times face possible criminal charges as well.
We’re with the HMO Kaiser Permanente, and on their web site it says that 12 year olds have to give permission for their parents to see their information on their web site. TWELVE. This is outrageous. My kids are 7. Five years is looking very short to me right now. :(
I take it because the states have wrested the care of the child from the parents with respect to the child's right privately to seek and obtain reproductive medical treatment, that now has somehow morphed into a mandatory session with a child while excluding the parent.
I do not concede that the constitutional justification for the first somehow enables the second. In fact, I object to the constitutional justification for the idea that a child can be treated quite apart from the supervision of the parent.
We see this in that dreadful case arising out of Massachusetts General Hospital.
This has been going on for years in Calif.
they also do an automatic dip on the urine(pregnancy test) if a girl say age 10 and up come in complaining of abd pain.
The do you have any guns in the home question likewise has been in play here for many years.
And i don’t like any of it, especially when the parents leave the room so the Dr can question an 11 yr old about their sexual practices
I would guess you aren’t a parent of a teenager. Nobody has private sessions with my kids, period.
“We need to have a talk with your little slut because there is a War on Women”.
Well, that makes perfect medical sense. Obviously the possibility of pregnancy needs to be ruled out.
Having a parent decide to prohibit this test because, "My child can't possibly be pregnant" would be medically, though possibly not legally, unsound.
MSNBC Melissa Harris-Perry:
We have to break through, she urged, our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/09/why_msnbc__the_left_resent_good_parents_117868.html#ixzz34zaTVzAk
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
There is a whole web of laws and regulations, 40 years in the making, to shield the “reproductive rights” of girls to young too consent to intercourse from their parents interference.
This is not about some hospital in Michigan. This is true of every single hospital, clinic, private office, public school, and state health department in the United States.
You are overlooking the central issue.
Just as slavery was a “peculiar institution” (in the sense that any custom, law, rule, or belief had to be modified if necessary to protect slavery), so too are the “reproductive rights” of minor children.
A girl who cannot consent to receive a Tylenol for a headache because she is a minor can consent to general anesthesia and surgery if necessary to procure an abortion. And there are many other examples, of which mandatory “health” counseling is a minor one.
Please see my reply #8
Having worked in hospitals in the past, I’ve seen first hand how it can be with teens, healthcare and parents. I’ve seen several occasions where the teen was sexually active, didn’t want the parents to know, and was having a health crisis as a result of the sexual activity.
I’ve seen parents explode at doctors for even asking if the kid was sexually active, and even when it was explained to the parents that it was merely an effort to isolate the possible cause of the health problem, they still were upset and didn’t want to return to the health care facility if Dr. X was on duty.
It’s understandable that a kid would be embarrassed about a health issue relating to sex since so many educators these days insist that parents shouldn’t be trusted..I’ve seen the manual in print so that point is inarguable with me.
It’s also understandable that a health facility would want to treat problems related to sexual activity since so many of those health issues can be quite deadly. A bladder infection can destroy kidneys!
However, ASKING a parent for those few moments with the kid is respectful of both the parent and the child. Taking a moment with the parent alone to explain and educate is a MUCH better approach than to have a policy such as in the OP.
Some parents DO cherish the ‘intimacy’ of sexually educating their children themselves. As a young girl, I remember those moments with my mom and the bonding which occurred and lasted a lifetime as a result of those talks, and the trust which was built.
And as a parent, I resented the government’s efforts to impose upon me and my child with regard to such private matters. While I was trying to teach my kids to keep their pants on, the schools were teaching them how to deceive me by going behind my back. Thankfully, I paid attention to my kids so when one of them did become pregnant, “I” approached her and all turned out well. AND, that child who was not aborted, became an educator AND has offspring :) Many lives were saved that day.
When a thing is ‘’understandable’’ it doesn’t mean it’s acceptable or agreed with. It simply means taking a moment to look objectively at both sides of the issue to see where people are coming from. Because somewhere in the middle lies a solution.
The most important relationship a kid has are his/her parents. Even when the parents are totally lousy, they are STILL the most important people in that child’s world, for better or for worse. Considering that today’s parents were yesterday’s school kids, it doesn’t make sense that the government would attempt to usurp that relationship. You would think that this generation of parents would be more open to being ‘educated’ about their own kids since they tend to come from such small families themselves and of working parents.
No teacher or school can even hope to take the place of loving parents, nor should they. Doing so is an exercise in poor judgment, faulty philosophy and is not in the best interest of kids. Tearing families apart weakens the entire nation, leading to the hopeless crisis of social ills and financial woes that are entrenched in our country today.
It’s a pattern with a purpose, and not a good purpose.
All very good points. I quite agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.