NationStates Jolt Archive

Internal Liberal party dissent today forced the federal government to delay a proposal to allow parental access to the medical records of children under 16.

Liberal MP Mal Washer, a medical doctor, threatened to cross the floor of parliament and vote with Labor against the Parental Access Bill which Health Minister Tony Abbott hoped to introduce this week.

Mr Abbott said he had decided to delay taking the bill to the Liberal party room for approval so he could discuss it further with his colleagues.

"The Commonwealth government remains strongly committed to the principle of giving parents access to government information about government health services provided to their children under 16," Mr Abbott said in a statement.

"I'm confident that there are ways to provide parental access to government information without damaging doctor-patient confidentiality."

Dr Washer feared the bill would lead to some children not visiting their doctor with serious problems if they thought their parents would find out.

"Tony's proposal to take 15 and 16-year-olds and make their visits to doctors and their medication available to parents on request to the HIC (Health Insurance Commission), has got terrible potential in terms of the fact that children in desperate times, when they should be seeing doctors, may avoid that because of the fear their parents are going to know," Dr Washer told ABC radio.

"Sometimes, at this age-group, children are very emotionally vulnerable and the risk of suicide can be there.

"If kids don't go and see a doctor because of that, then the consequences can be that as sad as a loss of life."

He believed the legislation would stop children taking the first step of visiting their doctor.

"Unfortunately, it's happened to me in the past, when I was a doctor, on more than one occasion," Dr Washer said.

He said he once had a case where he was treating the parents of a friend of his teenaged daughter.

The daughter told the friend to see Dr Washer but the friend feared her parents would then find out her problem.

"Sadly, she never did (visit) and a few days later she shot herself," Dr Washer said.

"I think it's a tragic bill and I think it could cost lives. I don't think there's any winners in this really."

He said he would try to convince Mr Abbott against putting the bill to parliament but, if he did introduce it, Dr Washer would seek a conscience vote.

"Unfortunately, I'm loyal to the party and I don't want to be pushed by the party to have to oppose this bill, but I will have to do that," he said.

Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese said Mr Abbott was trying to impose his moral position on other people in a range of areas.

"I think it's a disgusting thing for the Health Minister to be bringing forward," Mr Albanese told reporters.

"Mal Washer is a decent person; Tony Abbott isn't."

SOURCE.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/15/1087244897191.html

COMMENT.

Tony Abbott, the Howard Government Health Minister is widely known as the "Mad Monk" due to his loony religious convictions.

This is his latest attempt - risking the health and lives of teenagers in order to meet his narrow conservative social agenda.

He should stick to his job, there are enough real issues in the Health portfolio crying out for intervention.

Hopefully, he won't be around much longer.

Hopefully, he won't be around much longer.
Agreed.

He should stick to his job, there are enough real issues in the Health portfolio crying out for intervention.

I'll say.

OH COME ON?

I wouldnt trust an 18 year old to make a compotent desicision, and any good parent has a right to know what their child's state is! Its up to parents to raise their kids, not the government! I mean, its obvious, all he is proposing is allowing parents to check up on their kids more effectively. I find opposition to something as simple as that disgusting!

As for him having a religious agenda, in this case, its really beside that point. And people under 16 shouldnt be sexually active anyhow anyway (duh.) I wouldnt trust an 18 year old to make a compotent desicion about it, and im 17.

Abbott is great person to run the Nazi SS, but not Australia's health system.

OH COME ON?

I wouldnt trust an 18 year old to make a compotent desicision,
Neither would I, so thats why they should see a doctor
and any good parent has a right to know what their child's state is! Any good parent would be more concerned about their child being healthy than knowing what they're doing all the time
Its up to parents to raise their kids, not the government! Wow, thats an original phrase
I mean, its obvious, all he is proposing is allowing parents to check up on their kids more effectively. ExactlyI find opposition to something as simple as that disgusting!I find putting the health of teenagers at risk for no good reason disgusting.

As for him having a religious agenda, in this case, its really beside that point. And people under 16 shouldnt be sexually active anyhow anyway (duh.) Ok, right, but other people live in the real world and think that if people are going to have sex, they should be able to do it safely.I wouldnt trust an 18 year old to make a compotent desicion about it, and im 17.So, you judge yourself uncapable of making decisions, and you still imagine that we'll listen to you and take you seriously? Right.

The liberal party are the right-wing party in Oz, right?

The liberal party are the right-wing party in Oz, right?

Aussie republicans! Notice John Howard's close relationship with Bush?

The liberal party are the right-wing party in Oz, right?

Aussie republicans! Notice John Howard's close relationship with Bush?Well, I'm British, so a fair portion of American politics passes me by, let alone Australian-American politics.

The liberal party are the right-wing party in Oz, right?

liberal=right wing in austalia? what's the party with left wing or centrist ideals then?

The liberal party are the right-wing party in Oz, right?

liberal=right wing in austalia? what's the party with left wing or centrist ideals then?

Labour under Mark Latham.

OH COME ON?

I wouldnt trust an 18 year old to make a compotent desicision,
Neither would I, so thats why they should see a doctor
and any good parent has a right to know what their child's state is! Any good parent would be more concerned about their child being healthy than knowing what they're doing all the time
Its up to parents to raise their kids, not the government! Wow, thats an original phrase
I mean, its obvious, all he is proposing is allowing parents to check up on their kids more effectively. ExactlyI find opposition to something as simple as that disgusting!I find putting the health of teenagers at risk for no good reason disgusting.

As for him having a religious agenda, in this case, its really beside that point. And people under 16 shouldnt be sexually active anyhow anyway (duh.) Ok, right, but other people live in the real world and think that if people are going to have sex, they should be able to do it safely.I wouldnt trust an 18 year old to make a compotent desicion about it, and im 17.So, you judge yourself uncapable of making decisions, and you still imagine that we'll listen to you and take you seriously? Right.

I don't know bout you..but as a parent..your damn right I should be able to have access to all medical information regarding my child..he/she is my child til they are legally of age to make their own decisions..til then those decisions are made by me the parent..not the government..it's not their place to dictate to me what I do and don't know bout my child..First off..if I've raised my child well then their is no need for secrets now is there?..second..even if I haven't..a child's health could hardly be endangered by allowing his/her parents to be fully informed of what is going on in the child they put forth into this world now is there?

Funny how the argument being taken in the article was regarding teenage depression and other mental illnesses, NOT sexually based at all. Teenagers prefer to have matters they want private to be kept private, as in NOT their parents' knowledge. If a teenager has a major problem, most would only talk to a doctor about it if their parents and everyone else except themselves and the doctor in question were kept out of it.

I don't know bout you..but as a parent..your damn right I should be able to have access to all medical information regarding my child..he/she is my child til they are legally of age to make their own decisions..My child. I OWN him. *pout* *sulk*
til then those decisions are made by me the parent..not the government..it's not their place to dictate to me what I do and don't know bout my child..Yeah... kids, what do they need rights for?First off..if I've raised my child well then their is no need for secrets now is there?..second..even if I haven't..a child's health could hardly be endangered by allowing his/her parents to be fully informed of what is going on in the child they put forth into this world now is there?You don't quite grasp the point here I think. Imagine a teenager in a strict religious household suspects they have STD. Now, do you think this person might be discouraged from going to the doctors if they know that their parents might find out? Do you think then that this means that they'll delay going until it gets more serious, possibly quite seriously putting their health at risk, possible infertility in the future from a great number of STDs that don't get treated?

What if a teenage girl has an abortion, against what the parents wishes would be if they knew about it? In certain households, couldn't you actually see her life being put at risk, from potentially abusive parents who feel she did the wrong thing?

Funny how the argument being taken in the article was regarding teenage depression and other mental illnesses, NOT sexually based at all. Teenagers prefer to have matters they want private to be kept private, as in NOT their parents' knowledge. If a teenager has a major problem, most would only talk to a doctor about it if their parents and everyone else except themselves and the doctor in question were kept out of it.

The belief is..a child needs to go to their parents..they bore them..they love them..how hurtful it must be to be a parent and to insinuate that a child does not want to come to their parent..or the belief anyway that a child can not come to his father or mother with a problem...when that child is of age if they wish to see a doctor..that is their responsibility, til then...they are their father's and mother's

Funny how the argument being taken in the article was regarding teenage depression and other mental illnesses, NOT sexually based at all. Teenagers prefer to have matters they want private to be kept private, as in NOT their parents' knowledge. If a teenager has a major problem, most would only talk to a doctor about it if their parents and everyone else except themselves and the doctor in question were kept out of it.

The belief is..a child needs to go to their parents..they bore them..they love them..how hurtful it must be to be a parent and to insinuate that a child does not want to come to their parent..or the belief anyway that a child can not come to his father or mother with a problem...when that child is of age if they wish to see a doctor..that is their responsibility, til then...they are their father's and mother'sI think that you're absolutly right that its sad if a child couldn't come to their parents with a problem, but I think that unequivocally it should be the child's right, and not their obligation to talk to their parents.

Yes, the solution to keeping families together and stopping kids from leaving home and living on the streets is to create more secrecy between parents and their CHILDREN.
As they are the guardians of these children they have a right to know what is happening in their child's life. There are too many social workers and welfare groups assisting children to deceive their parents and helping these children leave home when they should be seeking to reconcile the parents and their child.

Yes, the solution to keeping families together and stopping kids from leaving home and living on the streets is to create more secrecy between parents and their CHILDREN.
As they are the guardians of these children they have a right to know what is happening in their child's life. There are too many social workers and welfare groups assisting children to deceive their parents and helping these children leave home when they should be seeking to reconcile the parents and their child.Yeah, those damn evil social worker bastards, trying to trick kids into leaving home. :lol:

Funny how the argument being taken in the article was regarding teenage depression and other mental illnesses, NOT sexually based at all. Teenagers prefer to have matters they want private to be kept private, as in NOT their parents' knowledge. If a teenager has a major problem, most would only talk to a doctor about it if their parents and everyone else except themselves and the doctor in question were kept out of it.

The belief is..a child needs to go to their parents..they bore them..they love them..how hurtful it must be to be a parent and to insinuate that a child does not want to come to their parent..or the belief anyway that a child can not come to his father or mother with a problem...when that child is of age if they wish to see a doctor..that is their responsibility, til then...they are their father's and mother'sI think that you're absolutly right that its sad if a child couldn't come to their parents with a problem, but I think that unequivocally it should be the child's right, and not their obligation to talk to their parents.

Not an obligation to talk to their parents??...God..what a thing to suggest? You make it out like it's the worst thing in the world for a parent to be able to expect their child to come to them? They bore them, not the government..who is around them more..the government doctor or the child's parent's?

Funny how the argument being taken in the article was regarding teenage depression and other mental illnesses, NOT sexually based at all. Teenagers prefer to have matters they want private to be kept private, as in NOT their parents' knowledge. If a teenager has a major problem, most would only talk to a doctor about it if their parents and everyone else except themselves and the doctor in question were kept out of it.

The belief is..a child needs to go to their parents..they bore them..they love them..how hurtful it must be to be a parent and to insinuate that a child does not want to come to their parent..or the belief anyway that a child can not come to his father or mother with a problem...when that child is of age if they wish to see a doctor..that is their responsibility, til then...they are their father's and mother'sI think that you're absolutly right that its sad if a child couldn't come to their parents with a problem, but I think that unequivocally it should be the child's right, and not their obligation to talk to their parents.

Not an obligation to talk to their parents??...God..what a thing to suggest? You make it out like it's the worst thing in the world for a parent to be able to expect their child to come to them? They bore them, not the government..who is around them more..the government doctor or the child's parent's?Again, expect: Yes. Force: no. How does that help improve child-parent relationships? How does digging into your kid's medical records help you know about them or help them trust you?

Right now I am 16, I do not want this to pass. I have had many problems that if i knew my parents would have found out i would have never done it and who knows what may have happened. In many families say a young person went to their doctor, shrink etc. and confessed homosexuality their family may disown them and that would be very harmful to the child.

Funny how the argument being taken in the article was regarding teenage depression and other mental illnesses, NOT sexually based at all. Teenagers prefer to have matters they want private to be kept private, as in NOT their parents' knowledge. If a teenager has a major problem, most would only talk to a doctor about it if their parents and everyone else except themselves and the doctor in question were kept out of it.

The belief is..a child needs to go to their parents..they bore them..they love them..how hurtful it must be to be a parent and to insinuate that a child does not want to come to their parent..or the belief anyway that a child can not come to his father or mother with a problem...when that child is of age if they wish to see a doctor..that is their responsibility, til then...they are their father's and mother'sI think that you're absolutly right that its sad if a child couldn't come to their parents with a problem, but I think that unequivocally it should be the child's right, and not their obligation to talk to their parents.

Not an obligation to talk to their parents??...God..what a thing to suggest? You make it out like it's the worst thing in the world for a parent to be able to expect their child to come to them? They bore them, not the government..who is around them more..the government doctor or the child's parent's?Again, expect: Yes. Force: no. How does that help improve child-parent relationships? How does digging into your kid's medical records help you know about them or help them trust you?

And keeping them secrets between each other better's a child-parent relationship?

Yes, the solution to keeping families together and stopping kids from leaving home and living on the streets is to create more secrecy between parents and their CHILDREN.
As they are the guardians of these children they have a right to know what is happening in their child's life. There are too many social workers and welfare groups assisting children to deceive their parents and helping these children leave home when they should be seeking to reconcile the parents and their child.Yeah, those damn evil social worker bastards, trying to trick kids into leaving home. :lol:

They don't trick kids into leaving home, they aid and abet them to do so. Instead of trying to open dialogue between the parents and the child they put up a barrier.

Spoffin, ive seen many examples of your nonsense, but frankly, this takes the cake. How delightfully ludicrous! Why do you believe parental intervention will impair the health of the children? I seethe that people would consider enforcing such a seperation. It saddens me to no end.

Any good parent would be more concerned about their child being healthy than knowing what they're doing all the time

What? So, if their child is addicted to herion, or has an STD, or has been made ill due to an embarrasing accident, it isnt the parent's right to know? Do you think they would be healthier if the parents did not know? What lunacy is this? Parents are there to help their children, raise their children, and support their children. Why is it too much to ask that they be allowed to do something so simple?

I find putting the health of teenagers at risk for no good reason disgusting.

Why would you assume such a thing? How does this put them at rick? Do you believe their parents will intentionally aim to harm them? Desire to protect one's offspring is stronger than any oath one can imagine. Of course exceptions exist, but, in most cases, its obviously not true. Doctors, Psychologists, Priests, and Teachers do absolutely not hold the healing power a parent does in cases of emotional or moral shortcoming. People of all types seem to forget this so quickly.

Ok, right, but other people live in the real world and think that if people are going to have sex, they should be able to do it safely.

When did i oppose that? But, if it causes problems, its still the parent's right to know. Besides, there is no such thing as safe sex. Providing the needed protection is all well and good but we should provide children with enough self discipline and knowledge to control such impulses in favor of conciousness.

So, you judge yourself uncapable of making decisions, and you still imagine that we'll listen to you and take you seriously? Right.

Yes, if i was an Australian, you would believe this to be harmful to me! It simply isnt true. My parents have provided loving and determined effort to make me accomplish my goals, and maintain my health and sanity. Asufficiently skilled and informed parent would have ensured the same for another child. We are children, and we need to protection our parents can offer. Its not up to the state to allow us to reject superior parental support. With such a chance i probably would never have even thought of going into higher education. Its not my judgement i want you to trust, i want you to trust the judgement of the loving families of the future-people in question.



Funny how the argument being taken in the article was regarding teenage depression and other mental illnesses, NOT sexually based at all. Teenagers prefer to have matters they want private to be kept private, as in NOT their parents' knowledge. If a teenager has a major problem, most would only talk to a doctor about it if their parents and everyone else except themselves and the doctor in question were kept out of it.

They may prefer it, but its not to their benefit. I would never have been taken to counseling if it was not for my own parent's probing and prodding, and i would probably not have gained their compassion and assistance during my most difficult moments. I saw many children in high school who hid sucessfully and wallowed in their own despair. Couseling from peers and professionals are not useful unless the force that nutured them finds a way to provide some comfort and assistance of their own, however tender it may be. No parent is going to intentionally drive their children to suicide, and incompotence is a poor contributor to such a complicated process as altering someone's very mind to such a dramatic degree. It would be an extreme slip of chance.

Teenagers might prefer that parents do not intervene, but its the wrong choice. And a lot can be helped if they dont get the choice...

Well said, The Class A Cows !

And keeping them secrets between each other better's a child-parent relationship?No, that makes it worse to. So keeping secrets is bad, and forcing the truth out is even worse, so whats left? Honesty?

And keeping them secrets between each other better's a child-parent relationship?No, that makes it worse to. So keeping secrets is bad, and forcing the truth out is even worse, so whats left? Honesty?

No one is forcing anyone...the law is stipulating that parent's are to have access to their children's medical records...and this is forcing how? I don't even know why their should be a legislative aspect here?...It is assumed that I as a parent (I don't know if you are a parent spoffin) should already have access to children's medical history?

What? So, if their child is addicted to herion, or has an STD, or has been made ill due to an embarrasing accident, it isnt the parent's right to know? Do you think they would be healthier if the parents did not know? What lunacy is this? Parents are there to help their children, raise their children, and support their children. Why is it too much to ask that they be allowed to do something so simple?Parents can ask their kids to tell them whatever the hell they like. I do not think that a blanket saying like "parents should always know" is the right thing. Nothing is right for for everyone, so things like this should be decided on an individual basis.

I find putting the health of teenagers at risk for no good reason disgusting.

Why would you assume such a thing? How does this put them at rick? Do you believe their parents will intentionally aim to harm them? Desire to protect one's offspring is stronger than any oath one can imagine. Of course exceptions exist, but, in most cases, its obviously not true. Doctors, Psychologists, Priests, and Teachers do absolutely not hold the healing power a parent does in cases of emotional or moral shortcoming. People of all types seem to forget this so quickly.In 99% of cases you're absolutely right. And in 99% of cases, this issue will never even come up. But there should be something to protect people in the event that it does.

Ok, right, but other people live in the real world and think that if people are going to have sex, they should be able to do it safely.

When did i oppose that? But, if it causes problems, its still the parent's right to know. Besides, there is no such thing as safe sex. Providing the needed protection is all well and good but we should provide children with enough self discipline and knowledge to control such impulses in favor of conciousness.You said that here: As for him having a religious agenda, in this case, its really beside that point. And people under 16 shouldnt be sexually active anyhow anyway (duh.)
They shouldn't be sexually active is what you said. Aside from the fact that you're wrong on that count, (but we'll leave that for another time), if you say that people shouldn't have the ability to go to a doctor in confidence because they shouldn't be sexually active then it sounds an awful lot like you're saying that they shouldn't be having sex, so they shouldn't be having sex safely.

So, you judge yourself uncapable of making decisions, and you still imagine that we'll listen to you and take you seriously? Right.

Yes, if i was an Australian, you would believe this to be harmful to me! It simply isnt true. My parents have provided loving and determined effort to make me accomplish my goals, and maintain my health and sanity. Asufficiently skilled and informed parent would have ensured the same for another child. We are children, and we need to protection our parents can offer. Its not up to the state to allow us to reject superior parental support. With such a chance i probably would never have even thought of going into higher education. Its not my judgement i want you to trust, i want you to trust the judgement of the loving families of the future-people in question.Ok, theres no way that you're actually 17 if you have that kind of attitude :lol: :lol:

Its not up to the state to enfranchise you with rights. That just says it all really.

And keeping them secrets between each other better's a child-parent relationship?No, that makes it worse to. So keeping secrets is bad, and forcing the truth out is even worse, so whats left? Honesty?

No one is forcing anyone...the law is stipulating that parent's are to have access to their children's medical records...and this is forcing how? I don't even know why their should be a legislative aspect here?...It is assumed that I as a parent (I don't know if you are a parent spoffin) should already have access to children's medical history?You say that its a sad case of affairs if the child can't go to the parent with a problem. What I'm saying is that its also a pretty sad case of affairs if the parent can't trust their child enough so they have to force them to tell the truth by getting their medical records.

Funny how the argument being taken in the article was regarding teenage depression and other mental illnesses, NOT sexually based at all. Teenagers prefer to have matters they want private to be kept private, as in NOT their parents' knowledge. If a teenager has a major problem, most would only talk to a doctor about it if their parents and everyone else except themselves and the doctor in question were kept out of it.

They may prefer it, but its not to their benefit. I would never have been taken to counseling if it was not for my own parent's probing and prodding, and i would probably not have gained their compassion and assistance during my most difficult moments. I saw many children in high school who hid sucessfully and wallowed in their own despair. Couseling from peers and professionals are not useful unless the force that nutured them finds a way to provide some comfort and assistance of their own, however tender it may be. No parent is going to intentionally drive their children to suicide, and incompotence is a poor contributor to such a complicated process as altering someone's very mind to such a dramatic degree. It would be an extreme slip of chance.

Teenagers might prefer that parents do not intervene, but its the wrong choice. And a lot can be helped if they dont get the choice...No no no no no. Freedom to choose means freedom to make the wrong choices. Now whos saying that the government should take over control of the kids?

And keeping them secrets between each other better's a child-parent relationship?No, that makes it worse to. So keeping secrets is bad, and forcing the truth out is even worse, so whats left? Honesty?

No one is forcing anyone...the law is stipulating that parent's are to have access to their children's medical records...and this is forcing how? I don't even know why their should be a legislative aspect here?...It is assumed that I as a parent (I don't know if you are a parent spoffin) should already have access to children's medical history?You say that its a sad case of affairs if the child can't go to the parent with a problem. What I'm saying is that its also a pretty sad case of affairs if the parent can't trust their child enough so they have to force them to tell the truth by getting their medical records.

Has nothing to do with trust...in most every decision a child under the age can not be done without parental consent...every decision that makes that child's life go is the responsibility of the parents until they are of age to say differently. No one is forcing anyone..it's my obligation and duty as a parent to be able to make sure my child grows up healthy, why should their medical records be kept a secret from the very people who gave birth to him/her?

Spoffin, ive seen many examples of your nonsense, but frankly, this takes the cake. How delightfully ludicrous! Why do you believe parental intervention will impair the health of the children? I seethe that people would consider enforcing such a seperation. It saddens me to no end.Well I'm glad that I shock and appal you, just tell me one thing though:seetheWhat was this word supposed to be?

Has nothing to do with trust...in most every decision a child under the age can not be done without parental consent...every decision that makes that child's life go is the responsibility of the parents until they are of age to say differently. No one is forcing anyone..it's my obligation and duty as a parent to be able to make sure my child grows up healthy, why should their medical records be kept a secret from the very people who gave birth to him/her?I am quite sure that it will never be an issue in your family, but can you not conceive of circumstances where it might not be in a child or teenager's health interests for their parents to know?

right on, Spoff. i used to work at a free teen clinic, providing confidential services for young people, and i can't even count the number of times that i had teens tell me we were the only place they could turn because of our policy of confidentiality. these were kids who had STDs, or drug problems, or other things they simply wouldn't tell their parents about, and without our service they wouldn't have sought help at all.

i remember one girl who came in to us at 4 months pregnant, suffering from chlamydia. she was in pain and her baby was in danger because she wouldn't go get medical help. and why? because the other clinics would tell her Catholic parents. she was just going to suffer through, putting her health and her baby at serious risk, until a friend told her about us. i also had kids come in with infected needle marks, and they weren't going to get treated at all until they heard there was a place that wouldn't tell their folks.

it is horrible and sad when kids can't talk to their parents, but it happens. sometimes it is just the kid being a rebel, but much more often it is because of the parent...absentee or unreliable parents, abusive parents or step-parents, conservative religious parents who can't seem to understand that authoritarianism simply doesn't work...the list goes on.

i would far rather increase a teen's likelihood of getting help than make sure parents are informed, especially since i have seen all too many cases when the parents do the wrong thing when they ARE informed. we had one girl who's father tracked her down and insisted we stop providing counciling for her about the stillbirth of her baby. he said their family believed she should just pray about it and get over it, despite her desire to continue in group therapy.

parents are NOT infalible, and anybody who thinks a parent will always know best has no business raising a child in the first place. any parent who loves their child would care first and foremost about that child's health and safety, and repeated studies have shown that access to confidential clinics and medical help increases the likelihood that teens will get tested for STDs and pregnancy, as well as the likelihood that teen girls will get pre-natal care if they become pregnant.

if you think it is more important to control your kids and get your way than to keep them safe then i hope you can live with your selfish poor judgment, because your kids might not be able to.

Has nothing to do with trust...in most every decision a child under the age can not be done without parental consent...every decision that makes that child's life go is the responsibility of the parents until they are of age to say differently. No one is forcing anyone..it's my obligation and duty as a parent to be able to make sure my child grows up healthy, why should their medical records be kept a secret from the very people who gave birth to him/her?I am quite sure that it will never be an issue in your family, but can you not conceive of circumstances where it might not be in a child or teenager's health interests for their parents to know?

Frankly...no...

Spoffin is, in my opinion, correct.

Some folks have what appears to be a delusion that parents are always going to be "friends" with their children and vice-versa.

In an ideal world, parents would know everything and children wouldn't be doing anything harmful to themselves, but hey, what planet's THAT going to happen on?

I have (at least) one delinquent sibling, and I, too, think it's sad that she won't open up to mum and dad, but hey, if she ever gets into trouble that she thinks won't be fixed by them, I'd like her to have another option by which problems can be fixed. If she feels that a doctor would be better suited to dealing with her problems, then so be it in my opinion.

In an ideal world prevention is better than cure, but we all know that this isn't what you'd call an ideal world, otherwise cure wouldn't be necessary at all, so, if there's a problem, I'd like it that cure could at least be readily available, without fear of stigma and the idea that, in addition to whatever problems she may be suffering, that she has to fear coming home to punishment and reprimand.

Damn "zero sized reply" message!

I don't know how many of you live in the USA, but I do. As a future parent I am furious that people believe that a parent shouldn't have access to their childs medical records (while they're under eighteen). In the USA a parent is legally responsible for their childs actions until the child is 21! 21YEARS OF AGE! I'm not going to allow a child of mine to do something stupid, hide it, and get me in trouble for it. I say screw the privacy! If a child has something they feel they have to hide from their parents, then that child shouldn't be in that household. Those parents (in the USA, at least) can be held responsible for anything, and everything, that child does... With that in mind, the parent has the RIGHT to know EVERYTHING that their child does.

Although, small side note, if the child has been raised properly (in a properly loving environment) then there shouldn't be a need for this legislation (or a need to "snoop"). If a child has been raised in the proper environment they will be comfortable talking to their parent(s).

Has nothing to do with trust...in most every decision a child under the age can not be done without parental consent...every decision that makes that child's life go is the responsibility of the parents until they are of age to say differently. No one is forcing anyone..it's my obligation and duty as a parent to be able to make sure my child grows up healthy, why should their medical records be kept a secret from the very people who gave birth to him/her?I am quite sure that it will never be an issue in your family, but can you not conceive of circumstances where it might not be in a child or teenager's health interests for their parents to know?

Frankly...no...

well here, let me help you. here's just a few cases i have personally seen:

-a girl, pregnant by her stepfather via sexual abuse, needing help to deal not only with the physical consequences of her condition but also counciling to deal with the circumstances that brought it about. for obvious reasons, the step-father and mother would not allow such intervention.

-a young man with infected track marks who got his fix from his mother, who will beat him if he suggests going to "the authorities" (the hospital), since that might uncover her drug habit.

-13 year old twins who have been sexually abused by their father and both have genital herpes. the father had refused to take them to the doctor for at least 8 months. one of the twins was rendered infertile by the progression of the disease, since it had been untreated for so long.

-a 14 year old Catholic girl who's father broke two of her ribs when he found out she was pregnant, then told her she would "just have to live with it" and denied her medical treatment. she ran away from home and was living in a teen shelter when she was referred to us.

-countless girls facing unplanned pregnancies, who's parents would kick them out of their homes if they found out about it.

that's just off the top of my head, too.

Has nothing to do with trust...in most every decision a child under the age can not be done without parental consent...every decision that makes that child's life go is the responsibility of the parents until they are of age to say differently. No one is forcing anyone..it's my obligation and duty as a parent to be able to make sure my child grows up healthy, why should their medical records be kept a secret from the very people who gave birth to him/her?It's simply a matter of "least harm". If a fifteen year old doesen't feel able to tell her parents that she's pregnant all that will happen if she can't trust doctor confidentiality is that she won't go. And personally I'd rather deal with a case of wounded parental pride then a rise in dangerous backstreet abortions. Bluntly, if your child doesen't feel able to tell you something that major, try looking at home to see why that breakdown of trust and communication has happened, as opposed to groping round for someone else to blame. (For the record, I'm not a parent, but I do work in the 'field).

I don't know how many of you live in the USA, but I do. As a future parent I am furious that people believe that a parent shouldn't have access to their childs medical records (while they're under eighteen). In the USA a parent is legally responsible for their childs actions until the child is 21! 21YEARS OF AGE! I'm not going to allow a child of mine to do something stupid, hide it, and get me in trouble for it. I say screw the privacy! If a child has something they feel they have to hide from their parents, then that child shouldn't be in that household. Those parents (in the USA, at least) can be held responsible for anything, and everything, that child does... With that in mind, the parent has the RIGHT to know EVERYTHING that their child does.


And there, Mana Goddess, you've highlighted quite a different problem altogether. You write "Child do something stupid, hide it, and get me into trouble for it". No WONDER children don't come forward with attitudes like that!
If they feel that they're just going to get yelled at, rather than have you try and help them with their problem, no wonder they don't come forward. (and I don't mean you personally, as much as I mean parents in general, although this, too could be wrong).


Although, small side note, if the child has been raised properly (in a properly loving environment) then there shouldn't be a need for this legislation (or a need to "snoop"). If a child has been raised in the proper environment they will be comfortable talking to their parent(s).

a) Define "proper environment". Society changes and, by proxy, to some
degree, so does environment. Thus the need to "snoop".
b) Comfort between child and parent is, really (and I KNOW that this is
going to sound like a cliche :oops: ) a two-way street.
If you're the sort of parent who yells at their child, of course they won't come forward. You have to create the sort of environment where the child will want to come forward. Otherwise, expect more of the same.

Parents can ask their kids to tell them whatever the hell they like. I do not think that a blanket saying like "parents should always know" is the right thing. Nothing is right for for everyone, so things like this should be decided on an individual basis.

No, people can be made right for things. We can discipline and regiment ourselves, learn to be trustworthy and honorable, if we are made to put in the effort as children. Do you trust yourself and respect your own honor? If not, just having been for a few years under strict and caring judgement of regimented education would have helped build your self control. Having gone from the regimented South African school system to the lax American one was shocking to me and really made me miss the discipline i had as a younger child. I still miss this discipline. However, it should be up to the parents to instill this on an early age, build strong bonds of benevolence and strong morals and rules to create a groundwork on. Children are malleable, and corruptable. They also tend to corrupt themselves.

In 99% of cases you're absolutely right. And in 99% of cases, this issue will never even come up. But there should be something to protect people in the event that it does.

I think that one percent you mentioned is perfectly preventable, if people bothered to relay the groundwork that has been eroded by decades of impure movements which forsaked the fundamental wisdom on which we founded ourselves, and eroded our pride in our heritage and our respect for our patriotic identity. There needs to be some kind of resurgence of the old values soon... modern society needs them now more than ever. I fear soon many things will be missed dearly only after we realize how much we really needed them.

They shouldn't be sexually active is what you said. Aside from the fact that you're wrong on that count, (but we'll leave that for another time), if you say that people shouldn't have the ability to go to a doctor in confidence because they shouldn't be sexually active then it sounds an awful lot like you're saying that they shouldn't be having sex, so they shouldn't be having sex safely.

So, do you believe that they shouldnt go to get cured after an incident that shouldnt have happened due to their parents being able to know? They should have had the courage and self respect to seek solice in their parents afterwords, and ask advice for a new force that lies well beyond their understanding, and will easily addict and taint them. If they do engage in sexual activity, Non-Existant-Diety forbid, they should use protection, obviously. But they should seek the counsel of their parents as well, and their parents should be aware that their child is sexually active and that they need to view their children as such.

Ok, theres no way that you're actually 17 if you have that kind of attitude :lol: :lol:

Its not up to the state to enfranchise you with rights. That just says it all really.

I was born on the twenty-sixth day of the twelth month of the eighty-sixth year of the twenty-first century. That makes me seventeen years, seven months, and 21 days of age. I was born in Pretoria, and i lived there for one year, before moving to Fort Beaufort, a poor town in the Eastern Cape. Later, i moved to Port Elizabeth after time came for me to start the latter part of my education in South Africa. I moved in 1998 to the USA, and am living in Seattle with my parents, attending an advanced placement program at a neaby community college to avoid high school, a truly terrible place. I live with my parents and ive been on many diffrent drugs and have seen many diffrent psychologists. This left me with a deep distrust of drugs and psychologists, and a deep love for my parents. I began to see who was really doing the harm. I am much happier now than i was before, as scarred as i was from the temper tantrums of Ritalin, the faulty ADD treatments, the nausea of Adderal, the depression of Effexor... i must say that pumping my body with poisons and faulty reasoning was nowhere near as good as simply counseling and nuturing me. And, the terrible thing is, two years ago or so, i was totally unaware of this. My parents werent my enemy, even though i saw them as such. I hid a lot from them but they probed and cared, and ended up finding out and helping me when i needed them most. If i could have escaped them easily... who knows what might have happened...

Children cannot properly care for themselves on their own, and it's not up to the doctors to decide for them. It's parent's fundamental right to take care of children, and how can they do so if government decides to interfere?

I'm only 14, and I know that without my parents "interfering" (I'd call it guidence) in my life, I wouldn't be the person that I am today.

Spoffin knows whats up here

if you guys that are fighting so hard against this would just stop and look at the arguments without covering your ears and going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala", maybe you could save yoruself some energy.

not all families are perfect. sometimes kids need to be free of parental tyranny. if you think that this is never the case then you are living in a fantasy land. if you are a good parent then your kid will willingly give up whatever information you need. if you suck as a parent then they won't.

Parents can ask their kids to tell them whatever the hell they like. I do not think that a blanket saying like "parents should always know" is the right thing. Nothing is right for for everyone, so things like this should be decided on an individual basis.

No, people can be made right for things. We can discipline and regiment ourselves, learn to be trustworthy and honorable, if we are made to put in the effort as children. Do you trust yourself and respect your own honor? If not, just having been for a few years under strict and caring judgement of regimented education would have helped build your self control. Having gone from the regimented South African school system to the lax American one was shocking to me and really made me miss the discipline i had as a younger child. I still miss this discipline. However, it should be up to the parents to instill this on an early age, build strong bonds of benevolence and strong morals and rules to create a groundwork on. Children are malleable, and corruptable. They also tend to corrupt themselves.

In 99% of cases you're absolutely right. And in 99% of cases, this issue will never even come up. But there should be something to protect people in the event that it does.

I think that one percent you mentioned is perfectly preventable, if people bothered to relay the groundwork that has been eroded by decades of impure movements which forsaked the fundamental wisdom on which we founded ourselves, and eroded our pride in our heritage and our respect for our patriotic identity. There needs to be some kind of resurgence of the old values soon... modern society needs them now more than ever. I fear soon many things will be missed dearly only after we realize how much we really needed them.

They shouldn't be sexually active is what you said. Aside from the fact that you're wrong on that count, (but we'll leave that for another time), if you say that people shouldn't have the ability to go to a doctor in confidence because they shouldn't be sexually active then it sounds an awful lot like you're saying that they shouldn't be having sex, so they shouldn't be having sex safely.

So, do you believe that they shouldnt go to get cured after an incident that shouldnt have happened due to their parents being able to know? They should have had the courage and self respect to seek solice in their parents afterwords, and ask advice for a new force that lies well beyond their understanding, and will easily addict and taint them. If they do engage in sexual activity, Non-Existant-Diety forbid, they should use protection, obviously. But they should seek the counsel of their parents as well, and their parents should be aware that their child is sexually active and that they need to view their children as such.

Ok, theres no way that you're actually 17 if you have that kind of attitude :lol: :lol:

Its not up to the state to enfranchise you with rights. That just says it all really.

I was born on the twenty-sixth day of the twelth month of the eighty-sixth year of the twenty-first century. That makes me seventeen years, seven months, and 21 days of age. I was born in Pretoria, and i lived there for one year, before moving to Fort Beaufort, a poor town in the Eastern Cape. Later, i moved to Port Elizabeth after time came for me to start the latter part of my education in South Africa. I moved in 1998 to the USA, and am living in Seattle with my parents, attending an advanced placement program at a neaby community college to avoid high school, a truly terrible place. I live with my parents and ive been on many diffrent drugs and have seen many diffrent psychologists. This left me with a deep distrust of drugs and psychologists, and a deep love for my parents. I began to see who was really doing the harm. I am much happier now than i was before, as scarred as i was from the temper tantrums of Ritalin, the faulty ADD treatments, the nausea of Adderal, the depression of Effexor... i must say that pumping my body with poisons and faulty reasoning was nowhere near as good as simply counseling and nuturing me. And, the terrible thing is, two years ago or so, i was totally unaware of this. My parents werent my enemy, even though i saw them as such. I hid a lot from them but they probed and cared, and ended up finding out and helping me when i needed them most. If i could have escaped them easily... who knows what might have happened...

Out friggin standing Cows..well done..well done...you said it all yourself. I am left without a need to elaborate.

right on, Spoff. i used to work at a free teen clinic, providing confidential services for young people, and i can't even count the number of times that i had teens tell me we were the only place they could turn because of our policy of confidentiality. these were kids who had STDs, or drug problems, or other things they simply wouldn't tell their parents about, and without our service they wouldn't have sought help at all.

i remember one girl who came in to us at 4 months pregnant, suffering from chlamydia. she was in pain and her baby was in danger because she wouldn't go get medical help. and why? because the other clinics would tell her Catholic parents. she was just going to suffer through, putting her health and her baby at serious risk, until a friend told her about us. i also had kids come in with infected needle marks, and they weren't going to get treated at all until they heard there was a place that wouldn't tell their folks.

it is horrible and sad when kids can't talk to their parents, but it happens. sometimes it is just the kid being a rebel, but much more often it is because of the parent...absentee or unreliable parents, abusive parents or step-parents, conservative religious parents who can't seem to understand that authoritarianism simply doesn't work...the list goes on.

i would far rather increase a teen's likelihood of getting help than make sure parents are informed, especially since i have seen all too many cases when the parents do the wrong thing when they ARE informed. we had one girl who's father tracked her down and insisted we stop providing counciling for her about the stillbirth of her baby. he said their family believed she should just pray about it and get over it, despite her desire to continue in group therapy.

parents are NOT infalible, and anybody who thinks a parent will always know best has no business raising a child in the first place. any parent who loves their child would care first and foremost about that child's health and safety, and repeated studies have shown that access to confidential clinics and medical help increases the likelihood that teens will get tested for STDs and pregnancy, as well as the likelihood that teen girls will get pre-natal care if they become pregnant.

if you think it is more important to control your kids and get your way than to keep them safe then i hope you can live with your selfish poor judgment, because your kids might not be able to.Oh, Bottle, praise be. As always, the light of reason.

Has nothing to do with trust...in most every decision a child under the age can not be done without parental consent...every decision that makes that child's life go is the responsibility of the parents until they are of age to say differently. No one is forcing anyone..it's my obligation and duty as a parent to be able to make sure my child grows up healthy, why should their medical records be kept a secret from the very people who gave birth to him/her?I am quite sure that it will never be an issue in your family, but can you not conceive of circumstances where it might not be in a child or teenager's health interests for their parents to know?

Frankly...no...

well here, let me help you. here's just a few cases i have personally seen:

-a girl, pregnant by her stepfather via sexual abuse, needing help to deal not only with the physical consequences of her condition but also counciling to deal with the circumstances that brought it about. for obvious reasons, the step-father and mother would not allow such intervention.

-a young man with infected track marks who got his fix from his mother, who will beat him if he suggests going to "the authorities" (the hospital), since that might uncover her drug habit.

-13 year old twins who have been sexually abused by their father and both have genital herpes. the father had refused to take them to the doctor for at least 8 months. one of the twins was rendered infertile by the progression of the disease, since it had been untreated for so long.

-a 14 year old Catholic girl who's father broke two of her ribs when he found out she was pregnant, then told her she would "just have to live with it" and denied her medical treatment. she ran away from home and was living in a teen shelter when she was referred to us.

-countless girls facing unplanned pregnancies, who's parents would kick them out of their homes if they found out about it.

that's just off the top of my head, too.Stories which, if posed merely as theoretical examples, you simply could not believe. These things happen and people suffer and if you think that they don't have a right to keep these traumas to themselves then you are quite frankly insane. Parents don't always love their kids. Children can't always trust their parents.

Although, small side note, if the child has been raised properly (in a properly loving environment) then there shouldn't be a need for this legislation (or a need to "snoop"). If a child has been raised in the proper environment they will be comfortable talking to their parent(s).
Right, so because its all well and fine if the proper environment is in place, then we don't need to look after the people who don't have the luxery of being perfect.

I was born on the twenty-sixth day of the twelth month of the eighty-sixth year of the twenty-first century. That makes me seventeen years, seven months, and 21 days of age.Actually that'd make you -82 years, 3 months and 9 days old by my reckoning :lol: :lol: :lol:

Stories which, if posed merely as theoretical examples, you simply could not believe. These things happen and people suffer and if you think that they don't have a right to keep these traumas to themselves then you are quite frankly insane. Parents don't always love their kids. Children can't always trust their parents.

it's hideous, and it's horrible, but the simple fact is that many people who make babies are not in any way equipped to be parents. their children fight enough odds trying to break free of such a horrid environment, and to think that we would impose laws making it even harder is disgusting. if these kids have the strength and the courage to get away from the mistakes of their parents then they should be helped in any way possible.

Although, small side note, if the child has been raised properly (in a properly loving environment) then there shouldn't be a need for this legislation (or a need to "snoop"). If a child has been raised in the proper environment they will be comfortable talking to their parent(s).
Right, so because its all well and fine if the proper environment is in place, then we don't need to look after the people who don't have the luxery of being perfect.

yeah, what the hell. sure, in "the proper environment" kids don't need confidential services. and exactly how many kids do you think get that? even if it is 99% of kids, that still leaves thousands in dire straights, and my personal experience suggests that no where close to 99% are that lucky.

Parents can ask their kids to tell them whatever the hell they like. I do not think that a blanket saying like "parents should always know" is the right thing. Nothing is right for for everyone, so things like this should be decided on an individual basis.

No, people can be made right for things. We can discipline and regiment ourselves, learn to be trustworthy and honorable, if we are made to put in the effort as children. Do you trust yourself and respect your own honor? If not, just having been for a few years under strict and caring judgement of regimented education would have helped build your self control. Having gone from the regimented South African school system to the lax American one was shocking to me and really made me miss the discipline i had as a younger child. I still miss this discipline. However, it should be up to the parents to instill this on an early age, build strong bonds of benevolence and strong morals and rules to create a groundwork on. Children are malleable, and corruptable. They also tend to corrupt themselves.The South African school system has always been a model example in my eyes( :roll: ), but that aside, I don't doubt that it is the job of parents to raise their children (rendering most of your post irrelevant), but what I'm saying is that sometimes (and this is a point you should easily be able to understand), an individual teen is often *shock* better at deciding whats right for them than the government. They have a better idea how their parents will react, so they have a better idea of what they ought to do.

No, people can be made right for things. We can discipline and regiment ourselves, learn to be trustworthy and honorable, if we are made to put in the effort as children. Do you trust yourself and respect your own honor? If not, just having been for a few years under strict and caring judgement of regimented education would have helped build your self control. Having gone from the regimented South African school system to the lax American one was shocking to me and really made me miss the discipline i had as a younger child. I still miss this discipline. However, it should be up to the parents to instill this on an early age, build strong bonds of benevolence and strong morals and rules to create a groundwork on. Children are malleable, and corruptable. They also tend to corrupt themselves.And if parents don't do this?

I think that one percent you mentioned is perfectly preventable, if people bothered to relay the groundwork that has been eroded by decades of impure movements which forsaked the fundamental wisdom on which we founded ourselves, and eroded our pride in our heritage and our respect for our patriotic identity. There needs to be some kind of resurgence of the old values soon... modern society needs them now more than ever. I fear soon many things will be missed dearly only after we realize how much we really needed them.The same old values that sent twelve year olds up chimneys, put unmarried mothers in asylums and considered beating your wife acceptable. The old days are only good if you ignore a large part of what actually happened. I must admit to a particular mistrust of someone who was brought up in South Africa harbering back to the past.

So, do you believe that they shouldnt go to get cured after an incident that shouldnt have happened due to their parents being able to know? They should have had the courage and self respect to seek solice in their parents afterwords, and ask advice for a new force that lies well beyond their understanding, and will easily addict and taint them. If they do engage in sexual activity, Non-Existant-Diety forbid, they should use protection, obviously. But they should seek the counsel of their parents as well, and their parents should be aware that their child is sexually active and that they need to view their children as such.And if the parents are doing a good job then their children will naturally go to them. If they won't would you rather they went to the doctor and got protection without their parents knowing or had unprotected sex. Because those are the two realistic alternatives. Abstinance just isn't going to happen.

I was born on the twenty-sixth day of the twelth month of the eighty-sixth year of the twenty-first century. That makes me seventeen years, seven months, and 21 days of age. I was born in Pretoria, and i lived there for one year, before moving to Fort Beaufort, a poor town in the Eastern Cape. Later, i moved to Port Elizabeth after time came for me to start the latter part of my education in South Africa. I moved in 1998 to the USA, and am living in Seattle with my parents, attending an advanced placement program at a neaby community college to avoid high school, a truly terrible place. I live with my parents and ive been on many diffrent drugs and have seen many diffrent psychologists. This left me with a deep distrust of drugs and psychologists, and a deep love for my parents. I began to see who was really doing the harm. I am much happier now than i was before, as scarred as i was from the temper tantrums of Ritalin, the faulty ADD treatments, the nausea of Adderal, the depression of Effexor... i must say that pumping my body with poisons and faulty reasoning was nowhere near as good as simply counseling and nuturing me. And, the terrible thing is, two years ago or so, i was totally unaware of this. My parents werent my enemy, even though i saw them as such. I hid a lot from them but they probed and cared, and ended up finding out and helping me when i needed them most. If i could have escaped them easily... who knows what might have happened...If you saw your parents as your enemy, even wrongly, would you have gone anywhere else for help if you'd know they'd have been told?

In 99% of cases you're absolutely right. And in 99% of cases, this issue will never even come up. But there should be something to protect people in the event that it does.

I think that one percent you mentioned is perfectly preventable, if people bothered to relay the groundwork that has been eroded by decades of impure movements which forsaked the fundamental wisdom on which we founded ourselves, and eroded our pride in our heritage and our respect for our patriotic identity. There needs to be some kind of resurgence of the old values soon... modern society needs them now more than ever. I fear soon many things will be missed dearly only after we realize how much we really needed them.Its those damn liberals, erroding our pride and our heritage. :x :x

Take a look at Bottle's examples, and please tell me how having old time values could help these people after (and not before) they're in those situations.

well here, let me help you. here's just a few cases i have personally seen:

-a girl, pregnant by her stepfather via sexual abuse, needing help to deal not only with the physical consequences of her condition but also counciling to deal with the circumstances that brought it about. for obvious reasons, the step-father and mother would not allow such intervention.

-a young man with infected track marks who got his fix from his mother, who will beat him if he suggests going to "the authorities" (the hospital), since that might uncover her drug habit.

-13 year old twins who have been sexually abused by their father and both have genital herpes. the father had refused to take them to the doctor for at least 8 months. one of the twins was rendered infertile by the progression of the disease, since it had been untreated for so long.

-a 14 year old Catholic girl who's father broke two of her ribs when he found out she was pregnant, then told her she would "just have to live with it" and denied her medical treatment. she ran away from home and was living in a teen shelter when she was referred to us.

-countless girls facing unplanned pregnancies, who's parents would kick them out of their homes if they found out about it.

that's just off the top of my head, too. Stories which, if posed merely as theoretical examples, you simply could not believe. These things happen and people suffer and if you think that they don't have a right to keep these traumas to themselves then you are quite frankly insane. Parents don't always love their kids. Children can't always trust their parents.

Spoffin my friend, you're one of the few voices of reason I've seen here.
Everyone else appears to be pandering to some unrealistic pipe-dream.

Now, Cows, hey, I'm all for fixing the world, too. Don't get me wrong.
But fixing the world is not to ignore the actual problems at
hand and hope to varnish over them with aesthetically
pleasing dogma.

Spoffin's absolutely correct when he says it - children can't always trust their parents. The overly religious, the drunken, the abusive, those disappointed in their children if they "err" (if one can use such a term) even SLIGHTLY, the overly-moralistic to the point where it gets in the way of the real. These sorts of parents just cannot be trusted to do a good job in my opinion.

So, naturally, there are certain times that children might need to go to the doctor without the knowledge of their parents.

Besides - what if the parents are the reason that the child wishes to see a doctor, or counselling etc?
What if it's the parents who are beating the children? Or causing the children to suffer? Should the parents really be trusted at that point to know if a child is going to a doctor? In these cases, it's the child who is looking after themselves! The parent IS the problem in this sort of case.

You talk of people being able "to raise themselves/to know honour" etc.
And you want it to be a parent that teaches that. Well, where's the honour going to come from in a family where the parents are abusive and violent?

They shouldn't be sexually active is what you said. Aside from the fact that you're wrong on that count, (but we'll leave that for another time), if you say that people shouldn't have the ability to go to a doctor in confidence because they shouldn't be sexually active then it sounds an awful lot like you're saying that they shouldn't be having sex, so they shouldn't be having sex safely.

So, do you believe that they shouldnt go to get cured after an incident that shouldnt have happened due to their parents being able to know? They should have had the courage and self respect to seek solice in their parents afterwords, and ask advice for a new force that lies well beyond their understanding, and will easily addict and taint them. If they do engage in sexual activity, Non-Existant-Diety forbid, they should use protection, obviously. But they should seek the counsel of their parents as well, and their parents should be aware that their child is sexually active and that they need to view their children as such.And if, in the case of the Catholic schoolgirl mentioned in Bottle's examples, the parent doens't react that well to their child being identified as a sexual being, then what?

In answer to your rhetorical question, no, I think they should get cured, and I think that they shouldn't be afraid or unable to do so because of parents consent/finding out.

Ok, theres no way that you're actually 17 if you have that kind of attitude :lol: :lol:

Its not up to the state to enfranchise you with rights. That just says it all really.

I was born on the twenty-sixth day of the twelth month of the eighty-sixth year of the twenty-first century. That makes me seventeen years, seven months, and 21 days of age. I was born in Pretoria, and i lived there for one year, before moving to Fort Beaufort, a poor town in the Eastern Cape. Later, i moved to Port Elizabeth after time came for me to start the latter part of my education in South Africa. I moved in 1998 to the USA, and am living in Seattle with my parents, attending an advanced placement program at a neaby community college to avoid high school, a truly terrible place. I live with my parents and ive been on many diffrent drugs and have seen many diffrent psychologists. This left me with a deep distrust of drugs and psychologists, and a deep love for my parents. I began to see who was really doing the harm. I am much happier now than i was before, as scarred as i was from the temper tantrums of Ritalin, the faulty ADD treatments, the nausea of Adderal, the depression of Effexor... i must say that pumping my body with poisons and faulty reasoning was nowhere near as good as simply counseling and nuturing me. And, the terrible thing is, two years ago or so, i was totally unaware of this. My parents werent my enemy, even though i saw them as such. I hid a lot from them but they probed and cared, and ended up finding out and helping me when i needed them most. If i could have escaped them easily... who knows what might have happened...Ok, thats good, your parents were able to help you and that would always be the ideal option. But sometimes it is simply not possible. You're seem to be doing pretty well after all that, I don't need to watch out for your rights, for your privacy, for your ability to get the support you need, its other people who need that kind of help

In 99% of cases you're absolutely right. And in 99% of cases, this issue will never even come up. But there should be something to protect people in the event that it does.

I think that one percent you mentioned is perfectly preventable, if people bothered to relay the groundwork that has been eroded by decades of impure movements which forsaked the fundamental wisdom on which we founded ourselves, and eroded our pride in our heritage and our respect for our patriotic identity. There needs to be some kind of resurgence of the old values soon... modern society needs them now more than ever. I fear soon many things will be missed dearly only after we realize how much we really needed them.Its those damn liberals, erroding our pride and our heritage. :x :x

Take a look at Bottle's examples, and please tell me how having old time values could help these people after (and not before) they're in those situations.

seriously! everybody is saying, "these problems wouldn't happen if we had good values and honor and it was like the good ol days!" well, first of all, these problems all existed and were even worse in the good ol days, but setting that aside we should try to stick with REALITY here. it's NOT that way, and it won't be. you can say parents should do this or that, but what about the ones who don't? what about the kids who don't have the perfect, honorable, trustworthy parents being described? what about the approximately 3 million children who are abused in the US every year? should we really just sentence them to their parents' whims?

The South African school system has always been a model example in my eyes( :roll: ), but that aside, I don't doubt that it is the job of parents to raise their children (rendering most of your post irrelevant), but what I'm saying is that sometimes (and this is a point you should easily be able to understand), an individual teen is often *shock* better at deciding whats right for them than the government. They have a better idea how their parents will react, so they have a better idea of what they ought to do.

The conservative European school system that at least was in place there was utopian at best and exemplarary at worst. Most students were conditioned for academic and career sucess to a degree unimaginable here in the USA. But, with the fall of the enclave that used to be in place there its been decaying.

As for deciding, no, they arent. They may know better how their parents will respond than the government, but they are also bound to misunderstand, make mistakes, and overestimate the significance of things. They might also fail to remember that their parents do not aim to harm them. Knowledge does not equate to wisdom.

Knowledge does not equate to wisdom.

neither does age.

well here, let me help you. here's just a few cases i have personally seen:

-a girl, pregnant by her stepfather via sexual abuse, needing help to deal not only with the physical consequences of her condition but also counciling to deal with the circumstances that brought it about. for obvious reasons, the step-father and mother would not allow such intervention.

-a young man with infected track marks who got his fix from his mother, who will beat him if he suggests going to "the authorities" (the hospital), since that might uncover her drug habit.

-13 year old twins who have been sexually abused by their father and both have genital herpes. the father had refused to take them to the doctor for at least 8 months. one of the twins was rendered infertile by the progression of the disease, since it had been untreated for so long.

-a 14 year old Catholic girl who's father broke two of her ribs when he found out she was pregnant, then told her she would "just have to live with it" and denied her medical treatment. she ran away from home and was living in a teen shelter when she was referred to us.

-countless girls facing unplanned pregnancies, who's parents would kick them out of their homes if they found out about it.

that's just off the top of my head, too.

Stories which, if posed merely as theoretical examples, you simply could not believe. These things happen and people suffer and if you think that they don't have a right to keep these traumas to themselves then you are quite frankly insane. Parents don't always love their kids. Children can't always trust their parents.

Spoffin my friend, you're one of the few voices of reason I've seen here.
Everyone else appears to be pandering to some unrealistic pipe-dream.

Now, Cows, hey, I'm all for fixing the world, too. Don't get me wrong.
But fixing the world is not to ignore the actual problems at
hand and hope to varnish over them with aesthetically
pleasing dogma.

Spoffin's absolutely correct when he says it - children can't always trust their parents. The overly religious, the drunken, the abusive, those disappointed in their children if they "err" (if one can use such a term) even SLIGHTLY, the overly-moralistic to the point where it gets in the way of the real. These sorts of parents just cannot be trusted to do a good job in my opinion.

So, naturally, there are certain times that children might need to go to the doctor without the knowledge of their parents.

Besides - what if the parents are the reason that the child wishes to see a doctor, or counselling etc?
What if it's the parents who are beating the children? Or causing the children to suffer? Should the parents really be trusted at that point to know if a child is going to a doctor? In these cases, it's the child who is looking after themselves! The parent IS the problem in this sort of case.

You talk of people being able "to raise themselves/to know honour" etc.
And you want it to be a parent that teaches that. Well, where's the honour going to come from in a family where the parents are abusive and violent?Sorry, I've just corrected your quote there. Otherwise I agree 100% with everything you've said.

The South African school system has always been a model example in my eyes( :roll: ), but that aside, I don't doubt that it is the job of parents to raise their children (rendering most of your post irrelevant), but what I'm saying is that sometimes (and this is a point you should easily be able to understand), an individual teen is often *shock* better at deciding whats right for them than the government. They have a better idea how their parents will react, so they have a better idea of what they ought to do.

The conservative European school system that at least was in place there was utopian at best and exemplarary at worst. Most whitestudents were conditioned for academic and career sucess to a degree unimaginable here in the USA. But, with the fall of the enclave that used to be in place there its been decaying.Forgive me, I added a word in there.

As for deciding, no, they arent. They may know better how their parents will respond than the government, but they are also bound to misunderstand, make mistakes, and overestimate the significance of things. They might also fail to remember that their parents do not aim to harm them. Knowledge does not equate to wisdom.
When the parent from before broke her ribs... he wasn't aiming to hurt her? What, he just has really bad depth perception?

The South African school system has always been a model example in my eyes( :roll: ), but that aside, I don't doubt that it is the job of parents to raise their children (rendering most of your post irrelevant), but what I'm saying is that sometimes (and this is a point you should easily be able to understand), an individual teen is often *shock* better at deciding whats right for them than the government. They have a better idea how their parents will react, so they have a better idea of what they ought to do.

The conservative European school system that at least was in place there was utopian at best and exemplarary at worst. Most students were conditioned for academic and career sucess to a degree unimaginable here in the USA. But, with the fall of the enclave that used to be in place there its been decaying.

As for deciding, no, they arent. They may know better how their parents will respond than the government, but they are also bound to misunderstand, make mistakes, and overestimate the significance of things. They might also fail to remember that their parents do not aim to harm them. Knowledge does not equate to wisdom.

Now, Cows, I'm not sure I entirely agree with you there.

The real issue is "why do children feel the need to have to go around
their parents/circumvent whatever intentions the parents may have?".
Surely this - in itself - suggests some measure of problem?
Granted, some of this will be that "kids are being kids" i.e. messing
around. But this does not cover those instances where parents
are being harmful to the upbringing of their children.

You state that knowledge does not equate to wisdom, and I can tell
you that I've met some parents who surely are not worthy of that
title, and thus not all parents are, per se wise.
In a way, I'm being unfair - some parents aren't the best through
circumstance, rather than intent - but children should have an
outside line of communication with some power who can aid/help
those in true need.

You also state that parents do not aim to harm children.
How can you make such a wide-reaching, generalistic comment?
You cannot speak for all parents in your comment.
I've seen instances of child abuse on the TV where the parents
could only have meant neglect at best, and - for want of a better term -
outright evil at worst.

Forgive me, I added a word in there.

No problem. Your just out of date. By slightly over a decade. Have a nice day.

As for deciding, no, they arent. They may know better how their parents will respond than the government, but they are also bound to misunderstand, make mistakes, and overestimate the significance of things. They might also fail to remember that their parents do not aim to harm them. Knowledge does not equate to wisdom.
When the parent from before broke her ribs... he wasn't aiming to hurt her? What, he just has really bad depth perception?[/quote]

Or was it because he was not conditioned with traditional family values and morality? Because he didnt understand that caution and care was important in the creation and maintainence of a family? Because he was raised by people who did not hold dear the tenets of self control and precise caring?

what seems to be the problem here is that some people don't understand a simple fact of human reproduction: being able to make a baby doesn't make you a parent at heart, but it makes you one by law. any jackass can have a baby, and to imply that parents are infallible or always have good intentions is dangerously naive.

parents are people, no better and no worse.many parents are careless, or cruel, or mentally unstable. just because somebody had sex and produced a child doesn't necessarily make them an authority on anything, least of all an authority on that child. many parents DO hurt their children through intentional actions, though they don't always fully appreciate the consequences of those actions or may even think they are doing good. parents make mistakes, and there is no reason to allow those mistakes to sentence children to untreated medical conditions.

When the parent from before broke her ribs... he wasn't aiming to hurt her? What, he just has really bad depth perception?

Or was it because he was not conditioned with traditional family values and morality? Because he didnt understand that caution and care was important in the creation and maintainence of a family? Because he was raised by people who did not hold dear the tenets of self control and precise caring?

traditional family values ENCOURAGE abuse. tradition values endorse authoritarian child rearing, which has been conclusively proven to be a relatively ineffective method, and support the "spare the rod spoil the child" mentality. traditional values are at the heart of the problem, and i have to say the majority of the kids i saw at the clinic were raised in families they described as traditional or conservative.

No problem. Your just out of date. By slightly over a decade. Have a nice day.And you have said you wish to go back to an older time. Is the anti apartheid movement one of the modern movements you blame for a decline in morals?

Or was it because he was not conditioned with traditional family values and morality? Because he didnt understand that caution and care was important in the creation and maintainence of a family? Because he was raised by people who did not hold dear the tenets of self control and precise caring?Because child abuse tends to be about power, how would enforcing more hierachal family values help?

Or was it because he was not conditioned with traditional family values and morality? Because he didnt understand that caution and care was important in the creation and maintainence of a family? Because he was raised by people who did not hold dear the tenets of self control and precise caring?

So here, it's not the child, but the parent who needs to learn morals/self control/precise caring?
Multiply this by the number of other parents who don't hold these dear, and we've got a TICKING TIME-BOMB! :shock:
I have a question: how does one undo the damage already done?
And by that, I don't mean of the children, but the parents.
How do you make them into better parents? And how can it target
all of those parents who need it?

It seems to me that we don't need legislation to curtail the rights of children. Rather, we need legislation to stop certain parents being such cruel, sadistic monsters.

Traditional value systems are not, of themselves, perfect.
And the human condition a) is not perfect itself,
and b) does not tend to allow for everyone to
"be the same", otherwise you end up with automatons.

Not everyone in society is the same. We have different value systems.
Sadly this is a curse and a blessing, as some people's values are different than others. Some believe in raising children cruelly, whereas others give children all too much leeway, and thus they go out and ruin themselves. Two extremes, and most everyone falls in the middle somewhere.

You champion government legislation which takes power away from children - believing the problem to lie with the young, rather than the parents, yet where is the legislation which protects them from their parents when they've ceased to do their jobs as parents?

well here, let me help you. here's just a few cases i have personally seen:

-a girl, pregnant by her stepfather via sexual abuse, needing help to deal not only with the physical consequences of her condition but also counciling to deal with the circumstances that brought it about. for obvious reasons, the step-father and mother would not allow such intervention.

-a young man with infected track marks who got his fix from his mother, who will beat him if he suggests going to "the authorities" (the hospital), since that might uncover her drug habit.

-13 year old twins who have been sexually abused by their father and both have genital herpes. the father had refused to take them to the doctor for at least 8 months. one of the twins was rendered infertile by the progression of the disease, since it had been untreated for so long.

-a 14 year old Catholic girl who's father broke two of her ribs when he found out she was pregnant, then told her she would "just have to live with it" and denied her medical treatment. she ran away from home and was living in a teen shelter when she was referred to us.



Spoffin my friend, you're one of the few voices of reason I've seen here.
Everyone else appears to be pandering to some unrealistic pipe-dream.



Wrong and misguided. Your heart is in the right place, but your head is not.

While we can all sympathise with abused children the fact is all of the cases you list, the children were prevented from seeing a doctor by their parents.

The children, at any time, could go see the doctor. They were afraid of their parents, not afraid of their parents requesting a copy of their medical files.

And consider the flip side:

What of a child who is having issues, and the doctor can't quite figure it out, and because of privacy, the parents don't know about it. But it turns out that if the parents did, a medical history of a disease, or mental condition runs in the family? How does that serve the child's well being?

The end result is this: Children are called children for a reason. They are not legally responsible for their own actions, nor mature enough to make decisions such as this. If they were, we would consider 12 or 13 to be adult.

It is the parent's responsibility to care for a child and do the right thing. If they aren't doing right by the child (such as the cases you listed), medical privacy of a 12 year old isn't going to stop that. There will always be @sshole parents who abuse children, and preventing the good parents from getting access to their offspring's medical files isn't going to change that and will only hinder the ones that are trying to do good.

-Windquake

Forgive me, I added a word in there.

No problem. Your just out of date. By slightly over a decade. Have a nice day.

As for deciding, no, they arent. They may know better how their parents will respond than the government, but they are also bound to misunderstand, make mistakes, and overestimate the significance of things. They might also fail to remember that their parents do not aim to harm them. Knowledge does not equate to wisdom.
When the parent from before broke her ribs... he wasn't aiming to hurt her? What, he just has really bad depth perception?

Or was it because he was not conditioned with traditional family values and morality? Because he didnt understand that caution and care was important in the creation and maintainence of a family? Because he was raised by people who did not hold dear the tenets of self control and precise caring?Difference between immoral and amoral, but I think that probably most people would say that he did wrong rather than didn't know any better. He was a Catholic for gods sakes. Oh, and I don't think I was out of date by more than two years, considering apartheid ended ten years ago, you would've been 7, so probably at school for two years already and you were recalling a system which you witnessed both in its supposed heyday and its decline.

what seems to be the problem here is that some people don't understand a simple fact of human reproduction: being able to make a baby doesn't make you a parent at heart, but it makes you one by law. any jackass can have a baby, and to imply that parents are infallible or always have good intentions is dangerously naive.

parents are people, no better and no worse.many parents are careless, or cruel, or mentally unstable. just because somebody had sex and produced a child doesn't necessarily make them an authority on anything, least of all an authority on that child. many parents DO hurt their children through intentional actions, though they don't always fully appreciate the consequences of those actions or may even think they are doing good. parents make mistakes, and there is no reason to allow those mistakes to sentence children to untreated medical conditions.In fact, aren't the conservatives the ones always railing against the inexperienced, young people who have kids too early and outside of wedlock (when they're not railing against the inexperienced, young people who have abortions that is)? Shouldn't it be abundantly clear to them that not everyone who has a child should have a child, and that not every parent is a good parent?

When the parent from before broke her ribs... he wasn't aiming to hurt her? What, he just has really bad depth perception?

Or was it because he was not conditioned with traditional family values and morality? Because he didnt understand that caution and care was important in the creation and maintainence of a family? Because he was raised by people who did not hold dear the tenets of self control and precise caring?

traditional family values ENCOURAGE abuse. tradition values endorse authoritarian child rearing, which has been conclusively proven to be a relatively ineffective method, and support the "spare the rod spoil the child" mentality. traditional values are at the heart of the problem, and i have to say the majority of the kids i saw at the clinic were raised in families they described as traditional or conservative.Spare the rod spoil the child is the least worrying those phrases. Traditional values state that a rebellious child may be brought to the gates and stoned to death, and youngest daughter may be sold into slavery.

what seems to be the problem here is that some people don't understand a simple fact of human reproduction: being able to make a baby doesn't make you a parent at heart, but it makes you one by law. any jackass can have a baby, and to imply that parents are infallible or always have good intentions is dangerously naive.

parents are people, no better and no worse.many parents are careless, or cruel, or mentally unstable. just because somebody had sex and produced a child doesn't necessarily make them an authority on anything, least of all an authority on that child. many parents DO hurt their children through intentional actions, though they don't always fully appreciate the consequences of those actions or may even think they are doing good. parents make mistakes, and there is no reason to allow those mistakes to sentence children to untreated medical conditions.In fact, aren't the conservatives the ones always railing against the inexperienced, young people who have kids too early and outside of wedlock (when they're not railing against the inexperienced, young people who have abortions that is)? Shouldn't it be abundantly clear to them that not everyone who has a child should have a child, and that not every parent is a good parent?

you would think so, and yet...

oh well, can't expect people to use their brains simply because they have them, especially when it is so much easier to cover up your own ignorance by venting on your children (who, of course, you OWN, they are YOURS, and you can do with them what you want).

what seems to be the problem here is that some people don't understand a simple fact of human reproduction: being able to make a baby doesn't make you a parent at heart, but it makes you one by law. any jackass can have a baby, and to imply that parents are infallible or always have good intentions is dangerously naive.

parents are people, no better and no worse.many parents are careless, or cruel, or mentally unstable. just because somebody had sex and produced a child doesn't necessarily make them an authority on anything, least of all an authority on that child. many parents DO hurt their children through intentional actions, though they don't always fully appreciate the consequences of those actions or may even think they are doing good. parents make mistakes, and there is no reason to allow those mistakes to sentence children to untreated medical conditions.In fact, aren't the conservatives the ones always railing against the inexperienced, young people who have kids too early and outside of wedlock (when they're not railing against the inexperienced, young people who have abortions that is)? Shouldn't it be abundantly clear to them that not everyone who has a child should have a child, and that not every parent is a good parent?

you would think so, and yet...

oh well, can't expect people to use their brains simply because they have them, especially when it is so much easier to cover up your own ignorance by venting on your children (who, of course, you OWN, they are YOURS, and you can do with them what you want).Isn't that a Simpsons line?

Marge: You can't punish Bart like that
Homer: Why not, he's my kid, I own him.

Australia is a land of contrast

Australia is a land of contrast

No, you're a land of contrast.

Australia is a land of contrast

No, you're a land of contrast.Takes one to know one

well here, let me help you. here's just a few cases i have personally seen:

-a girl, pregnant by her stepfather via sexual abuse, needing help to deal not only with the physical consequences of her condition but also counciling to deal with the circumstances that brought it about. for obvious reasons, the step-father and mother would not allow such intervention.

-a young man with infected track marks who got his fix from his mother, who will beat him if he suggests going to "the authorities" (the hospital), since that might uncover her drug habit.

-13 year old twins who have been sexually abused by their father and both have genital herpes. the father had refused to take them to the doctor for at least 8 months. one of the twins was rendered infertile by the progression of the disease, since it had been untreated for so long.

-a 14 year old Catholic girl who's father broke two of her ribs when he found out she was pregnant, then told her she would "just have to live with it" and denied her medical treatment. she ran away from home and was living in a teen shelter when she was referred to us.

-countless girls facing unplanned pregnancies, who's parents would kick them out of their homes if they found out about it.

that's just off the top of my head, too.

A couple of things. In Australia medical practioners are required to report cases of suspected child abuse. I think these fall into that category and any doctor who ignored these cases and left these kids to deal with the misery of their situation is guilty of serious negligence and have done the children involved no favours.
Secondly, I think you are missing a vital part of the proposed legislation. The parents will have access to their child's medical records. They will need to apply to see the records, they will not be posted to the parents every month. If the parents of the children in your above examples cared so little for the welfare of their child to treat them in that manner then they would be highly unlikely to bother going through the bureaucracy of attaining their child's medical records.
At the end of the day the child's welfare is of the utmost importance and any steps by the government to assist parents in helping their children is a good idea to me.

[Decalred a brain-fart and deleted.]

JiangGuo

And this foolish idealogue, the Mad Monk (aka Tony Abbott) is still at it.

Despite a backbench revolt, led by a medical practioner in his own party, with threats to cross the floor, this controversial attack on the patient-doctor confidentiality and threat to childrens health has merely been deferred.

Probably until after the election?

Latest report is here:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/16/1087244960956.html

Shows yet anoter reason why Howard and his cronies should be kicked out.

The Australian Liberal Party is not actually Liberal

The Australian Liberal Party is not actually Liberal

Given the way that they follow Bush like a lap-dog, there are those who think they are scarcely Australian.

I think you are missing a vital part of the proposed legislation. The parents will have access to their child's medical records. They will need to apply to see the records.....

At the end of the day the child's welfare is of the utmost importance and any steps by the government to assist parents in helping their children is a good idea to me.

This foolish legislation is not designed to help children, or their parents.

If it was, it would not have sparked the backbench revolt lead by a Liberal medical practioner.

This is, quite simply, the Mad Monk working on his own social agenda.

Lets keep Abbott and Costello as a comedy act, not a tragedy for Australia.

Hey i dont know if this has been said before, but I'm 17, and had a bad bit of depression, and i didnt feel comfortable worrying my parents, hence not telling them. I have great family relations, but there are just some things that need to be kept from your parents (due to the fact that it might cause you to feel worse about yourself, or hurt your parents, or both)

I think you are missing a vital part of the proposed legislation. The parents will have access to their child's medical records. They will need to apply to see the records.....

At the end of the day the child's welfare is of the utmost importance and any steps by the government to assist parents in helping their children is a good idea to me.

This foolish legislation is not designed to help children, or their parents.

If it was, it would not have sparked the backbench revolt lead by a Liberal medical practioner.

This is, quite simply, the Mad Monk working on his own social agenda.

Lets keep Abbott and Costello as a comedy act, not a tragedy for Australia.

Umm..what exactly does Tony Abbott gain from proposing this legislation? Nothing. Anything that will enable parents to assist their children and breakdown the barriers of secrecy is a good thing in my opinion.
Children are exactly that, children. Parents are responsible for their upbringing so why shouldn't they have access to their child's medical records if they suspect there is a problem?
Do you also oppose doctors reporting suspected cases of child abuse to the police or social services? That is a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality also. Do we then ignore these signs of abuse in the name of confidentiality rather than help the child to break the cycle of abuse?

Oh, and using derogatory names for politicians whose policies you dislike does not make your argument any more convincing, it just shows a lack of respect for the people you are talking about and a lack of maturity to discuss issues civilly.

I think you are missing a vital part of the proposed legislation. The parents will have access to their child's medical records. They will need to apply to see the records.....

At the end of the day the child's welfare is of the utmost importance and any steps by the government to assist parents in helping their children is a good idea to me.

This foolish legislation is not designed to help children, or their parents.

If it was, it would not have sparked the backbench revolt lead by a Liberal medical practioner.

This is, quite simply, the Mad Monk working on his own social agenda.

Lets keep Abbott and Costello as a comedy act, not a tragedy for Australia.

Umm..what exactly does Tony Abbott gain from proposing this legislation? Nothing. Anything that will enable parents to assist their children and breakdown the barriers of secrecy is a good thing in my opinion.
Children are exactly that, children. Parents are responsible for their upbringing so why shouldn't they have access to their child's medical records if they suspect there is a problem?
Do you also oppose doctors reporting suspected cases of child abuse to the police or social services? That is a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality also. Do we then ignore these signs of abuse in the name of confidentiality rather than help the child to break the cycle of abuse?

If it was a sane and sensible policy, why on earth did it spark a backbench revolt among the Liberals themselves, led by a medical practioner within the Liberal party?

Why was it opposed by the AMA (Doctors own association in Australia, for non-Aussie reraders) ?

Did you even check the link and catch up on the facts?

well, the thing is (like i said above like 2 posts) the whole deal with patient/doctor confidentiality, it that it protects the people. Parents might find out about the problem/s and make it worse.

well, the thing is (like i said above like 2 posts) the whole deal with patient/doctor confidentiality, it that it protects the people. Parents might find out about the problem/s and make it worse.

The parents could be the problem.

Or a child not having sufficient confidence to approach a doctor would certainly be a problem.

This foolish policy has been attacked by the Mad Monks own party members and the Australian Medical Association.

If it was a sane and sensible policy, why on earth did it spark a backbench revolt among the Liberals themselves, led by a medical practioner within the Liberal party?

Because not all Liberals are sane or sensible... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just because someone is a "Liberal" it doesn't mean they have to agree on every single policy put forward.

Crossing the floor as it is known occurs quite a lot. The Liberals often side with Labor on a state level - much to the angst of many Liberal voters.

If it was a sane and sensible policy, why on earth did it spark a backbench revolt among the Liberals themselves, led by a medical practioner within the Liberal party?

Why was it opposed by the AMA (Doctors own association in Australia, for non-Aussie reraders) ?

Did you even check the link and catch up on the facts?

Unlike some, I make up my own mind on policies. I agree with the one proposed by Tony Abbott regardless of what the AMA thinks, regardless of what the medical practitioner on the backbench thinks.

Just because I do not agree with you does not mean I have not checked the facts.

Thats the problem. Most kids SEVERLY lack confidence due to such things as -breakups with b/f or g/f
-Teasing
-Parents abusing them
-Parents abusing each other
-Mental/Physical disabilities

ETC. The list grows. So many teenages i know are depressed and have low confidence levels from some, most,all or other reasons than the ones i listed

Maybe they could think up some way of getting kids to become more confident in talking to doctors or sumthing. Bah. Maybe a confidence drive. Everyone donate 10 mils of confidence for the less fortunate :P

The Australian Liberal Party is not actually Liberal

They're "Liberal" but not "liberal."

Actually "liberalism" is a philosophy which stresses the supreme importance of the individual in society...

The Australian "Liberals" are in fact liberal. The idea that liberals are left wing is absurd in its philosophical sense.

I find this kinda stupid. This would only help those who are least likely to get into troubles that are seriouse. But those that are more likely to have longterm problems that are seriouse are the ones who will suffer from this. Especially if the parents are controllfreaks.

I also think you shouldn't raise a child with no privacy at all or hiding them away from the real world just to kick them out in the hard reality when they turn into leagal age, whatever that can be. Around the age of 12, when they actually start to become induviduals that aren't THAT dependent on thier parents anymore, they should be trusted with more and more responsibility and with this responsibility more freedom to slowly prepare themself for living on thier own out in the world. There is no real reason for you to ban your child from having a free drinks when going out in the weekends if the child is somewhat mature for it. Cuz you can't come and tell me you never got drunk/high when you where still under leagal age. And i guess you consider yourself to have turned out ok? And what about the hippies from the 60s? I think most of them turned out ontop of it aswell. Ofc, there should be some limits. But if you ban to much your kid will prolly test this stuff anyway. And that way the kid will try to keep it a secret from you and you will never know before it's to late, if not lucky, about it. I'd rather have a kid that are allowed to do some bad choices that we together can solve rather then doing maybe worse choices that i can't assist my kid with before it's a real problem.

Anyway, how about this example:

A women gets abused and raped by her husband on a regular basis(He turned out to be on of thse guys who you never wanna stop hit if you cought him). They are, obvoisly married. Married should mean they love and care for eachother. Same thing with parent-kid relation, right? Problem is, this so called man, whieter he loves his wife or not, hurts her badly physically and mentally. She would prolly need to seek help to get away from him. But what if there is a thing like the one we discuss here about wife-husband relations? Then he has total acces to her files and i would bet he would really really like to know this cuz you wouldn't wanna go to jail as a rapist, would you? This would make it alot harder for the women to get away from her husband.

Sure, not the best example, maybe. But note that you can divorse someone, eventho oldschool traditionals don't like it. Same goes for divorsing your parents. Atleast where i live, Sweden, the goverment can take you away from your current parents if they are found as very bad parents. And i sure hope that aplies for your contries aswell.

Flame me away :)

You are drawing a long bow but I know what you are getting at. It was mentioned earlier. In Australia, medical practitioners, teachers etc are required to report suspected cases of child abuse. So, an abusive parent should already be reported under current law.
This new legislation would only allow parents access to their child's medical records. In my opinion, they should always have had that right. The child is a dependent on the parents and as such they have the right to know what is being done to their child by a doctor or psychiatrist.

Bottle and Spoffin....I understand your positions regarding the need of children in the case of bad parents getting information..but if they are bad they won't be applying to see med records now would they?...You'd want to penalize the overwhelming majority of good parents because of the bad ones?...Put in safeguards in this legislation if necessary...but when it comes down to it..a parent should be able to know just what is going on with the health of their child....

Bottle and Spoffin....I understand your positions regarding the need of children in the case of bad parents getting information..but if they are bad they won't be applying to see med records now would they?...You'd want to penalize the overwhelming majority of good parents because of the bad ones?...Put in safeguards in this legislation if necessary...but when it comes down to it..a parent should be able to know just what is going on with the health of their child....In some cases a bad parent might- say if they want to check that signs of abuse aren't showing. And surely a good parent won't need to see their child's medical records- the lines of communication will be open enough so they'll know what's going on in their child's life. The dividing line here seems to be between those who prioitise parental rights and those who prioritise the rights of the child. And, IMNSHO, the rights of the minor should always be paramount.

Actually "liberalism" is a philosophy which stresses the supreme importance of the individual in society...

The Australian "Liberals" are in fact liberal. The idea that liberals are left wing is absurd in its philosophical sense.

I agree that "liberal" does not equal left-wing, which is only an economic definition, not necessarily a social one. If they were truly "liberal" though, they would be in favour of increased civil rights, they would not support censorship, would want a bill of rights in the constitution and they would allow homosexual marriage, for example.

Onto "Liberal" now, they support minimal government and a large degree of private enterprise. That definition does hold true...as "Liberals" are the classical right-wing.

I think Abott does a fantastic jobs as Health Minister...one thing I will say about the Health portfolio is that abortion should be illegal with the exception of extenuating circumstances. The national birth rate must be considered here.

If a teenager becomes pregnant...and they are underage...then the child when born should be given to an infertile couple who wish to adopt.

Why we allow teenagers to raise children (often at taxpayer expense) is beyond all sensibility.

The thing that gets me the most is when people say that we should allow abortions for mistakes. Since when was a child, a living being, a mistake?

well here, let me help you. here's just a few cases i have personally seen:

-a girl, pregnant by her stepfather via sexual abuse, needing help to deal not only with the physical consequences of her condition but also counciling to deal with the circumstances that brought it about. for obvious reasons, the step-father and mother would not allow such intervention.

-a young man with infected track marks who got his fix from his mother, who will beat him if he suggests going to "the authorities" (the hospital), since that might uncover her drug habit.

-13 year old twins who have been sexually abused by their father and both have genital herpes. the father had refused to take them to the doctor for at least 8 months. one of the twins was rendered infertile by the progression of the disease, since it had been untreated for so long.

-a 14 year old Catholic girl who's father broke two of her ribs when he found out she was pregnant, then told her she would "just have to live with it" and denied her medical treatment. she ran away from home and was living in a teen shelter when she was referred to us.

-countless girls facing unplanned pregnancies, who's parents would kick them out of their homes if they found out about it.

that's just off the top of my head, too.

A couple of things. In Australia medical practioners are required to report cases of suspected child abuse. I think these fall into that category and any doctor who ignored these cases and left these kids to deal with the misery of their situation is guilty of serious negligence and have done the children involved no favours.
Secondly, I think you are missing a vital part of the proposed legislation. The parents will have access to their child's medical records. They will need to apply to see the records, they will not be posted to the parents every month. If the parents of the children in your above examples cared so little for the welfare of their child to treat them in that manner then they would be highly unlikely to bother going through the bureaucracy of attaining their child's medical records.
At the end of the day the child's welfare is of the utmost importance and any steps by the government to assist parents in helping their children is a good idea to me.

you seem to be totally missing the point (not to mention misattributing quotes), so let me be more clear:

the parents in the above examples were not absentee parents, and they very much "cared" about what their kids did. if they found out about their children's medical care they would retaliate, some times physically, and put their children's health in further danger. a girl who is a suicide risk because of her depression over a stillbirth shouldn't be told to just pray about it, but that's exactly what her parents have the right to tell her and enforce upon her. and in the cases of outright abuse, the parents could abuse the children further before legal intervention was possible, again putting the kids' health in danger.

but more importantly, the issue is that these kids would not have sought medical attention at all if they thought their parents would know. they weren't going to tell their parents anyway, but at least this way they got some form of treatment. the alternative, if you make their records open to their parents, is that they will still not tell their parents and will also not go to the doctor, so nobody will know and they will continue to be sick. they're not going to trust their parents more just because you pass a law saying they have no choice...if anything, they will put less trust in adults and authority figures.

if you genuinely care about the health of young people then you should completely oppose stripping them of medical privacy. doing so would increase the chances that they will suffer serious harm from untreated conditions, and won't increase the likelihood their parents can help them by one bit.

Bottle and Spoffin....I understand your positions regarding the need of children in the case of bad parents getting information..but if they are bad they won't be applying to see med records now would they?...You'd want to penalize the overwhelming majority of good parents because of the bad ones?...Put in safeguards in this legislation if necessary...but when it comes down to it..a parent should be able to know just what is going on with the health of their child....In some cases a bad parent might- say if they want to check that signs of abuse aren't showing. And surely a good parent won't need to see their child's medical records- the lines of communication will be open enough so they'll know what's going on in their child's life. The dividing line here seems to be between those who prioitise parental rights and those who prioritise the rights of the child. And, IMNSHO, the rights of the minor should always be paramount.

Excuse me??..A good parent wouldn't need to see the medical records of their children?...but...are you a parent?...I want to know exactly what is going on with my children...they are my responsibility first and formost, how can I make educated decisions on the medical wealthfare if I don't know all the facts? Even with good parents..children sometimes won't tell their parents things..it's in a child's nature to not tell especially if he/she has done something they shouldn't or know their parents wouldn't have approved of...How many teenage girls would tell their dad they got and STD because of unprotected sex knowing their father had explained the downside of unprotected sex previously?

if you genuinely care about the health of young people then you should completely oppose stripping them of medical privacy. doing so would increase the chances that they will suffer serious harm from untreated conditions, and won't increase the likelihood their parents can help them by one bit.

Yes, and when your 17 year old son contracts HIV or any other STI and is too afraid to tell you out of shame (but the doctor knows - except the son cannot afford the prescription which the parent normally pays for) what then? He eventually sucumbs to AIDS and dies...because he waited too long. Not because the medicine was not available...but because the parent was kept in the dark about their son's medical condition.

Parents have the right to know if their child is well, or if they are ill so they can help. This bastardisation of parents is demeaning to all those who love their children. This sounds like something Latham comes out with (his bad parenting rot and the good parent classes). As someone pointed out...those parents who do not care will likely not check up on their children AT ALL! (sadly) To deny parents who do care for their children the right to know if they are OK is not only cruel, but dangerous - especially if their son or daughter is ill and is too ashamed to speak of it (especially with STI's).

Tony Abbott is on the right track with this one. What next? Are we going to tell parents that they cannot read their child's school reports because this would be a breach of privacy? Yet who gets blamed if the child's grades begin to slip? Oh wait...that's right - the parents. Even though they were left in the dark as to their own children's academic performance. The same situation would happen if parents are denied the right to access their children's medical reports. When something goes wrong...it will be the parent's fault - even though they were left in the dark.

if you genuinely care about the health of young people then you should completely oppose stripping them of medical privacy. doing so would increase the chances that they will suffer serious harm from untreated conditions, and won't increase the likelihood their parents can help them by one bit.

Yes, and when your 17 year old son contracts HIV or any other STI and is too afraid to tell you out of shame (but the doctor knows - except the son cannot afford the prescription which the parent normally pays for) what then? He eventually sucumbs to AIDS and dies...because he waited too long. Not because the medicine was not available...but because the parent was kept in the dark about their son's medical condition.

Parents have the right to know if their child is well, or if they are ill so they can help. This bastardisation of parents is demeaning to all those who love their children. This sounds like something Latham comes out with (his bad parenting rot and the good parent classes). As someone pointed out...those parents who do not care will likely not check up on their children AT ALL! (sadly) To deny parents who do care for their children the right to know if they are OK is not only cruel, but dangerous - especially if their son or daughter is ill and is too ashamed to speak of it (especially with STI's).

Tony Abbott is on the right track with this one. What next? Are we going to tell parents that they cannot read their child's school reports because this would be a breach of privacy? Yet who gets blamed if the child's grades begin to slip? Oh wait...that's right - the parents. Even though they were left in the dark as to their own children's academic performance. The same situation would happen if parents are denied the right to access their children's medical reports. When something goes wrong...it will be the parent's fault - even though they were left in the dark.

If it was a sane and sensible policy, why on earth did it spark a backbench revolt among the Liberals themselves, led by a medical practioner within the Liberal party?

Because not all Liberals are sane or sensible... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just because someone is a "Liberal" it doesn't mean they have to agree on every single policy put forward.

Crossing the floor as it is known occurs quite a lot. The Liberals often side with Labor on a state level - much to the angst of many Liberal voters.

You miss the point. This is the Liberal Health Minister proposing policy in his own portfolio. Policy which is rightly condemned by his own colleagues and the AMA.

If the Health Minister cannot manage his own area of responsibility, he should resign.

Australians deserve better, their health care certainly deserves better.

And this misguided zealot is not untypical of the Liberal "front bench" - what a collection of "talent".

Or are you in fact conceding that there are many who you could not regard as sane or sensible?

:lol:

DP

you seem to be totally missing the point (not to mention misattributing quotes), so let me be more clear:

the parents in the above examples were not absentee parents, and they very much "cared" about what their kids did. if they found out about their children's medical care they would retaliate, some times physically, and put their children's health in further danger. a girl who is a suicide risk because of her depression over a stillbirth shouldn't be told to just pray about it, but that's exactly what her parents have the right to tell her and enforce upon her. and in the cases of outright abuse, the parents could abuse the children further before legal intervention was possible, again putting the kids' health in danger.

but more importantly, the issue is that these kids would not have sought medical attention at all if they thought their parents would know. they weren't going to tell their parents anyway, but at least this way they got some form of treatment. the alternative, if you make their records open to their parents, is that they will still not tell their parents and will also not go to the doctor, so nobody will know and they will continue to be sick. they're not going to trust their parents more just because you pass a law saying they have no choice...if anything, they will put less trust in adults and authority figures.

if you genuinely care about the health of young people then you should completely oppose stripping them of medical privacy. doing so would increase the chances that they will suffer serious harm from untreated conditions, and won't increase the likelihood their parents can help them by one bit.

Sorry for the misattribution of the quote..I deleted some previous quotes and left the wrong name.

I think you have also missed the point of what I said. Under the current laws physicians and teachers are required to report suspected cases of child abuse. So assuming the doctors did uphold their responsibility in this case, these incidences you have used as an example would have been reported to social services and in turn the police. This would have happened regardless of whether the legislation allowing their parents to access their medical records was in place. If the parents did have access to the medical records then it would make no difference either as the abusive parents would be arrested and therefore them knowing about what has happened is irrelevant.

Bottle and Spoffin....I understand your positions regarding the need of children in the case of bad parents getting information..but if they are bad they won't be applying to see med records now would they?...You'd want to penalize the overwhelming majority of good parents because of the bad ones?...Put in safeguards in this legislation if necessary...but when it comes down to it..a parent should be able to know just what is going on with the health of their child....

unfortunately that is not the case. a common misconception is that the only way to be a bad parent is to be uninvolved, or that the only way you mess up is by not controlling your kids enough. bad parents often are very involved in their kids' lives, especially the authoritarians who think that controlling their kids' every move is "good parenting." those are the parents who will stop their kids from getting treatment, particularly for STDs or pregnancy, because they don't want to deal appropriately with their children being sexually active. abusive parents also will often be very involved with their kids' medical care, to ensure they don't get busted.

but, again, the most important point is that even if the parents never would really check the records the kids would still have to be informed that their parents COULD, and that would deter many kids from seeking care in the first place. virtually every young person who came into our clinic wanted to know that we were confidential, and would have bolted if they thought their parents could find out. it didn't matter how much they needed treatment, they weren't going to take any chances. in those situations this new law wouldn't help parents find anything out, it would just stop the kids from telling ANYBODY about their problem, and thus increase the risk that they would be seriously or permanently hurt.

if you genuinely care about the health of young people then you should completely oppose stripping them of medical privacy. doing so would increase the chances that they will suffer serious harm from untreated conditions, and won't increase the likelihood their parents can help them by one bit.

Yes, and when your 17 year old son contracts HIV or any other STI and is too afraid to tell you out of shame (but the doctor knows - except the son cannot afford the prescription which the parent normally pays for) what then? He eventually sucumbs to AIDS and dies...because he waited too long. Not because the medicine was not available...but because the parent was kept in the dark about their son's medical condition.

Parents have the right to know if their child is well, or if they are ill so they can help. This bastardisation of parents is demeaning to all those who love their children. This sounds like something Latham comes out with (his bad parenting rot and the good parent classes). As someone pointed out...those parents who do not care will likely not check up on their children AT ALL! (sadly) To deny parents who do care for their children the right to know if they are OK is not only cruel, but dangerous - especially if their son or daughter is ill and is too ashamed to speak of it (especially with STI's).

Tony Abbott is on the right track with this one. What next? Are we going to tell parents that they cannot read their child's school reports because this would be a breach of privacy? Yet who gets blamed if the child's grades begin to slip? Oh wait...that's right - the parents. Even though they were left in the dark as to their own children's academic performance. The same situation would happen if parents are denied the right to access their children's medical reports. When something goes wrong...it will be the parent's fault - even though they were left in the dark.

And of the child struggling with issues of his or her own emerging sexuality ? And unable to seek confidential counselling for fear of their parents finding out?

This "policy" has been roundly condemned by the Mad Monks colleagues and the AMA.

If it was a sane and sensible policy, why on earth did it spark a backbench revolt among the Liberals themselves, led by a medical practioner within the Liberal party?

Because not all Liberals are sane or sensible... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just because someone is a "Liberal" it doesn't mean they have to agree on every single policy put forward.

Crossing the floor as it is known occurs quite a lot. The Liberals often side with Labor on a state level - much to the angst of many Liberal voters.

You miss the point. This is the Liberal Health Minister proposing policy in his own portfolio. Policy which is rightly condemned by his own colleagues and the AMA.

If the Health Minister cannot manage his own area of responsibility, he should resign.

Australians deserve better, their health care certainly deserves better.

And this misguided zealot is not untypical of the Liberal "front bench" - what a collection of "talent".

Or are you in fact conceding that there are many who you could not regard as sane or sensible?

:lol:

Well since it is HIS portfolio...I see no reason as to why Tony Abbott should not propose policy. As for the AMA, I would question their integrity and virtue, especially in light of recent events involving bonded medical students. The AMA's rant proved to me that they are incapable of remaining unbias and focused on their real job. As for being condemned by his colleagues...perhaps you are unaware of how a party-room operates, but as I noted earlier, people are not always going to agree with one another.

For example in the ALP Mark Latham now supports madatory detention of illegal immigrants, yet most of the ALP does not. But, he went against the likes of Carmen Lawrence on the issue (although this was more about votes than doing what is right - even though mandatory detention is the right thing to do).

When you say "their health" in reference to Australians, are you implying by that statement Smeagol that you are in fact NOT Australian? Perhaps you could clarify this for the benefit of viewers.

Also...perhaps you could provide some proof of your unsubstantiated insinuation that the government front bench is talentless. Broad sweeping statements such as yours posted above do little to prove anything other than what one might perceive as ignorance of the issues at hand.

Naturally there are many who are not sensible...and in the world of politics there are many who could be classed as insane. This can be said of all sides of the political spectrum.

If it was a sane and sensible policy, why on earth did it spark a backbench revolt among the Liberals themselves, led by a medical practioner within the Liberal party?

Because not all Liberals are sane or sensible... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just because someone is a "Liberal" it doesn't mean they have to agree on every single policy put forward.

Crossing the floor as it is known occurs quite a lot. The Liberals often side with Labor on a state level - much to the angst of many Liberal voters.

You miss the point. This is the Liberal Health Minister proposing policy in his own portfolio. Policy which is rightly condemned by his own colleagues and the AMA.

If the Health Minister cannot manage his own area of responsibility, he should resign.

Australians deserve better, their health care certainly deserves better.

And this misguided zealot is not untypical of the Liberal "front bench" - what a collection of "talent".

Or are you in fact conceding that there are many who you could not regard as sane or sensible?

:lol:

Well since it is HIS portfolio...I see no reason as to why Tony Abbott should not propose policy. As for the AMA, I would question their integrity and virtue, especially in light of recent events involving bonded medical students. The AMA's rant proved to me that they are incapable of remaining unbias and focused on their real job. As for being condemned by his colleagues...perhaps you are unaware of how a party-room operates, but as I noted earlier, people are not always going to agree with one another.

For example in the ALP Mark Latham now supports madatory detention of illegal immigrants, yet most of the ALP does not. But, he went against the likes of Carmen Lawrence on the issue (although this was more about votes than doing what is right - even though mandatory detention is the right thing to do).

When you say "their health" in reference to Australians, are you implying by that statement Smeagol that you are in fact NOT Australian? Perhaps you could clarify this for the benefit of viewers.

Also...perhaps you could provide some proof of your unsubstantiated insinuation that the government front bench is talentless. Broad sweeping statements such as yours posted above do little to prove anything other than what one might perceive as ignorance of the issues at hand.

Naturally there are many who are not sensible...and in the world of politics there are many who could be classed as insane. This can be said of all sides of the political spectrum.

you seem to be totally missing the point (not to mention misattributing quotes), so let me be more clear:

the parents in the above examples were not absentee parents, and they very much "cared" about what their kids did. if they found out about their children's medical care they would retaliate, some times physically, and put their children's health in further danger. a girl who is a suicide risk because of her depression over a stillbirth shouldn't be told to just pray about it, but that's exactly what her parents have the right to tell her and enforce upon her. and in the cases of outright abuse, the parents could abuse the children further before legal intervention was possible, again putting the kids' health in danger.

but more importantly, the issue is that these kids would not have sought medical attention at all if they thought their parents would know. they weren't going to tell their parents anyway, but at least this way they got some form of treatment. the alternative, if you make their records open to their parents, is that they will still not tell their parents and will also not go to the doctor, so nobody will know and they will continue to be sick. they're not going to trust their parents more just because you pass a law saying they have no choice...if anything, they will put less trust in adults and authority figures.

if you genuinely care about the health of young people then you should completely oppose stripping them of medical privacy. doing so would increase the chances that they will suffer serious harm from untreated conditions, and won't increase the likelihood their parents can help them by one bit.

Sorry for the misattribution of the quote..I deleted some previous quotes and left the wrong name.

I think you have also missed the point of what I said. Under the current laws physicians and teachers are required to report suspected cases of child abuse. So assuming the doctors did uphold their responsibility in this case, these incidences you have used as an example would have been reported to social services and in turn the police. This would have happened regardless of whether the legislation allowing their parents to access their medical records was in place. If the parents did have access to the medical records then it would make no difference either as the abusive parents would be arrested and therefore them knowing about what has happened is irrelevant.

i didn't miss that point at all, and i am confused as to why you think i did. yes, authorities would be notified in cases of clear abuse, but legal intervention takes time...plenty of time for a child to be hurt by a raging parent. not to mention that many things aren't considered abuse, like over-controlling, emotional abuse, and cutting your kid off from all other support systems.

an you still aren't getting what i am saying: EVEN IF THERE IS NO ABUSE, THERE IS A PROBLEM. even if the parents are great people, and it's all in the kid's head, the fact that there is no medical privacy will stop the kid from going to anybody for help. the parents still won't know about it, but now the kid also won't get treated.

your HIV case has, in my time of work, never happened. kids who find out they have HIV do tell their parents, because they realize it's never going to go away and it's something they can't handle on their own. either that, or if their parents are just out of the picture, they deal with it as best they can with the support system they've got. but either way, they would never come to us for the HIV test to begin with if they thought we would let their parents know about it. so then they would still have HIV, their parents still wouldn't know, but they also wouldn't know or be getting any help at all...great solution.

isnt it OBVIOUS!?!? they are doing this for the upcoming election, and because its 'undr 16' they cant vote, itsa win win for the libs, THOSE BASTARDS! :x

Bottle..I'm sorry hun...but this is where we simply agree to disagree..perhaps if you were a parent things might be different...not that I can tell from anyone's posts here..but I'm not all to sure your position has been accepted by the parent's on this forum...I for one..am a good parent..am not controlling but yes..until my children reach the age of consent I am respnsible for their upkeep, their well-being, and any information I need to make those decisions should be made available to me.

Ummm...I did not raise the HIV example.

Regardless, I understand your point of view but I do not agree with it. simple as that. You are entitled to your beliefs and I respect them.
Taking a sarcastic tone does not make your argument any more valid it only shows you cannot respect people with different views to your own. In case you are unsure what I am alluding to here the quote used to end your last post is below:

...great solution.

isnt it OBVIOUS!?!? they are doing this for the upcoming election, and because its 'undr 16' they cant vote, itsa win win for the libs, THOSE BASTARDS! :x

:roll:

Ummm...I did not raise the HIV example.


sorry, my turn to misattribute a quote...another player with a "T" name, and i just glossed over and misread the author. sorry bout that.


Regardless, I understand your point of view but I do not agree with it. simple as that. You are entitled to your beliefs and I respect them.
Taking a sarcastic tone does not make your argument any more valid it only shows you cannot respect people with different views to your own. In case you are unsure what I am alluding to here the quote used to end your last post is below:

...great solution.

if you think using sarcasm means i don't have respect for the people i debate with then, with all due respect, you have too thin a skin to be debating in the first place. i have been nothing but respectful, so don't be touchy about a general comment that i made to express my lack of enthusiasm for your suggestions. and trying to criticize my debate etiquet while failing to respond to my point certainly doesn't make your own point more valid ;).

Bottle..I'm sorry hun...but this is where we simply agree to disagree..perhaps if you were a parent things might be different...not that I can tell from anyone's posts here..but I'm not all to sure your position has been accepted by the parent's on this forum...I for one..am a good parent..am not controlling but yes..until my children reach the age of consent I am respnsible for their upkeep, their well-being, and any information I need to make those decisions should be made available to me.

i can certainly agree to disagree on the issue, but you should know that while i have no biological children of my own and don't intend to ever have any, i have essentially raised two children. my brother, a decade my junior, has been my responsibility for many years, and i am listed as "primary care giver" at his daycare. additionally, the child of one of my close friends, who was born when my unfortunate buddy was only 17, has been as much my child as his since the baby's mother withdrew herself from the picture.

true, i am only 21, but for some reason i am better able than most people to understand that making a baby doesn't make a parent. having a kid doesn't make you an authority, and can cloud your judgment and cause you to take unwise action. my mother has been practicing child psychology for about 25 years now, and she sees it every day; cases where the child is wiser than the parent, and when the best thing for a child would be to disociate him or herself from the parents' mistakes.

this is not to say that all parents are bad or wrong...far from it. but good parents put their children ahead of their own desires, and seek to keep their children safe and healthy more than to satisfy their own insecurities. i know what it is like to worry about a kid, to be unable to concentrate on anything but my concern for the annoyingly independent little urchin who just doesn't understand how fragile he is and how much i love him. i know that fear, and the desire to lock him in a box for the rest of his life to keep him safe. and i also know how that would cripple him, and how it is totally wrong for me to let my feelings for him be an encumbrance or a danger to him.

i would rather my brother keep secrets from me but get help on his own than avoid help altogether out of shame or fear. i hope i have made myself a safe and trustworthy person in his eyes, and i think i have, but i don't pretend that will make a difference when he is a teen (in about a month!) and simply doesn't want me to be the one he talks to. i want him to talk to SOMEBODY, even if it hurts that it might not be me, and i want him to get help with his problems even if he simply isn't comfortable asking me for that help. his needs come first.

Excuse me??..A good parent wouldn't need to see the medical records of their children?...but...are you a parent?...No. Do you work in childcare? Shall we carry on pulling rank on each other or shall we return to the arguments? I object to your attempts to pretend that you're speaking for all parents as well. You don't, anymore then I speak for the profession as a whole. I know a lot of parents who would disagree with you. Both of us are giving our individual opinions, just like everyone else on here.I want to know exactly what is going on with my children...they are my responsibility first and formost, how can I make educated decisions on the medical wealthfare if I don't know all the facts? Even with good parents..children sometimes won't tell their parents things..it's in a child's nature to not tell especially if he/she has done something they shouldn't or know their parents wouldn't have approved of...How many teenage girls would tell their dad they got and STD because of unprotected sex knowing their father had explained the downside of unprotected sex previously?How many teenage girls would go to the doctor to get treated (or to get protection in the first place) if they knew their father would be told? It goes back to what I said before. A teenager with a STD or who's pregnant is not a nice situation for anyone. To an extent, the time for sex education has already passed. So we're in the situation of looking for the option of 'least harm'. And to me, an untreated STD, or even worse a backstreet abortion, are the worst possible outcomes. So that is what we need to put the most effort in to avoid.

Bottle and Spoffin....I understand your positions regarding the need of children in the case of bad parents getting information..but if they are bad they won't be applying to see med records now would they?...You'd want to penalize the overwhelming majority of good parents because of the bad ones?...Put in safeguards in this legislation if necessary...but when it comes down to it..a parent should be able to know just what is going on with the health of their child....Not what I'm saying at all. By far the majority of good parents won't need this. In fact, all its going to do is allow suspicious parents who's kids have a reason to hide something from them to check into their child's lives.

Tony Abbott is on the right track with this one. What next? Are we going to tell parents that they cannot read their child's school reports because this would be a breach of privacy? Yet who gets blamed if the child's grades begin to slip? Oh wait...that's right - the parents. Even though they were left in the dark as to their own children's academic performance. The same situation would happen if parents are denied the right to access their children's medical reports. When something goes wrong...it will be the parent's fault - even though they were left in the dark.Thats different, the school reports are written for parents, kids know how they're doing in school. Also no-one dies if they don't want their parents to know their school grades.

Tony Abbott is on the right track with this one. What next? Are we going to tell parents that they cannot read their child's school reports because this would be a breach of privacy? Yet who gets blamed if the child's grades begin to slip? Oh wait...that's right - the parents. Even though they were left in the dark as to their own children's academic performance. The same situation would happen if parents are denied the right to access their children's medical reports. When something goes wrong...it will be the parent's fault - even though they were left in the dark.Thats different, the school reports are written for parents, kids know how they're doing in school. Also no-one dies if they don't want their parents to know their school grades.

It is the same principle...and on another argument...parents are a child's legal guardian until the age of 18. Therefore by law they should be allowed to access their medical reports. They have a responsibility to look after their children...now how do they do that if they are left in the dark?

Principle my ass, the fact that nobody dies in the report card scenario far overshadows the fact that they are the same principle. The fact is that children have certain inalienable rights that even their parents do not have the right to override. How is it more helpful if a girl who gets an STD goes to the doctor, the doctor tells her zealot dad, and the dad beats her to within an inch of her life, than if she gets treatment confidentially?

Besides, all of the people supporting that idea on this thread talk about what great parents they are, and how their kids shouldn't NEED to go to the doctor confidentially. But I'll bet my last dollar Thuthmoose, or Aluran, that neither of you are religious zeaots, drug addicts, drunks, child molesters, or wife beaters. It's the children of THESE kinds of parents who will be affected by this law, not children like yours (and I'm going to make a character assumption here) who were raised in a loving environment.

Ummm...I did not raise the HIV example.


sorry, my turn to misattribute a quote...another player with a "T" name, and i just glossed over and misread the author. sorry bout that.


Regardless, I understand your point of view but I do not agree with it. simple as that. You are entitled to your beliefs and I respect them.
Taking a sarcastic tone does not make your argument any more valid it only shows you cannot respect people with different views to your own. In case you are unsure what I am alluding to here the quote used to end your last post is below:

...great solution.

if you think using sarcasm means i don't have respect for the people i debate with then, with all due respect, you have too thin a skin to be debating in the first place. i have been nothing but respectful, so don't be touchy about a general comment that i made to express my lack of enthusiasm for your suggestions. and trying to criticize my debate etiquet while failing to respond to my point certainly doesn't make your own point more valid ;).

I am not thin skinned, just amazed how some people think sarcastically responding to peoples valid views makes their points more valid. To be honest you can be as sarcastic as you like, it just doesn't do you any favours.
Secondly, I have voiced my views on this subject a number of times and concluded in the last post I made that I respect your opinion and your right to it but I disagree with you. The reasons I disagree with you have been posted numerous times in this thread. I am sure you have read them. Whether you agree with my views is not relevant. I think this topic has no fully right answer and no fully wrong answer and as such people will see its value or lack thereof differently. That is clearly visible from the discussion in this thread.
You don't have to have enthusiasm for views that disagree with yours but some basic respect would not go astray.

Principle my ass, the fact that nobody dies in the report card scenario far overshadows the fact that they are the same principle. The fact is that children have certain inalienable rights that even their parents do not have the right to override. How is it more helpful if a girl who gets an STD goes to the doctor, the doctor tells her zealot dad, and the dad beats her to within an inch of her life, than if she gets treatment confidentially?

Besides, all of the people supporting that idea on this thread talk about what great parents they are, and how their kids shouldn't NEED to go to the doctor confidentially. But I'll bet my last dollar Thuthmoose, or Aluran, that neither of you are religious zeaots, drug addicts, drunks, child molesters, or wife beaters. It's the children of THESE kinds of parents who will be affected by this law, not children like yours (and I'm going to make a character assumption here) who were raised in a loving environment.

If a child is the suspected victim of abuse by their parents or anyone else for that matter the physician or teacher must report the case to social services or the police. So even if this law was not in place the doctor must breach the doctor-patient confidentiality and report the case. This might "make kids not go to the doctor" too so maybe we should scrap that legislation too?

I'll bet my last dollar Thuthmoose, or Aluran, that neither of you are religious zeaots, drug addicts, drunks, child molesters, or wife beaters. It's the children of THESE kinds of parents who will be affected by this law, not children like yours (and I'm going to make a character assumption here) who were raised in a loving environment.

UF I have never heard of Australian children being beaten to a pulp by ultra-religious parents (please direct me to the statistics if you can substantiate your claim). Drug addicts, drunks etc are highly unlikely to be in a proper state of mind to check up on their children's medical records. Chances are a doctor would not even let an addict or drunk within a metre of their office to see anything (although they might want to see their doctor about getting better).

As for wife beaters...what has that got to do with accessing children's medical records?

The truth is that good parents will want to look after their children and know they are well. Bad parents will not even bother to go and see the records...heck bad parents do not even know where their children are half of the time (too busy drinking at the pub normally).

Ever noticed that the vast majority of parents who show up to parent-teacher nights are those with the good children? The bad children never tell their parents about parent-teacher (although now notes are being mailed to parents - or they would never find out) and the parents who do not care, never go anyway.

The same situation would occur in regards to medical records. It is only ever the good parents who take interest in their childrens' lives. So I see no problem with letting parents know the condition of their children. As the ones who normally pay for medication and take their children to the doctor anyway, parents have a right to know if their child is sick - and normall know what is wrong anyway since they take them into the doctor's office to begin with!

Bottle and Spoffin....I understand your positions regarding the need of children in the case of bad parents getting information..but if they are bad they won't be applying to see med records now would they?...You'd want to penalize the overwhelming majority of good parents because of the bad ones?...Put in safeguards in this legislation if necessary...but when it comes down to it..a parent should be able to know just what is going on with the health of their child....Not what I'm saying at all. By far the majority of good parents won't need this. In fact, all its going to do is allow suspicious parents who's kids have a reason to hide something from them to check into their child's lives.

exactly. a good, trustworthy parent won't NEED to snoop...only a parent who is deserving of their childrens' suspicions would do that, and if your kids actually trust you then you won't need to worry.

Bottle and Spoffin....I understand your positions regarding the need of children in the case of bad parents getting information..but if they are bad they won't be applying to see med records now would they?...You'd want to penalize the overwhelming majority of good parents because of the bad ones?...Put in safeguards in this legislation if necessary...but when it comes down to it..a parent should be able to know just what is going on with the health of their child....Not what I'm saying at all. By far the majority of good parents won't need this. In fact, all its going to do is allow suspicious parents who's kids have a reason to hide something from them to check into their child's lives.

exactly. a good, trustworthy parent won't NEED to snoop...only a parent who is deserving of their childrens' suspicions would do that, and if your kids actually trust you then you won't need to worry.

What a frightening generalisation. Plenty of kids with problems have good parents and vice versa. Are you basing your opinions on these types of utopian generalisations?

I am not thin skinned, just amazed how some people think sarcastically responding to peoples valid views makes their points more valid. To be honest you can be as sarcastic as you like, it just doesn't do you any favours.


i don't need sarcasm to make my points more valid, they do fine on their own. :)


Secondly, I have voiced my views on this subject a number of times and concluded in the last post I made that I respect your opinion and your right to it but I disagree with you. The reasons I disagree with you have been posted numerous times in this thread. I am sure you have read them. Whether you agree with my views is not relevant. I think this topic has no fully right answer and no fully wrong answer and as such people will see its value or lack thereof differently. That is clearly visible from the discussion in this thread.
You don't have to have enthusiasm for views that disagree with yours but some basic respect would not go astray.

you still haven't explained how discouraging teens from getting medical help is a good thing. why is that? perhaps you don't have an answer to studies like these:

-A study published in the August 14, 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that 59% of the teens in their survey-- nearly 6 in 10-- said that knowing their parents would be notified would prevent them from seeking family planning services. Amazingly, 99% said they would still have sex.

-In the year following the elimination of a parental consent requirement for HIV testing in Connecticut, the number of teens aged 13-17 obtaining HIV tests doubled.

-Fifty-eight percent of high school students surveyed in three public schools in Massachusetts reported having health concerns that they did not want to share with their parents. Approximately 25% of the students said they would forego medical treatment if disclosure of treatment to their parents were a possibility.

-Another study of adolescents found that if confidential treatment for sexually transmitted diseases were available, 50% of the adolescents would seek care. Only 15% reported that they would do so if parental consent or notice were required.

I am not thin skinned, just amazed how some people think sarcastically responding to peoples valid views makes their points more valid. To be honest you can be as sarcastic as you like, it just doesn't do you any favours.


i don't need sarcasm to make my points more valid, they do fine on their own. :)


Then why resort to it?

Bottle and Spoffin....I understand your positions regarding the need of children in the case of bad parents getting information..but if they are bad they won't be applying to see med records now would they?...You'd want to penalize the overwhelming majority of good parents because of the bad ones?...Put in safeguards in this legislation if necessary...but when it comes down to it..a parent should be able to know just what is going on with the health of their child....Not what I'm saying at all. By far the majority of good parents won't need this. In fact, all its going to do is allow suspicious parents who's kids have a reason to hide something from them to check into their child's lives.

exactly. a good, trustworthy parent won't NEED to snoop...only a parent who is deserving of their childrens' suspicions would do that, and if your kids actually trust you then you won't need to worry.

What a frightening generalisation. Plenty of kids with problems have good parents and vice versa. Are you basing your opinions on these types of utopian generalisations?

sure, kids with parents have problems. and if those parents are worthy of the kid's trust he will go to them freely, or they will find out through simple involvement in the kid's life rather than through snooping medical records.

parents who don't trust their kids need this sort of law, and parents who don't care about their kids' health are the ones who vote in support of it (and in so doing ignore countless studies like the ones i have posted). i don't think any good parent would need to exercise a law like this one, personally, and the bad ones shouldn't have the right to such access.

Secondly, I have voiced my views on this subject a number of times and concluded in the last post I made that I respect your opinion and your right to it but I disagree with you. The reasons I disagree with you have been posted numerous times in this thread. I am sure you have read them. Whether you agree with my views is not relevant. I think this topic has no fully right answer and no fully wrong answer and as such people will see its value or lack thereof differently. That is clearly visible from the discussion in this thread.
You don't have to have enthusiasm for views that disagree with yours but some basic respect would not go astray.

you still haven't explained how discouraging teens from getting medical help is a good thing. why is that? perhaps you don't have an answer to studies like these:

-A study published in the August 14, 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that 59% of the teens in their survey-- nearly 6 in 10-- said that knowing their parents would be notified would prevent them from seeking family planning services. Amazingly, 99% said they would still have sex.

-In the year following the elimination of a parental consent requirement for HIV testing in Connecticut, the number of teens aged 13-17 obtaining HIV tests doubled.

-Fifty-eight percent of high school students surveyed in three public schools in Massachusetts reported having health concerns that they did not want to share with their parents. Approximately 25% of the students said they would forego medical treatment if disclosure of treatment to their parents were a possibility.

-Another study of adolescents found that if confidential treatment for sexually transmitted diseases were available, 50% of the adolescents would seek care. Only 15% reported that they would do so if parental consent or notice were required.

This is based on the assumption that I think that this legislation will "discourage teens from getting medical help". I do not believe this is the case.

I am not thin skinned, just amazed how some people think sarcastically responding to peoples valid views makes their points more valid. To be honest you can be as sarcastic as you like, it just doesn't do you any favours.


i don't need sarcasm to make my points more valid, they do fine on their own. :)


Then why resort to it?

for fun, of course. i find that humor is its own reward, and it takes no effort to interject a little flavor while simultaneously trouncing you ;).

that's a joke, so don't go all twitchy on me, please.

-A study published in the August 14, 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that 59% of the teens in their survey-- nearly 6 in 10-- said that knowing their parents would be notified would prevent them from seeking family planning services. Amazingly, 99% said they would still have sex.

-In the year following the elimination of a parental consent requirement for HIV testing in Connecticut, the number of teens aged 13-17 obtaining HIV tests doubled.

-Fifty-eight percent of high school students surveyed in three public schools in Massachusetts reported having health concerns that they did not want to share with their parents. Approximately 25% of the students said they would forego medical treatment if disclosure of treatment to their parents were a possibility.

-Another study of adolescents found that if confidential treatment for sexually transmitted diseases were available, 50% of the adolescents would seek care. Only 15% reported that they would do so if parental consent or notice were required.


1. :lol: I have completed a survey on many youth issues. Word to the wise - the children lie in those surveys - big time! :lol: Young people for the main, make a total mockery of questions such as: "have you ever had sex?" So those stats are going to be very very inaccurate.

2. Yet this was linked to a higher level of young people having unsafe sex was it not.

3. Once again...young people lie big time in those surveys. The stats mean nothing.

4. See 3 & 1

Secondly, I have voiced my views on this subject a number of times and concluded in the last post I made that I respect your opinion and your right to it but I disagree with you. The reasons I disagree with you have been posted numerous times in this thread. I am sure you have read them. Whether you agree with my views is not relevant. I think this topic has no fully right answer and no fully wrong answer and as such people will see its value or lack thereof differently. That is clearly visible from the discussion in this thread.
You don't have to have enthusiasm for views that disagree with yours but some basic respect would not go astray.

you still haven't explained how discouraging teens from getting medical help is a good thing. why is that? perhaps you don't have an answer to studies like these:

-A study published in the August 14, 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that 59% of the teens in their survey-- nearly 6 in 10-- said that knowing their parents would be notified would prevent them from seeking family planning services. Amazingly, 99% said they would still have sex.

-In the year following the elimination of a parental consent requirement for HIV testing in Connecticut, the number of teens aged 13-17 obtaining HIV tests doubled.

-Fifty-eight percent of high school students surveyed in three public schools in Massachusetts reported having health concerns that they did not want to share with their parents. Approximately 25% of the students said they would forego medical treatment if disclosure of treatment to their parents were a possibility.

-Another study of adolescents found that if confidential treatment for sexually transmitted diseases were available, 50% of the adolescents would seek care. Only 15% reported that they would do so if parental consent or notice were required.

This is based on the assumption that I think that this legislation will "discourage teens from getting medical help". I do not believe this is the case.

um, honey, those are all studies proving that it will. please read more carefully.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] Corrected a botched QUOTE tag that was messing up the forum window formatting. [/quote]

I am not thin skinned, just amazed how some people think sarcastically responding to peoples valid views makes their points more valid. To be honest you can be as sarcastic as you like, it just doesn't do you any favours.


i don't need sarcasm to make my points more valid, they do fine on their own. :)


Then why resort to it?

for fun, of course. i find that humor is its own reward, and it takes no effort to interject a little flavor while simultaneously trouncing you ;).

that's a joke, so don't go all twitchy on me, please.

Sarcasm is not "flavour" is is the lowest form of wit.

-A study published in the August 14, 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that 59% of the teens in their survey-- nearly 6 in 10-- said that knowing their parents would be notified would prevent them from seeking family planning services. Amazingly, 99% said they would still have sex.

-In the year following the elimination of a parental consent requirement for HIV testing in Connecticut, the number of teens aged 13-17 obtaining HIV tests doubled.

-Fifty-eight percent of high school students surveyed in three public schools in Massachusetts reported having health concerns that they did not want to share with their parents. Approximately 25% of the students said they would forego medical treatment if disclosure of treatment to their parents were a possibility.

-Another study of adolescents found that if confidential treatment for sexually transmitted diseases were available, 50% of the adolescents would seek care. Only 15% reported that they would do so if parental consent or notice were required.


1. :lol: I have completed a survey on many youth issues. Word to the wise - the children lie in those surveys - big time! :lol: Young people for the main, make a total mockery of questions such as: "have you ever had sex?" So those stats are going to be very very inaccurate.

2. Yet this was linked to a higher level of young people having unsafe sex was it not.

3. Once again...young people lie big time in those surveys. The stats mean nothing.

4. See 3 & 1

1,3, 4. yes, they sometimes lie...and there are many statistical methods in place to deal with that, as well as experimental design characteristics. in these cases, people who were designing the studies use adjusted margins and something called the confirmation style of testing: kids complete a booklet of questions, and each page seals to the one before it when they turn the page. that way, if the kid is lying, inconsistencies show up because they couldn't go back to change answers to match or to check what they had put before. it's actually been shown to be amazingly effective.

2. nope, it wasn't in that case.

Secondly, I have voiced my views on this subject a number of times and concluded in the last post I made that I respect your opinion and your right to it but I disagree with you. The reasons I disagree with you have been posted numerous times in this thread. I am sure you have read them. Whether you agree with my views is not relevant. I think this topic has no fully right answer and no fully wrong answer and as such people will see its value or lack thereof differently. That is clearly visible from the discussion in this thread.
You don't have to have enthusiasm for views that disagree with yours but some basic respect would not go astray.

you still haven't explained how discouraging teens from getting medical help is a good thing. why is that? perhaps you don't have an answer to studies like these:

-A study published in the August 14, 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that 59% of the teens in their survey-- nearly 6 in 10-- said that knowing their parents would be notified would prevent them from seeking family planning services. Amazingly, 99% said they would still have sex.

-In the year following the elimination of a parental consent requirement for HIV testing in Connecticut, the number of teens aged 13-17 obtaining HIV tests doubled.

-Fifty-eight percent of high school students surveyed in three public schools in Massachusetts reported having health concerns that they did not want to share with their parents. Approximately 25% of the students said they would forego medical treatment if disclosure of treatment to their parents were a possibility.

-Another study of adolescents found that if confidential treatment for sexually transmitted diseases were available, 50% of the adolescents would seek care. Only 15% reported that they would do so if parental consent or notice were required.

This is based on the assumption that I think that this legislation will "discourage teens from getting medical help". I do not believe this is the case.

um, honey, those are all studies proving that it will. please read more carefully.

I have read your "studies" and they prove nothing. Not knowing the size of the statistical set, the diversity of the people surveyed and the context of the questions they are essentially meaningless. It is easy to get a survey to support what you want to prove so they really mean little to me.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] Corrected botched QUOTE tag that was messing up the forum window formatting. [/quote]

Sarcasm is not "flavour" is is the lowest form of wit.

that's your opinion. i, and many others, do not agree. if you don't like it then, frankly, that's too bad. you probably shouldn't debate with me if you can't deal with it or let it go.

please remember that you are raising this whole stink over two words that i typed pages back. now THAT is funny! :lol:

Sarcasm is not "flavour" is is the lowest form of wit.

that's your opinion. i, and many others, do not agree. if you don't like it then, frankly, that's too bad. you probably shouldn't debate with me if you can't deal with it or let it go.

please remember that you are raising this whole stink over two words that i typed pages back. now THAT is funny! :lol:

I could not care less if you use sarcasm. I merely pointed out that it does not make your view anymore valid.

Sarcasm is not "flavour" is is the lowest form of wit.

that's your opinion. i, and many others, do not agree. if you don't like it then, frankly, that's too bad. you probably shouldn't debate with me if you can't deal with it or let it go.

please remember that you are raising this whole stink over two words that i typed pages back. now THAT is funny! :lol:

I could not care less if you use sarcasm. I merely pointed out that it does not make your view anymore valid.

and i merely pointed out that i never claimed it did, nor have i ever thought it did. please, for crying out loud, move on with your life.

and if you don't like the studies i have posted then post your own...if it is so easy to find studies backing up any point of view then prove it. if you want me to post lists of references so you can read them for yourself then that's fine, but first i would like to see a single shred of something beyond your personal opinion on the subject. you STILL haven't given any convincing responses, and it's getting old.

edit: hell, scratch that, here's some references anyway, just to make life simpler:

“Fulfilling the Promise: Public Policy and U.S. Family Planning Clinics,” The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2000.

Henshaw, S., “Special Report: U.S. Teenage pregnancy Statistics With Comparative Statistics for Women Aged 20-24,” The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1999.

Henshaw, S., “Unintended Pregnancy in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives, Jan/Feb 1998.

Reddy, D., Fleming, R. and Swain, C., “Effect of Mandatory Parental Notification on Adolescent Girls’ Use of Sexual Health Care Services,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, 288:710-714, 2002.

T.M. Maehan, H. Hansen and W.C. Klein, “The Impact of Parental Consent on the HIV Testing for Minors,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 87, no. 8, Aug. 1997: 1340; Update, “Letting Minors Consent to HIV Tests,” Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 30, no. 1, Jan/Feb. 1998:2.

Hollander, D., “Some Teenagers Say They Might Not Seek Health Care If they Could Not Be Assured of Confidentiality,” Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 25, no. 4, July/Aug. 1993: 187; citing T.L. Cheng et al., “Confidentiality in Health Care: A Survey of Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitudes Among High School Students,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 269, 1993: 1404-1407.

Marks, A., et al., “Assessment of Health Needs and Willingness to Utilize Health Care Resources of Adolescents in a Suburban Population,” The Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 102, no. 3, Mar. 1983: 459.

House of Delegates, “Opposition to HHS Regulations on Contraceptive Services for Minors,” American Medical Association, HOD Policy 75.998, Policy Compendium (USA: AMA, 1998).

“Fulfilling the Promise: Public Policy and U.S. Family Planning Clinics,” The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2000.

Saul, R., "Teen Pregnancy: Progress Meets Politics", The Guttmacher Report, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, June 1999.

"Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned,” Boonstra, H., The Alan Guttmacher Institute, The Guttmacher Report, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Vol. 5, No. 1, February 2002.

Darroch, J. et al., “Teenage Sexual and Reproductive Behavior in Developed Countries: Can More Progress Be Made?” The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Occasional Report, 2001.

“Not Just Another Single Issue: Teen Pregnancy Prevention’s Link to Other Critical Social Issues.” National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, February 2002.

and if you don't like the studies i have posted then post your own...if it is so easy to find studies backing up any point of view then prove it. if you want me to post lists of references so you can read them for yourself then that's fine, but first i would like to see a single shred of something beyond your personal opinion on the subject. you STILL haven't given any convincing responses, and it's getting old.

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue. I agree with the legislation because parents are the guardians of their children and have the right to know what is wrong with them with a view to helping them. I am not aiming to convince you to agree with my views, that is not the purpose of me posting here.
I posted here to put my views across as have many others here and we have a right to do so. We are not answerable to you. I disagree with you, as shocking as that may be to you seeing as you feel that you are so undeniably right.
As I said, I do not believe either side is totally right or totally wrong. As a result we can post our views ad nauseum and neither will change their views. The sooner you can accept that people actually do have beliefs and opinions different to your own the better. I said earlier that I respect your point of view but do not agree with it. Nothing has changed in that regard.

and if you don't like the studies i have posted then post your own...if it is so easy to find studies backing up any point of view then prove it. if you want me to post lists of references so you can read them for yourself then that's fine, but first i would like to see a single shred of something beyond your personal opinion on the subject. you STILL haven't given any convincing responses, and it's getting old.

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue. I agree with the legislation because parents are the guardians of their children and have the right to know what is wrong with them with a view to helping them. I am not aiming to convince you to agree with my views, that is not the purpose of me posting here.
I posted here to put my views across as have many others here and we have a right to do so. We are not answerable to you. I disagree with you, as shocking as that may be to you seeing as you feel that you are so undeniably right.
As I said, I do not believe either side is totally right or totally wrong. As a result we can post our views ad nauseum and neither will change their views. The sooner you can accept that people actually do have beliefs and opinions different to your own the better. I said earlier that I respect your point of view but do not agree with it. Nothing has changed in that regard.

ahh, so even when conclusive data shows that children will sicken and die because of a law you want, that won't override your "moral" stance?

i don't think you are "answerable" to me. and i think the point of posting isn't to just say what you think and huff and puff, but rather to debate and learn from each other. if you put some effort into your stance you might be able to change people's minds, or perhaps be able to shape your own thoughts and refine your positions. but since all you are interested in is saying what you think and having people agree, i guess maybe we should quit now.

and if you don't like the studies i have posted then post your own...if it is so easy to find studies backing up any point of view then prove it. if you want me to post lists of references so you can read them for yourself then that's fine, but first i would like to see a single shred of something beyond your personal opinion on the subject. you STILL haven't given any convincing responses, and it's getting old.

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue. I agree with the legislation because parents are the guardians of their children and have the right to know what is wrong with them with a view to helping them. I am not aiming to convince you to agree with my views, that is not the purpose of me posting here.
I posted here to put my views across as have many others here and we have a right to do so. We are not answerable to you. I disagree with you, as shocking as that may be to you seeing as you feel that you are so undeniably right.
As I said, I do not believe either side is totally right or totally wrong. As a result we can post our views ad nauseum and neither will change their views. The sooner you can accept that people actually do have beliefs and opinions different to your own the better. I said earlier that I respect your point of view but do not agree with it. Nothing has changed in that regard.

ahh, so even when conclusive data shows that children will sicken and die because of a law you want, that won't override your "moral" stance?

That is assuming I consider your data conclusive. I do not. Using American statistics to represent Australian children is not conclusive. Also, the issue is larger than teenage pregnancy and sexuality.

and if you don't like the studies i have posted then post your own...if it is so easy to find studies backing up any point of view then prove it. if you want me to post lists of references so you can read them for yourself then that's fine, but first i would like to see a single shred of something beyond your personal opinion on the subject. you STILL haven't given any convincing responses, and it's getting old.

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue. I agree with the legislation because parents are the guardians of their children and have the right to know what is wrong with them with a view to helping them. I am not aiming to convince you to agree with my views, that is not the purpose of me posting here.
I posted here to put my views across as have many others here and we have a right to do so. We are not answerable to you. I disagree with you, as shocking as that may be to you seeing as you feel that you are so undeniably right.
As I said, I do not believe either side is totally right or totally wrong. As a result we can post our views ad nauseum and neither will change their views. The sooner you can accept that people actually do have beliefs and opinions different to your own the better. I said earlier that I respect your point of view but do not agree with it. Nothing has changed in that regard.

ahh, so even when conclusive data shows that children will sicken and die because of a law you want, that won't override your "moral" stance?

i don't think you are "answerable" to me. and i think the point of posting isn't to just say what you think and huff and puff, but rather to debate and learn from each other. if you put some effort into your stance you might be able to change people's minds, or perhaps be able to shape your own thoughts and refine your positions. but since all you are interested in is saying what you think and having people agree, i guess maybe we should quit now.

Here's the thing..I do not try and change people's views. People will make up their own mind based on their beliefs, morals and facts as they interpret them. I have stated a number of times that I respect others differing opinions, you on the other hand have not.

and if you don't like the studies i have posted then post your own...if it is so easy to find studies backing up any point of view then prove it. if you want me to post lists of references so you can read them for yourself then that's fine, but first i would like to see a single shred of something beyond your personal opinion on the subject. you STILL haven't given any convincing responses, and it's getting old.

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue. I agree with the legislation because parents are the guardians of their children and have the right to know what is wrong with them with a view to helping them. I am not aiming to convince you to agree with my views, that is not the purpose of me posting here.
I posted here to put my views across as have many others here and we have a right to do so. We are not answerable to you. I disagree with you, as shocking as that may be to you seeing as you feel that you are so undeniably right.
As I said, I do not believe either side is totally right or totally wrong. As a result we can post our views ad nauseum and neither will change their views. The sooner you can accept that people actually do have beliefs and opinions different to your own the better. I said earlier that I respect your point of view but do not agree with it. Nothing has changed in that regard.

ahh, so even when conclusive data shows that children will sicken and die because of a law you want, that won't override your "moral" stance?

i don't think you are "answerable" to me. and i think the point of posting isn't to just say what you think and huff and puff, but rather to debate and learn from each other. if you put some effort into your stance you might be able to change people's minds, or perhaps be able to shape your own thoughts and refine your positions. but since all you are interested in is saying what you think and having people agree, i guess maybe we should quit now.

Here's the thing..I do not try and change people's views. People will make up their own mind based on their beliefs, morals and facts as they interpret them. I have stated a number of times that I respect others differing opinions, you on the other hand have not.

well, here's the thing: i DO try to change people's views. it's called debate. if i can't, that's fine, and i can respectfully agree to disagree, but the whole point is to try to convince each other. if my views aren't strong enough to stand up against somebody's efforts then i need to re-examine them, and vice versa.

people may make up their own minds, but they often make mistakes based on lack of information, lack of thought, or simply lack of effort. debate tests that. it's fun, it's not disrespectful, and if you haven't heard me say "i can agree to disagree" or "i respect different opinions" then you simply haven't been paying attention. quit lecturing and get on with the discussion, or go away. you spend more time complaining about a single phrase of sarcasm than you spend actually posting on the issue, and it's dull. let's just let this freaking well DROP, please.

I have not lectured anyone on this topic, just stated my views which I stand by.

Have you ever thought that the knowledge that their parents will find out about their behaviour might actually make them think twice before having unprotected sex or using drugs? That is, it might stop kids making the mistake in the first place.

I have not lectured anyone on this topic, just stated my views which I stand by.

Have you ever thought that the knowledge that their parents will find out about their behaviour might actually make them think twice before having unprotected sex or using drugs? That is, it might stop kids making the mistake in the first place.

nope, i haven't thought about that, because i have never met a kid who felt that way. i sure didn't, and i have yet to meet a single person who did. i can, for argument's sake, assume that there are kids who feel that way...however, i think they are far outweighed by the data i have posted that shows MORE children will be in danger if we try to force their parents into their private lives.

I have not lectured anyone on this topic, just stated my views which I stand by.

Have you ever thought that the knowledge that their parents will find out about their behaviour might actually make them think twice before having unprotected sex or using drugs? That is, it might stop kids making the mistake in the first place.

nope, i haven't thought about that, because i have never met a kid who felt that way. i sure didn't, and i have yet to meet a single person who did. i can, for argument's sake, assume that there are kids who feel that way...however, i think they are far outweighed by the data i have posted that shows MORE children will be in danger if we try to force their parents into their private lives.

But, were the children who took part in these surveys asked this question?

I have not lectured anyone on this topic, just stated my views which I stand by.

Have you ever thought that the knowledge that their parents will find out about their behaviour might actually make them think twice before having unprotected sex or using drugs? That is, it might stop kids making the mistake in the first place.

nope, i haven't thought about that, because i have never met a kid who felt that way. i sure didn't, and i have yet to meet a single person who did. i can, for argument's sake, assume that there are kids who feel that way...however, i think they are far outweighed by the data i have posted that shows MORE children will be in danger if we try to force their parents into their private lives.

But, were the children who took part in these surveys asked this question?

yes, that would be a basic question and the experimenters aren't morons. if you don't believe me, read for yourself.

I have not lectured anyone on this topic, just stated my views which I stand by.

Have you ever thought that the knowledge that their parents will find out about their behaviour might actually make them think twice before having unprotected sex or using drugs? That is, it might stop kids making the mistake in the first place.

nope, i haven't thought about that, because i have never met a kid who felt that way. i sure didn't, and i have yet to meet a single person who did. i can, for argument's sake, assume that there are kids who feel that way...however, i think they are far outweighed by the data i have posted that shows MORE children will be in danger if we try to force their parents into their private lives.

But, were the children who took part in these surveys asked this question?

yes, that would be a basic question and the experimenters aren't morons. if you don't believe me, read for yourself.

So kids would still have sex and take drugs regardless of whether their parents would find out yet would not seek medical assistance if needed because their parents might find out.

So kids would still have sex and take drugs regardless of whether their parents would find out yet would not seek medical assistance if needed because their parents might find out.

:lol: LOL. Well I can say that I do not do some things for fear of being found out. I won't say what...but yeah.

So kids would still have sex and take drugs regardless of whether their parents would find out yet would not seek medical assistance if needed because their parents might find out.

:lol: LOL. Well I can say that I do not do some things for fear of being found out. I won't say what...but yeah.

I would say a lot of kids would do the same. I know when I was a kid the fear of being found out was the main reason why I decided against doing something stupid.

Tygaland wrote:
So kids would still have sex and take drugs regardless of whether their parents would find out yet would not seek medical assistance if needed because their parents might find out.

I don't see how this doesn't make sense to you. That's what kids do. Basically, what you're saying is that kids would do stupid stuff, but then it's unbelievable that they would try to hide it from my parents. Just because they say they would still do whatever they're doing if they're parents found out, doesn't mean they want their parents to find out.

Tygaland wrote:
So kids would still have sex and take drugs regardless of whether their parents would find out yet would not seek medical assistance if needed because their parents might find out.

I don't see how this doesn't make sense to you. That's what kids do. Basically, what you're saying is that kids would do stupid stuff, but then it's unbelievable that they would try to hide it from my parents. Just because they say they would still do whatever they're doing if they're parents found out, doesn't mean they want their parents to find out.

The point I was trying to make was that the children do not really care if the parents find out about their activities because they have said, according to the survey Bottle provided, that they would continue to do whatever they wanted even if the parents would find out. I did not say they wanted their parents to find out just that from the information provided by Bottle that they would not change their behaviour even if they knew their parents would find out.
So, rather than let kids do what they want to do and then when the damage is done leave the parents to pick up the pieces both emotionally and financially I would rather the parents had an active role from the beginning both in educating their children about sex and drugs but also in being able to better monitor the welfare of their child.

Anyway...what does it matter? The legislation will pass anyway.

Anyway...what does it matter? The legislation will pass anyway.

Do try to keep up.

This foolish proposal triggered a backbench revolt, led by a Liberal medical practioner.

It has been condemned by the Australian Medical Association.

It has been condemned by Labor and the minor parties.

What on earth makes you think that the Mad Monk will have a win on this?

Anyway...what does it matter? The legislation will pass anyway.

Do try to keep up.

This foolish proposal triggered a backbench revolt, led by a Liberal medical practioner.

It has been condemned by the Australian Medical Association.

It has been condemned by Labor and the minor parties.

What on earth makes you think that the Mad Monk will have a win on this?

That is assuming I consider your data conclusive. I do not. Using American statistics to represent Australian children is not conclusive. Also, the issue is larger than teenage pregnancy and sexuality.

Then produce some Australian ones, if you can.

Why just criticise a source, if you have absolutely nothing else to support your case ?

And the issue is certainly larger than teenage pregnancy and sexuality - a large number of the criticisms of this foolish proposal discussed the increased risk of teenage suicide.

I am yet to hear any favourable response from any Australian source - perhaps you can provide one?

The memebers of the Mad Monks own party, the AMA, and all the media have heavily criticised this foolish proposal.

Produce, if you can, any, repeat any reputable Australian individual or organisation that supports this.

Well doctors and the AMA would object to the legislation because it would mean that doctors would have to explain to the parents why they have prescribed drugs to their children where now they do not have to do so. So that is not unexpected. Labor object to everything Liberal propose so not surprise there either.

Time will tell whether or not Thuthmose III's confidence is well placed or not. Personally I hope it is.

Well doctors and the AMA would object to the legislation because it would mean that doctors would have to explain to the parents why they have prescribed drugs to their children where now they do not have to do so. So that is not unexpected. Labor object to everything Liberal propose so not surprise there either.

Time will tell whether or not Thuthmose III's confidence is well placed or not. Personally I hope it is.

And you explain the backbench revolt, with Liberal members threatening to vote with the opposition to defeat this proposal, how exactly?

That is assuming I consider your data conclusive. I do not. Using American statistics to represent Australian children is not conclusive. Also, the issue is larger than teenage pregnancy and sexuality.

Then produce some Australian ones, if you can.

Why just criticise a source, if you have absolutely nothing else to support your case ?

And the issue is certainly larger than teenage pregnancy and sexuality - a large number of the criticisms of this foolish proposal discuused the increased risk of teenage suicide.

I am yet to hear any favourable response from any Australian source - perhaps you can provide one?

As I have already said I posted my opinion on this legislation and why I think it is a good idea. I am not trying to convince anyone to support the legislation or otherwise so why do I need to prove why I support the legislation?

You are the one who says it is a bad piece of legislation and you have said why you feel that way. You do not need to prove your case to me, it is your choice. Bottle on the other hand is trying to convert everyone to his way of thinking and as such produced some US survey results to back up his/her claims. Good for him/her, it makes no difference to my thoughts on the issue which I think I have stated enough for one thread.

I think the legislation is a good idea because it enables parents to better monitor the welfare of their children. Thats it. Speaks for itself.

Well doctors and the AMA would object to the legislation because it would mean that doctors would have to explain to the parents why they have prescribed drugs to their children where now they do not have to do so. So that is not unexpected. Labor object to everything Liberal propose so not surprise there either.

Time will tell whether or not Thuthmose III's confidence is well placed or not. Personally I hope it is.

And you explain the backbench revolt, with Liberal members threatening to vote with the opposition to defeat this proposal, how exactly?

I am not one of the backbenchers in the alleged revolt so I have no idea of its extent nor the reasons behind it and to be honest it is not a concern of mine. Until the bill is produced for vote then the extent of such a revolt is not known. As I said, time will tell whether Thuthmose III's prediction comes true.

That is assuming I consider your data conclusive. I do not. Using American statistics to represent Australian children is not conclusive. Also, the issue is larger than teenage pregnancy and sexuality.

Then produce some Australian ones, if you can.

Why just criticise a source, if you have absolutely nothing else to support your case ?

And the issue is certainly larger than teenage pregnancy and sexuality - a large number of the criticisms of this foolish proposal discuused the increased risk of teenage suicide.

I am yet to hear any favourable response from any Australian source - perhaps you can provide one?

As I have already said I posted my opinion on this legislation and why I think it is a good idea. I am not trying to convince anyone to support the legislation or otherwise so why do I need to prove why I support the legislation?

You are the one who says it is a bad piece of legislation and you have said why you feel that way. You do not need to prove your case to me, it is your choice. Bottle on the other hand is trying to convert everyone to his way of thinking and as such produced some US survey results to back up his/her claims. Good for him/her, it makes no difference to my thoughts on the issue which I think I have stated enough for one thread.

I think the legislation is a good idea because it enables parents to better monitor the welfare of their children. Thats it. Speaks for itself.

The reaction from the Liberal backbench, the AMA, and all other reputable sources speaks for itself.

Bottle's research speaks for itself.

Your inability to produce any source that supports your argument speaks for itself.

Seems you speak in favour of any Liberal Party foolishness.

That is assuming I consider your data conclusive. I do not. Using American statistics to represent Australian children is not conclusive. Also, the issue is larger than teenage pregnancy and sexuality.

Then produce some Australian ones, if you can.

Why just criticise a source, if you have absolutely nothing else to support your case ?

And the issue is certainly larger than teenage pregnancy and sexuality - a large number of the criticisms of this foolish proposal discuused the increased risk of teenage suicide.

I am yet to hear any favourable response from any Australian source - perhaps you can provide one?

As I have already said I posted my opinion on this legislation and why I think it is a good idea. I am not trying to convince anyone to support the legislation or otherwise so why do I need to prove why I support the legislation?

You are the one who says it is a bad piece of legislation and you have said why you feel that way. You do not need to prove your case to me, it is your choice. Bottle on the other hand is trying to convert everyone to his way of thinking and as such produced some US survey results to back up his/her claims. Good for him/her, it makes no difference to my thoughts on the issue which I think I have stated enough for one thread.

I think the legislation is a good idea because it enables parents to better monitor the welfare of their children. Thats it. Speaks for itself.

The reaction from the Liberal backbench, the AMA, and all other reputable sources speaks for itself.

Bottle's research speaks for itself.

Your inability to produce any source that supports your argument speaks for itself.

Seems you speak in favour of any Liberal Party foolishness.

AMA is hardly neutral in this case.

I do not have to produce any source to my views because they are my views. Not someone elses I am regurgitating.

Bottle's research is based on American studies and as such not conclusive as you would want people to believe. Regardless it makes no difference to my views on this issue.

I agree with the implemetation of the legislation described, in your opinion that may be foolish but that is your opinion.

I do not have to produce any source to my views because they are my views. Not someone elses I am regurgitating.But they must be based on something surely?

Bottle's research is based on American studies and as such not conclusive as you would want people to believe. Regardless it makes no difference to my views on this issue.Hypothetically speaking, even if you were convinced that children's health was put at risk with this legislation, would you still support it?

I agree with the implemetation of the legislation described, in your opinion that may be foolish but that is your opinion.In my opinion it shows a callous disregard for the welfare of children. But as you said, that is merely my opinion.

A bit of trivia...

If and when Peter Costello becomes leader of the Liberals and Abott becomes the Deputy. One day the country could be run by Abbot and Costello.

:D

I do not have to produce any source to my views because they are my views. Not someone elses I am regurgitating.But they must be based on something surely?

Yes, they are based on my belief that parents should have an active role in their child's welfare.

Bottle's research is based on American studies and as such not conclusive as you would want people to believe. Regardless it makes no difference to my views on this issue.Hypothetically speaking, even if you were convinced that children's health was put at risk with this legislation, would you still support it?

It would depend on how many children had their health put at risk as opposed to how many would be removed from risk by the legislation. Some children may refrain from activities that would get them into a situation requiring medical assistance if they knew their parents could find out about it.

I agree with the implemetation of the legislation described, in your opinion that may be foolish but that is your opinion.In my opinion it shows a callous disregard for the welfare of children. But as you said, that is merely my opinion.

Yes, it is your opinion and you are entitled to it as I am entitled to mine.

A bit of trivia...

If and when Peter Costello becomes leader of the Liberals and Abott becomes the Deputy. One day the country could be run by Abbot and Costello.

:D

Yes, I am sure you are not the first to work that out.

Bottle on the other hand is trying to convert everyone to his way of thinking and as such produced some US survey results to back up his/her claims. Good for him/her, it makes no difference to my thoughts on the issue which I think I have stated enough for one thread.

I think the legislation is a good idea because it enables parents to better monitor the welfare of their children. Thats it. Speaks for itself.

Bottle isn't out to convert everyone, and has said so explicitly...please read my posts and stop telling lies. Bottle believes that it is important to show people when they are proceeding under false assumptions, and that people often pass judgment before they have the full facts.

perhaps i am too optimistic about human intelligence (as you are rapidly convincing me that i am), but i believe most people will make good choices when presented with accurate information and facts. you have clearly decided that your personal feelings are more important than documented research, and that your sense of control is more important than the health of young people. you have repeatedly stated that you won't provide anything to back up your views, and you have totally failed to respond to the evidence i have presented which shows your position to be a danger to public health.

it's lovely that you have opinions and don't care what anybody says; congratulations, you are officially 4 years old. you shouldn't give up your beliefs just because somebody else tells you to, but you should be able to question those beliefs and look at them critically without throwing hissy fits or digging in your heels for a good long pout. if you want a forum where you can just post your opinion and not have it questioned then this is not the place for you. you've spent more time whining about my two words of sarcasm than on giving actual reasons for your position (beyond "well, i think it's good! so there!"), and that's not doing anybody any good.

why post your opinions on a public forum if you aren't prepared to debate? you just want to read other people agreeing with you, and pat yourself on the back? i don't care if you actually come to agree with me or not, you're just some kid on the 'net, but i come here looking for intelligent debate. if you're just going to be another troll who posts your opinion and won't back it up then, frankly, we have plenty of your sort already.

I do not have to produce any source to my views because they are my views. Not someone elses I am regurgitating.

Bottle's research is based on American studies and as such not conclusive as you would want people to believe. Regardless it makes no difference to my views on this issue.

I agree with the implemetation of the legislation described, in your opinion that may be foolish but that is your opinion.

you seem to think that anybody who has evidence supporting their views is "regurgitating," and therefore wrong. so i suppose that makes me wrong about gravity and the Earth being round, right? i mean, other people compiled the evidence that lead me to accept those things as true, so i must be wrong for regurgitating such facts. :roll:

since you will not be considerate enough to do any research of your own, here's some Australian sources to get your started. though, since you have made it clear that you don't intend to let a little thing like facts get in your way, i am probably just wasting my time...

Reddy D, Fleming R, Swain C. Effect of mandatory parental notification on adolescents’ use of sexual health services. JAMA 2002; 299: 710-714. Booth M, Bernard D, Quine S, et al.

Access to health care among NSW adolescents. Sydney: NSW Centre for the Advancement of Adolescent Health, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, May 2002.


The Australian Medical Association says the Federal Government's plan to give parents broader rights to access the medical records of their children will have a negative impact on teenagers' sexual health. The Association's Vice President, Mukesh Haikerwal, says the changes could have a negative impact on teenagers, who may stop seeking their doctors' help. "It applies across the board for all cultures and all religions and everybody that they have to have absolute certainty that their confidentiality will be maintained, and that confidentiality is not just maintained, but respected. Obviously, some [cultural] groups would have much greater problems if these things were discovered, but I think all of us should be concerned." AMA President Dr. Bill Glasson condemned the proposal and said the ALP, Greens and Democrats would block the bill in the senate. "It is bad health policy; it is bad social policy," Dr Glasson said. "To be comfortable, they [teenagers] need confidentiality. The Government's proposed legislation will remove that confidentiality and has the potential to cause irreparable harm. It must be stopped."

New Zealand's FPA has also taken a firm stance from research that confidentiality has played a critical role in improving the success of their programs with teen sexual health.

Susan Sawyer, chairwoman of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians Adolescent Health Committee, has voiced opposition to proposed reductions in confidentiality.

Yes, they are based on my belief that parents should have an active role in their child's welfare.And on your belief that children's welfare is less important then parental rights.

It would depend on how many children had their health put at risk as opposed to how many would be removed from risk by the legislation. Some children may refrain from activities that would get them into a situation requiring medical assistance if they knew their parents could find out about it.So if it was the case that more children would be at risk by this legislation would you be against it? Or do you have a certain number of 'acceptable losses' that you'd be prepared to expect?

Yes, it is your opinion and you are entitled to it as I am entitled to mine.It is my opinion that every night sock gnomes break into my house and steal my socks. I have no proof for this, but it is a valid opinion, becuase all opinions are equally valid, no matter how little supporting evidence is provided. :roll:

Yes, it is your opinion and you are entitled to it as I am entitled to mine.It is my opinion that every night sock gnomes break into my house and steal my socks. I have no proof for this, but it is a valid opinion, becuase all opinions are equally valid, no matter how little supporting evidence is provided. :roll:

actually, your opinion is MORE valid because, unlike the rest of us, you aren't just regurgitating the idea that your socks may be misplaced through human action. :)

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue."I'm right, you're wrong, I don't need facts to prove it."

I think the legislation is a good idea because it enables parents to better monitor the welfare of their children. Thats it. Speaks for itself.The implied assumption there though is that you think that parents are always the best people to look after their children, which we have shown through example, logic and statistics not to be the case.

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue."I'm right, you're wrong, I don't need facts to prove it."

well of course! that's how you parent, after all. it's called the "Because I Said So" school of child psychology. never mind that authoritarian parenting (characterized by controlling behavior and intrusive supervision of children's private lives) has been linked to the highest levels of violent behavior in children, higher than too-lenient parenting or even absentee parenting (Snyder & Sickmund, 2000). oops, there i go with the regurgitating again...

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue."I'm right, you're wrong, I don't need facts to prove it."

well of course! that's how you parent, after all. it's called the "Because I Said So" school of child psychology. never mind that authoritarian parenting (characterized by controlling behavior and intrusive supervision of children's private lives) has been linked to the highest levels of violent behavior in children, higher than too-lenient parenting or even absentee parenting (Snyder & Sickmund, 2000). oops, there i go with the regurgitating again...Bottle, honestly. You've got your facts all over my nice clean carpet! :lol:

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue."I'm right, you're wrong, I don't need facts to prove it."

well of course! that's how you parent, after all. it's called the "Because I Said So" school of child psychology. never mind that authoritarian parenting (characterized by controlling behavior and intrusive supervision of children's private lives) has been linked to the highest levels of violent behavior in children, higher than too-lenient parenting or even absentee parenting (Snyder & Sickmund, 2000). oops, there i go with the regurgitating again...Bottle, honestly. You've got your facts all over my nice clean carpet! :lol:

i guess i am just not housebroken yet...i keep leaking these silly facts and sources all over the place. imagine my embarassment. :oops:

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue."I'm right, you're wrong, I don't need facts to prove it."

I have not said people who disagree with my views are wrong. In fact I have said you are entitled to your opinions, it is my choice not to agree with them.

Bottle isn't out to convert everyone,.....


well, here's the thing: i DO try to change people's views. it's called debate. if i can't, that's fine, and i can respectfully agree to disagree, but the whole point is to try to convince each other. if my views aren't strong enough to stand up against somebody's efforts then i need to re-examine them, and vice versa.

Then agree to disagree as you tell me you will. I have looked at your studies and it has not changed my view.

Even your quotes from the AMA are not conclusive in themselves:

"The Association's Vice President, Mukesh Haikerwal, says the changes could have a negative impact on teenagers, who may stop seeking their doctors' help"

No conclusions, just hypothetical statements. The person you quoted is not conclusive in his remarks, if he, as an expert, is not convinced why are you?

The fact that the ALP, Greens and Democrats will block the bill is no surprise to anyone and is based more in politics than any concern for possible problems with teenagers seeking medical advice.

Bottle isn't out to convert everyone, and has said so explicitly...please read my posts and stop telling lies. Bottle believes that it is important to show people when they are proceeding under false assumptions, and that people often pass judgment before they have the full facts.

perhaps i am too optimistic about human intelligence (as you are rapidly convincing me that i am), but i believe most people will make good choices when presented with accurate information and facts. you have clearly decided that your personal feelings are more important than documented research, and that your sense of control is more important than the health of young people. you have repeatedly stated that you won't provide anything to back up your views, and you have totally failed to respond to the evidence i have presented which shows your position to be a danger to public health.

it's lovely that you have opinions and don't care what anybody says; congratulations, you are officially 4 years old. you shouldn't give up your beliefs just because somebody else tells you to, but you should be able to question those beliefs and look at them critically without throwing hissy fits or digging in your heels for a good long pout. if you want a forum where you can just post your opinion and not have it questioned then this is not the place for you. you've spent more time whining about my two words of sarcasm than on giving actual reasons for your position (beyond "well, i think it's good! so there!"), and that's not doing anybody any good.

why post your opinions on a public forum if you aren't prepared to debate? you just want to read other people agreeing with you, and pat yourself on the back? i don't care if you actually come to agree with me or not, you're just some kid on the 'net, but i come here looking for intelligent debate. if you're just going to be another troll who posts your opinion and won't back it up then, frankly, we have plenty of your sort already.

I have stated my views on this issue many times. I raised your sarcasm as an asides and made 3 posts about it, would have been one but you decided to take it further. You are still rambling about it now.
I post my opinions on a public forum because I have the freedom to do so. I have stated my reasons for supporting this legislation, the most of which are based on my personal beliefs and morals. I have listened to your opinions, looked at your research and it has not changed my views. Not because I'm digging my heels in but because all the surveys and all the hypotheses are just that surveys about what might happen, hypotheses about what might happen. I have not thrown a hissy fit as you call it and fail to see any evidence of that occurring, in fact my posts have always been civil and to the point.
Seeing as the legislation has not been enacted there are no statistics on its impact or lack thereof on whether children will seek medical help, only speculation. If you choose to believe the speculation then thats your prerogative, I on the other hand do not and as such believe the legislation will enable parents to have more input in the welfare of their children.
If I wanted to post in a forum where everyone agrees with me and pats me on the back then I would not choose the NationStates forum where it is apparent that conservative views are in the minority. I do not expect everyone to agree with me but I do expect people to respect other peoples right to make up their own mind.
I have made up my mind, I have read your sources and surveys and it has not changed my view.

For God's sakes man! What are you even doing on this forum? You post your opinions and then whine when people disagree with them. Bottle and Spoffin have done an amazing job of backing up their stances, but you have felt no more need to justify your opinions other than saying that they are your "moral position", as if that somehow makes your argument just as valid. The fact is, that while you have the right to your opinion, you also have the right to be WRONG. The ultimate truth is that if you cannot back up your arguments, then your opinions are NOT valid.

The point is, if you do not want to have your arguments scrutinized, and are not willing to debate reasonably and logically, then quit trolling and get off this thread.

And as a side note, of course the situations which have been brought up by those studies are hypothetical, but you have done your fair share of hypothesizing as well. You assume just as much as Bottle has in that you believe that the legislation MAY prevent kids from undertaking risky behaviour, and it MAY help parents to keep involved in their children's lives, however the difference is that Bottle actually has documented research to back up her "assumptions".

For God's sakes man! What are you even doing on this forum? You post your opinions and then whine when people disagree with them. Bottle and Spoffin have done an amazing job of backing up their stances, but you have felt no more need to justify your opinions other than saying that they are your "moral position", as if that somehow makes your argument just as valid. The fact is, that while you have the right to your opinion, you also have the right to be WRONG.

The point is, if you do not want to have your arguments scrutinized, and are not willing to debate, then quit trolling and get off this thread.

When have I whined about my views being questioned?

The only people whining are you, Spoffin and Bottle because you cannot believe anyone could possibly disagree with you. "We are right, why doesn't he believe."

In my last post I have stated that I have not changed my views because the "evidence" provided by Bottle was at best speculation, not conclusive proof because there is none. Only opinion. If those surveys convince you that the legislation is not a good idea then thats fine, it did not convince me.
I have not said my opinion is anymore valid than anyone elses at any point. Nor have I inferred it. In your opinion I am wrong, thats your opinion.
I have not said my views should not be scrutinised, they have been scrutinised for 10 pages on this thread and I have not complained about it. Just because I do not agree with you does not make me a troll and you have no right to tell me where and when I can or cannot post in these forums. If expressing a differing view is somehow a breach of the forum rules then I'll let the moderators decide that rather than you.

And as a side note, of course the situations which have been brought up by those studies are hypothetical, but you have done your fair share of hypothesizing as well. You assume just as much as Bottle has in that you believe that the legislation MAY prevent kids from undertaking risky behaviour, and it MAY help parents to keep involved in their children's lives, however the difference is that Bottle actually has documented research to back up her "assumptions".

Yes, it is all assumptions and opinions, even from me because noone knows for sure what will happen. I happen to believe it is a good thing for parents to be able to have access to their child's medical records for the purpose of having a say in their welfare. My opinion.
Seeing as the legislation is not in place there are no proven statistics that show the legislation will have a positive or negative effect on the health of children, just speculation. The AMA quote given shows this as they use "may" and "could" rather than "will".
Therefore, taking all this into account I believe the legislation should pass.

I think you misunderstood me. I am fully aware that you have a right to your opinion, and you can say what you like. But, all you have been doing for the last three pages or so is trying to throw your free speech rights in our faces. You accuse Bottle of making too many assumptions while making just as many yourself (and you don't even have the kind of evidence that she has), and you seem to believe that because you have taken a moral stance on an issue, that your opinion automatically has the same validity as those of someone who has provided facts or (if "fact" is too strong a word for you), evidence to support their claims. Point being, until you can provide evidence, or just an argument, no-one on this thread will take your "moral stance" seriously.

Oh, and by the way, I believe that most people would agree with me when I say that posting your opinion over and over again in a thread, without giving any real arguments to support it, would be considered trolling. It's about as useful as if I was to go onto one of the many gay-marriage threads and say "TEH FAGZ!!1! THERE F@##KIN STOOPID!1!!!!!!11! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:" , and then say that I have the moral high ground because "it's my opinion".

I am not posting my opinion over and over again. You and others are trying to convince me that I am wrong. When you criticise my opinion I have the right of reply which I have exercised.
The other difference between my actions and the trolling example you have given is that I have not used foul language, I have not used derogatory terms and I have not called anyone stupid.
I have also not said I have the "high moral ground" nor have I implied that I have the "high moral ground". I have been asked to explain why I support the legislation and I have done. The speculation produced as evidence has not changed my mind.
I believe in the right of the parent to have a say in the welfare of their children. That is my belief, it does not require "evidence" because it is a statement based on my moral beliefs on the role of a parent. It is not based in politics. I have not said it is the only point of view, I have not said it is a righteous point of view, I have not criticised anyone who disagrees with me. If there was conclusive evidence I would rethink my stance based on such evidence but at present I have seen none.
The basic fact is you cannot accept that I do not agree with you. Well, I don't. You are just going to have to accept that as I have accepted you will not agree with me. Nor have I asked you to.

Everyone in Australia- VOTE GREEN in the upcoming federal election!!! :mrgreen:

I am not posting my opinion over and over again. You and others are trying to convince me that I am wrong. When you criticise my opinion I have the right of reply which I have exercised.
The other difference between my actions and the trolling example you have given is that I have not used foul language, I have not used derogatory terms and I have not called anyone stupid.
I have also not said I have the "high moral ground" nor have I implied that I have the "high moral ground". I have been asked to explain why I support the legislation and I have done. The speculation produced as evidence has not changed my mind.
I believe in the right of the parent to have a say in the welfare of their children. That is my belief, it does not require "evidence" because it is a statement based on my moral beliefs on the role of a parent. It is not based in politics. I have not said it is the only point of view, I have not said it is a righteous point of view, I have not criticised anyone who disagrees with me. If there was conclusive evidence I would rethink my stance based on such evidence but at present I have seen none.
The basic fact is you cannot accept that I do not agree with you. Well, I don't. You are just going to have to accept that as I have accepted you will not agree with me. Nor have I asked you to.

You are, of course, entitled to your views.

Equally, however, others are entitled to question you over your viewpoint when all of the facts presented and all of the research argues against this proposal. Further, the AMA response was completely negative and even the Mad Monks own colleagues rushed to condemn this proposal.

It would appear that your viewpoint has little to do with "conclusive evidence" and much to do with party political affiliation.

I am not posting my opinion over and over again. You and others are trying to convince me that I am wrong. When you criticise my opinion I have the right of reply which I have exercised.
The other difference between my actions and the trolling example you have given is that I have not used foul language, I have not used derogatory terms and I have not called anyone stupid.
I have also not said I have the "high moral ground" nor have I implied that I have the "high moral ground". I have been asked to explain why I support the legislation and I have done. The speculation produced as evidence has not changed my mind.
I believe in the right of the parent to have a say in the welfare of their children. That is my belief, it does not require "evidence" because it is a statement based on my moral beliefs on the role of a parent. It is not based in politics. I have not said it is the only point of view, I have not said it is a righteous point of view, I have not criticised anyone who disagrees with me. If there was conclusive evidence I would rethink my stance based on such evidence but at present I have seen none.
The basic fact is you cannot accept that I do not agree with you. Well, I don't. You are just going to have to accept that as I have accepted you will not agree with me. Nor have I asked you to.

You are, of course, entitled to your views.

Equally, however, others are entitled to question you over your viewpoint when all of the facts presented and all of the research argues against this proposal. Further, the AMA response was completely negative and even the Mad Monks own colleagues rushed to condemn this proposal.

It would appear that your viewpoint has little to do with "conclusive evidence" and much to do with party political affiliation.

My views are based on my belief in the principle that parent should have a say in the welfare of their children. This is a principle I believe in and so did a number of people who posted earlier in this thread. It is not a theory or a political stance, it is one based on MY principles. It has nothing to do with political affiliations of which I have none.
I have not denied that people have the right to question my viewpoint, they have done so quite vigorously and they are free to do so. That does not mean I have to agree with them, I respect their point of view but I disagree with it.
As I also said, there have been no facts produced only hypotheses and speculation. You may accept them as fact, I however, do not.

You are, of course, entitled to your views.

Equally, however, others are entitled to question you over your viewpoint when all of the facts presented and all of the research argues against this proposal. Further, the AMA response was completely negative and even the Mad Monks own colleagues rushed to condemn this proposal.

It would appear that your viewpoint has little to do with "conclusive evidence" and much to do with party political affiliation.

Considering the AMA is the same organisation involved in the medical student fiasco, the fact they were completely negative towards Tony Abbott is no surprise. One has to question whether this is merely a matter of ideological hatred or genuine emotion.

As has been pointed out...people will not always vote for everything together. Take Labor parliamentarians voting with the government on banning same-sex marriage despite some disent within the caucus and from their minority allies or their support for tax cuts for those earning above $52,000 despite disent from within the party.

The facts thus far are statistics which have been proven inconclusive (please read back). Sometimes following statistics are not always right...at least that is how Republicans see it when the majority voted NO to an Australian Republic in 1999.

Of course, you might like to argue that a misguiding series of questions were put to voters, and you may very well be right. But then this might be said of the questions put to American children - that they are misguiding.

You are, of course, entitled to your views.

Equally, however, others are entitled to question you over your viewpoint when all of the facts presented and all of the research argues against this proposal. Further, the AMA response was completely negative and even the Mad Monks own colleagues rushed to condemn this proposal.

It would appear that your viewpoint has little to do with "conclusive evidence" and much to do with party political affiliation.

Considering the AMA is the same organisation involved in the medical student fiasco, the fact they were completely negative towards Tony Abbott is no surprise. One has to question whether this is merely a matter of ideological hatred or genuine emotion.

As has been pointed out...people will not always vote for everything together. Take Labor parliamentarians voting with the government on banning same-sex marriage despite some disent within the caucus and from their minority allies or their support for tax cuts for those earning above $52,000 despite disent from within the party.

The facts thus far are statistics which have been proven inconclusive (please read back). Sometimes following statistics are not always right...at least that is how Republicans see it when the majority voted NO to an Australian Republic in 1999.

Of course, you might like to argue that a misguiding series of questions were put to voters, and you may very well be right. But then this might be said of the questions put to American children - that they are misguiding.

You have introduced a whole series of unrelated issues.

Please stick to the point.

Smokescreens are not appreicated in this thread, which I started to discuss a single important issue, that of the foolish proposal initated by the Mad Monk, Tony Abbott, and which resulted in a backbench revolt.

If you wish to discuss other issues, kindly commence your own thread.

You are, of course, entitled to your views.

Equally, however, others are entitled to question you over your viewpoint when all of the facts presented and all of the research argues against this proposal. Further, the AMA response was completely negative and even the Mad Monks own colleagues rushed to condemn this proposal.

It would appear that your viewpoint has little to do with "conclusive evidence" and much to do with party political affiliation.

Considering the AMA is the same organisation involved in the medical student fiasco, the fact they were completely negative towards Tony Abbott is no surprise. One has to question whether this is merely a matter of ideological hatred or genuine emotion.

As has been pointed out...people will not always vote for everything together. Take Labor parliamentarians voting with the government on banning same-sex marriage despite some disent within the caucus and from their minority allies or their support for tax cuts for those earning above $52,000 despite disent from within the party.

The facts thus far are statistics which have been proven inconclusive (please read back). Sometimes following statistics are not always right...at least that is how Republicans see it when the majority voted NO to an Australian Republic in 1999.

Of course, you might like to argue that a misguiding series of questions were put to voters, and you may very well be right. But then this might be said of the questions put to American children - that they are misguiding.

You have introduced a whole series of unrelated issues.

Please stick to the point.

Smokescreens are not appreciated in this thread, which I started to discuss a single important issue, that of the foolish proposal initated by the Mad Monk, Tony Abbott, and which resulted in a backbench revolt.

If you wish to discuss other issues, kindly commence your own thread.

You are, of course, entitled to your views.

Equally, however, others are entitled to question you over your viewpoint when all of the facts presented and all of the research argues against this proposal. Further, the AMA response was completely negative and even the Mad Monks own colleagues rushed to condemn this proposal.

It would appear that your viewpoint has little to do with "conclusive evidence" and much to do with party political affiliation.

Considering the AMA is the same organisation involved in the medical student fiasco, the fact they were completely negative towards Tony Abbott is no surprise. One has to question whether this is merely a matter of ideological hatred or genuine emotion.

As has been pointed out...people will not always vote for everything together. Take Labor parliamentarians voting with the government on banning same-sex marriage despite some disent within the caucus and from their minority allies or their support for tax cuts for those earning above $52,000 despite disent from within the party.

The facts thus far are statistics which have been proven inconclusive (please read back). Sometimes following statistics are not always right...at least that is how Republicans see it when the majority voted NO to an Australian Republic in 1999.

Of course, you might like to argue that a misguiding series of questions were put to voters, and you may very well be right. But then this might be said of the questions put to American children - that they are misguiding.

You have introduced a whole series of unrelated issues.

Please stick to the point.

Smokescreens are not appreicated in this thread, which I started to discuss a single important issue, that of the foolish proposal initated by the Mad Monk, Tony Abbott, and which resulted in a backbench revolt.

If you wish to discuss other issues, kindly commence your own thread.

I consider these issues linked in the measure of their statistical reliability. As these examples prove, statistics can be manipulated depending on the questions asked. Statistics, as mentioned previously, are also prone to factors such as misguiding answers on the part of the surveyed subjects.

This "single important issue" does not stand alone. The organisation whose fervent disapproval for the said issue has come under increasing criticism in recent months, and such factors must be taken into account when passing judgement as to the AMA's credibility and indeed reliability.

The point here is that statistics alone are not enough to prove the case for or even against Tony Abbott's agenda. This issue is not even a matter of evidence, or even statistical "facts" (word used loosely). It is about a parent's right as guardian over their child to be kept up to speed on their medical status so they may better care for them.

I wonder, Smeagol, how quick you would be to condemn parents when their children die or become critically ill for want of medicine, yet are underage to have a prescription filled and for matters of privacy did not tell anyone? I suppose the parent's in your mind would have failed their children by not being able to read minds.

For God's sakes man! What are you even doing on this forum? You post your opinions and then whine when people disagree with them. Bottle and Spoffin have done an amazing job of backing up their stances, but you have felt no more need to justify your opinions other than saying that they are your "moral position", as if that somehow makes your argument just as valid. The fact is, that while you have the right to your opinion, you also have the right to be WRONG. The ultimate truth is that if you cannot back up your arguments, then your opinions are NOT valid.

The point is, if you do not want to have your arguments scrutinized, and are not willing to debate reasonably and logically, then quit trolling and get off this thread.

And as a side note, of course the situations which have been brought up by those studies are hypothetical, but you have done your fair share of hypothesizing as well. You assume just as much as Bottle has in that you believe that the legislation MAY prevent kids from undertaking risky behaviour, and it MAY help parents to keep involved in their children's lives, however the difference is that Bottle actually has documented research to back up her "assumptions".

THANK YOU. i was starting to wonder if i had stumbled into an alternate universe or something, where "moral" means "groundless" and "equally valid" means "in no way as well supported." it's good to know that there are still people who use my definitions of the original terms :).

Tygaland, you clearly aren't intellectually or emotionally equipped to have this debate, especially since you are more focused on blaming me for your poor temper than you are on learning and reasoning about the issue. it is perfectly possible to hold a position opposing mine and argue with coherant and valid points...just read Thuthmose III stuff. he/she has actual points, reasons, something beyond "because that's what i say!" and is therefore much more interesting and helpful to the discussion.

if you don't like debate then don't participate, but if you are going to participate then have the respect to make a decent job of it. okay, you don't like the AMA citation...what about all the others?! what about the question you have been repeatedly asked: IF IT WERE PROVEN THAT THIS LAW WOULD ADVERSELY EFFECT TEEN HEALTH ON THE WHOLE, WOULD YOU STILL SUPPORT IT? if the number of children in danger from lack of treatment outweighed the number staying safer because of increased parent monitoring, would you still support it?

I consider these issues linked in the measure of their statistical reliability. ...statistics can be manipulated depending on the questions asked. ...

...AMA's credibility and indeed reliability.

...This issue is not even a matter of evidence

The case does not rely solely on statistics, but these have been introduced by other posters to enhance the stand against the stupid proposal by Abbott. No statistics, reliable or otherwise have been introduced in support of the opposing viewpoint.

So it is of little wonder that you refuse to recognise the validity of statistics.

The AMA is the medical professions own association in Australia. A more august and reputable body to put the medical case I cannot imagine.

They disagree with your viewpoint, so it is of little wonder that you refuse to recognise their validity.

"This issue is not even a matter of evidence"? Well, I can see how you have chosen to ignore that as well.

I consider these issues linked in the measure of their statistical reliability. ...statistics can be manipulated depending on the questions asked. ...

...AMA's credibility and indeed reliability.

...This issue is not even a matter of evidence

The case does not rely solely on statistics, but these have been introduced by other posters to enhance the stand against the stupid proposal by Abbott. No statistics, reliable or otherwise have been introduced in support of the opposing viewpoint.

So it is of little wonder that you refuse to recognise the validity of statistics.

The AMA is the medical professions own association in Australia. A more august and reputable body to put the medical case I cannot imagine.

They disagree with your viewpoint, so it is of little wonder that you refuse to recognise their validity.

"This issue is not even a matter of evidence"? Well, I can see how you have chosen to ignore that as well.

they really want to be hung up on the AMA, huh? well, i wonder when they will notice all the other sources i posted. hell, i wonder when somebody from the opposition will have the simple courtesy to post a single source of their own.

of course, since evidence apparently has nothing to do with the issue i don't know why they would...why let a little thing like data get in the way of your theory, after all?

I consider these issues linked in the measure of their statistical reliability. ...statistics can be manipulated depending on the questions asked. ...

...AMA's credibility and indeed reliability.

...This issue is not even a matter of evidence

The case does not rely solely on statistics, but these have been introduced by other posters to enhance the stand against the stupid proposal by Abbott. No statistics, reliable or otherwise have been introduced in support of the opposing viewpoint.

So it is of little wonder that you refuse to recognise the validity of statistics.

The AMA is the medical professions own association in Australia. A more august and reputable body to put the medical case I cannot imagine.

They disagree with your viewpoint, so it is of little wonder that you refuse to recognise their validity.

"This issue is not even a matter of evidence"? Well, I can see how you have chosen to ignore that as well.

Interesting that you failed to quote exactly what I said.

The AMA has proven on a number of accounts to be unreliable and politically biased. I merely question their credibility when they back medical students claiming signed contracts are unconstitutional.

Your lust for evidence and statistical reliability in almost everything you do indicates to me a lack of emotion or social awareness. You will naturally disagree, as always, but this issue is not about statistics derived from childhood mockery of surverying techniques. It is about parents who must have access to their childrens medical records so they may care properly for them.

You forget Smeagol, children cannot buy prescription medicines.

The AMA has proven on a number of accounts to be unreliable and politically biased. ...

Your lust for evidence and statistical reliability in almost everything you do indicates to me a lack of emotion or social awareness. ..

...this issue is not about statistics derived from childhood mockery of surverying techniques. It is about parents who must have access to their childrens medical records so they may care properly for them.



If the AMA is unreliable and politically biased (which I do not accept) how do you account for the fact that the Liberal backbench revolt was led by a medical practioner. Is he now to be described as "unreliable and politically biased" as a means of discounting his opinion?

A "lust for evidence and statistical reliability" I make no apologies for. Strangely, I consider that an informed opinion to be preferable to an uniformed one. We obviously disagree on this.

This issue is not about statistics, but nor is it about the rights of parents. It is about acting in the best interests of the health of young Australians...or is that perhaps just my "lust for statistics" or "lack of social awareness" speaking?

By the way, I would ask that you stick to discussing the topic, and arguing it on its merits.

Your fondness for personal attacks on those who disagree with you does you little credit.

The only people whining are you, Spoffin and Bottle because you cannot believe anyone could possibly disagree with you. "We are right, why doesn't he believe."

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue.

Yeah, we're the ones not substantiating our views :roll:

When have I whined about my views being questioned?

The only people whining are you, Spoffin and Bottle because you cannot believe anyone could possibly disagree with you. "We are right, why doesn't he believe."You've gone consistently for the "all opinions are equally valid and should be respected" tactic. Standard tactic of those whos arguments are incapable of standing on their own merits.

In my last post I have stated that I have not changed my views because the "evidence" provided by Bottle was at best speculation, not conclusive proof because there is none. Only opinion. If those surveys convince you that the legislation is not a good idea then thats fine, it did not convince me.And what would convince you if you don't believe surveys and statistics? How many teenagers will need to die from backstreet abortions for you to change your mind?
I have not said my opinion is anymore valid than anyone elses at any point. Nor have I inferred it. In your opinion I am wrong, thats your opinion.Fine. I am saying my opinion is more valid then yours.
I have not said my views should not be scrutinised, they have been scrutinised for 10 pages on this thread and I have not complained about it. Just because I do not agree with you does not make me a troll and you have no right to tell me where and when I can or cannot post in these forums. If expressing a differing view is somehow a breach of the forum rules then I'll let the moderators decide that rather than you.I agree. I don't think you've been trolling and I think you can post where you like. Are you going to argue the opposite viewpoint has equal merit?

Your lust for evidence and statistical reliability in almost everything you do indicates to me a lack of emotion or social awareness. You will naturally disagree, as always, but this issue is not about statistics derived from childhood mockery of surverying techniques. It is about parents who must have access to their childrens medical records so they may care properly for them.


you're not serious, are you?! are you actually trying to claim that being informed about an issue makes somebody LESS aware and involved in it? how does paying attention to documented facts make somebody less caring, particularly if those facts can help us to design a system that improves healthcare and saves lives?

what you seem to be claiming is that parents' desires for control are more important than the health and lives of their children, something which i find frankly amazing. the "childhood mockery of surveying techniques" is scientific method, tested and confirmed by countless accredited sources, and holds a hell of a lot more water than the mere feelings of a parent.

emotion and compassion are important, but they must never be allowed to trump reason and practical reality. the feelings of a parent are not more important than the safety of a child, nor are they justification for ignoring proven realities, and no good parent would ever think of suggesting such a thing. i honestly cannot believe what i am reading, this argument that facts don't matter and evidence is irrelevant, especially when that evidence points to the fact that your proposed course of action will lead to death and serious illnesses.

please, tell me this is all just somebody's idea of a joke.

The only people whining are you, Spoffin and Bottle because you cannot believe anyone could possibly disagree with you. "We are right, why doesn't he believe."


yeah, you just keep telling yourself that. i have posted several times now that i don't care if you agree with me, just that you actually participate in the debate. disagree, by all means, but do it with actual points and positions rather than insulting us all by expecting us to take your opinion as carrying the same weight as countless medical and psychological sources.

i come to NationStates for debate. i WANT people to disagree with me, and those who know me here will back that up. but i come looking for a real discussion, not for somebody to whine and complain when other people challenge their thinly supported and emotive claims. please start presenting some sort of case, or at least sticking to the issue...the complaining and crybaby finger-pointing is getting really old.

Your lust for evidence and statistical reliability in almost everything you do indicates to me a lack of emotion or social awareness. You will naturally disagree, as always, but this issue is not about statistics derived from childhood mockery of surverying techniques. It is about parents who must have access to their childrens medical records so they may care properly for them.


you're not serious, are you?! are you actually trying to claim that being informed about an issue makes somebody LESS aware and involved in it? how does paying attention to documented facts make somebody less caring, particularly if those facts can help us to design a system that improves healthcare and saves lives?

what you seem to be claiming is that parents' desires for control are more important than the health and lives of their children, something which i find frankly amazing. the "childhood mockery of surveying techniques" is scientific method, tested and confirmed by countless accredited sources, and holds a hell of a lot more water than the mere feelings of a parent.

emotion and compassion are important, but they must never be allowed to trump reason and practical reality. the feelings of a parent are not more important than the safety of a child, nor are they justification for ignoring proven realities, and no good parent would ever think of suggesting such a thing. i honestly cannot believe what i am reading, this argument that facts don't matter and evidence is irrelevant, especially when that evidence points to the fact that your proposed course of action will lead to death and serious illnesses.

please, tell me this is all just somebody's idea of a joke.

Well said.

I too was amazed and astounded that anybody could so lightly criticize what was described as a "lust for evidence and statistical reliability" - as if relying on facts and evidence somehow was an inferior method of arriving at truth. Why let the statistics and the evidence stand in the way of your own opinion?

Seems that merely "having a different opinion" is more highly prized by some than is basing that opinion on evidence.

And to so badly confuse the reality of the issue, claiming that somehow it is about parents rights, rather than children's health, is equally peculiar.

I'm not Australian, but to the person who thinks statistics taken in America are null and void just because we're talking about Australia - you need to think about that statement. We aren't talking about a specific nation here, we are talking about something that will occur due to human nature. And I won't buy for a second that the types of bad parents that occur here don't occur there too.

Now, as for my opinion on the subject, I'm really going to have to take a middle line on it. I'm not that old, so I still remember well what it was like to be a teenager. And I was very lucky to have a mother that cared about me enough to be open with me from the time I was old enough to ask questions. I knew what sex was from an early age (in other words she didn't try to hide it from me until I found out from some boy in the back of a car somewhere.) I also heard her opinion that emotionless sex (which she admitted to having before) is just not as good as sex between two loving people in a committed relationship. I took that to heart and I never did have sex until my 3rd year of college when I was in a committed relationship. However, I was close to my mother because of her openness and I know that I could have gone to her with any problem. I never had an instance where I would have been upset if she saw my medical record because I told her all of my major health concerns anyways. Hell, I still do. So I understand the point of those parents who say they should be able to take care of their kids in any way possible.

My father, on the other hand, was an abusive drunk. He was pretty much out of my life by the time I was 15, but I can tell you honestly that I NEVER would have gone to him with a major health problem, especially if it dealt in any way with sex.

Now, on to the other side. I have a little anecdote for this too. I knew a girl in high school, who, having been repressed by her parents religious views, was scared to death of her parents. It wasn't that they didn't care about her, I knew them as well and they very much did. It was that they were too strict in their views and never made her comfortable with talking to them. They also obviously never had a very in-depth birds and bees talk (see below). She also was somewhat promiscuous(sp?). I remember a specific incident where she (a 15-year old at the time) had unprotected sex with a 30-year old man who I thought was pretty skeezy. Her excuse was that "you can't get pregnant when you're on the rag." I, of course, explained to her that you absolutely can and besides, getting pregnant isn't the only concern here! I begged her to let me drive her to Planned Parenthood where I knew she could confidentially (a) get on birth control (b) get education, testing, and counseling and (c) get condoms. And why did she refuse? Her parents might find out! Anyone who thinks this isn't a common situation is seriously naive.

So, in the end I think there should be a middle view here. As Bottle (I think) said, in most cases this isn't necessary and each case needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps the law should provide for a system in which a child can apply for certain information to be withheld. If a child is mature enough to find a way to get to a doctor on their own, they are most likely mature enough to explain why they need confidentiallity. It may be a religious-zealot parent, or they may have reason to believe the parent may react violently, or any other reason that a reasonable panel (which should be made up of people of varying ages and should include both parents and non-parents - not just old people who have long since forgotten what it is like to be a kid) will recognize. This way, not only are we allowing for those cases where telling parents may be more harmful than helpful, we are also allowing the child to take part in their own future by recognizing that they are nearing adulthood and deserve a little more responsibility. However, the "I'm a teenager and I should have some privacy" excuse won't be enough.

Will there still be kids who don't get help because they are afraid their parents might find out? Of course, but there are now too. My example above shows that teenagers, even when guarranteed confidentiality, will sometimes continue to put themselves at risk. Will some reasons get approved even though their parents would probably be supportive and loving? Of course, no system is perfect.

But I think the middle-of-the line tact in this case would probably keep more people out of danger than the "Parents should never have access" or the "All parents are perfect and thus should alway have access" arguments.

The only people whining are you, Spoffin and Bottle because you cannot believe anyone could possibly disagree with you. "We are right, why doesn't he believe."

I do not need surveys to back up my moral stance on this issue.

Yeah, we're the ones not substantiating our views :roll:

In your opinion you have substantiated your views, in my opinion you haven't. I really do not know why it is so difficult for you to understand. My support of this bill is based on my belief in the principle that parents have a right to know and to have an active role in the welfare of their children. It is not based on speculation and hypotheses which you seem to feel are conclusive proof that your opinion is right.
My beliefs are based on my upbringing and inherent morals which have been taught to me by my parents and have been developed during my life on this planet. As such I have not conducted a survey into why I hold these principles so dear. The AMA have not knocked on my door asking why I hold these beliefs. Why? Because they are my beliefs to which I am entitled, they have been acquired during my upbringing. They are questioned everyday of my life and adjusted as new information is presented to me. I have taken in your information and it has not changed my views.

Not once have I said my stance if the moral high ground nor have I criticised you for your stance. I have presented my views, you have presented yours. I have asked questions of your views, you have asked questions of mine. I have answered your questions and you have answered mine. I still support this legislation and you still do not.

When have I whined about my views being questioned?

The only people whining are you, Spoffin and Bottle because you cannot believe anyone could possibly disagree with you. "We are right, why doesn't he believe."You've gone consistently for the "all opinions are equally valid and should be respected" tactic. Standard tactic of those whos arguments are incapable of standing on their own merits.

No, standard tactic for someone who believes that is true. I posted my thoughts on this topic for 2 reasons. One, to throw my opinion into the mix. Two, to hear what others think on the matter and use that to question my stance on the matter. I have heard all you have to say and I stand my beliefs on this matter. Not that hard to understand is it?

In my last post I have stated that I have not changed my views because the "evidence" provided by Bottle was at best speculation, not conclusive proof because there is none. Only opinion. If those surveys convince you that the legislation is not a good idea then thats fine, it did not convince me.And what would convince you if you don't believe surveys and statistics? How many teenagers will need to die from backstreet abortions for you to change your mind?

Statistics and surveys are easily manipulated. Surveys are also a means of proposing a hypothetical scenario and are not conclusive fact, something you obviously don't understand. Taking the surveys and other information into account this has not changed my opinion on the legislation.

I have not said my opinion is anymore valid than anyone elses at any point. Nor have I inferred it. In your opinion I am wrong, thats your opinion.Fine. I am saying my opinion is more valid then yours.

Good for you! You are entitled to that opinion, I am not obliged to agree with it.

I have not said my views should not be scrutinised, they have been scrutinised for 10 pages on this thread and I have not complained about it. Just because I do not agree with you does not make me a troll and you have no right to tell me where and when I can or cannot post in these forums. If expressing a differing view is somehow a breach of the forum rules then I'll let the moderators decide that rather than you.I agree. I don't think you've been trolling and I think you can post where you like. Are you going to argue the opposite viewpoint has equal merit?

Yes, if they believe I am trolling then thats what they believe. If they feel that I am not allowed to post on these forums then that is their choice. It is my choice to disagree with them. As such, until I am warned by those charged with the authority to do so or banned from these forums I will continue to voice my views on these forums. Whether they feel I should be allowed to do so is their opinion but it is of no consequence to me.

Yes, if they believe I am trolling then thats what they believe. If they feel that I am not allowed to post on these forums then that is their choice. It is my choice to disagree with them. As such, until I am warned by those charged with the authority to do so or banned from these forums I will continue to voice my views on these forums. Whether they feel I should be allowed to do so is their opinion but it is of no consequence to me.

Whoa.

I do not believe that you are trolling, nor do I believe that you should not be allowed to post.

What I do believe is that if you do post, then you should be willing and able to defend your position.

And criticising others because they are able to substantiate their views from other sources when you are not does seem a little peculiar.

Whoa.

I do not believe that you are trolling, nor do I believe that you should not be allowed to post.

Never said YOU did. Another poster in this thread has:

snip....quit trolling and get off this thread.

What I do believe is that if you do post, then you should be willing and able to defend your position.

I have defended my position, numerous times. I do not accept the surveys as gospel. Surveys are easily manipulated, they are also hypothetical and as such are not conclusive. My position is based on principles that I have developed throughout my life. Nothing presented here has changed my mind. Why can't people accept that?

And criticising others because they are able to substantiate their views from other sources when you are not does seem a little peculiar.

I have not criticised anyone's views. I have ask questions of their views to better understand them and so as I can challenge the principles by which I determine my stance on issues. Look back through the thread and show me where I have criticised people's views. I have asked questions in a civil manner for my own information, people have asked me why I believe the legislation is a good idea and I have tried on many occasions to do so. I think the major issue here is that I have listened to your thoughts, read your surveys and I have decided that my stance will not change. Not a crime, not a slight on your views or on others views and by no means a statement that my views are more valid than anyone else's. The bottom line is the surveys are not gospel in my view, something you cannot understand or choose not to understand.

I think the major issue here is that I have listened to your thoughts, read your surveys and I have decided that my stance will not change. Not a crime, not a slight on your views or on others views and by no means a statement that my views are more valid than anyone else's. The bottom line is the surveys are not gospel in my view, something you cannot understand or choose not to understand.

You somehow still fail to recognise that the opposition to the foolish policy proposal is not in fact solely based on surveys.

Initially, this policy caused a threatened backbench revolt led by a Liberal medical practioner. No surveys were required. It was recognised on sight as poor policy, and a threat to the health of children.

It was then vigorously opposed by the Australian Medical Association, the most highly regarded body of medical practioners in Australia. Again, no requirement for any surveys.

It was only when some posters attempted to somehow justify this policy that several posters produced the results of overseas research - note the word research - not merely surveys.

The only two points put forward in defence of this dangerous policy have been that it gives greater rights to the parents (which it does, at the cost of the rights of the child, and at a clear and well-documented level of risk to the well-being of the child) and that others are entitled to their viewpoint, however unsupported by any research.

Again, the personal attack "something you cannot understand or choose not to understand" is uncalled for.

Kindly attempt to discuss the matter on its merits.

I think the major issue here is that I have listened to your thoughts, read your surveys and I have decided that my stance will not change. Not a crime, not a slight on your views or on others views and by no means a statement that my views are more valid than anyone else's. The bottom line is the surveys are not gospel in my view, something you cannot understand or choose not to understand.

You somehow still fail to recognise that the opposition to the foolish policy proposal is not in fact solely based on surveys.

Initially, this policy caused a threatened backbench revolt led by a Liberal medical practioner. No surveys were required. It was recognised on sight as poor policy, and a threat to the health of children.

It was then vigorously opposed by the Australian Medical Association, the most highly regarded body of medical practioners in Australia. Again, no requirement for any surveys.

It was only when some posters attempted to somehow justify this policy that several posters produced the results of overseas research - note the word research - not merely surveys.

The only two points put forward in defence of this dangerous policy have been that it gives greater rights to the parents (which it does, at the cost of the rights of the child, and at a clear and well-documented level of risk to the well-being of the child) and that others are entitled to their viewpoint, however unsupported by any research.

Again, the personal attack "something you cannot understand or choose not to understand" is uncalled for.

Kindly attempt to discuss the matter on its merits.

I have addressed the alleged backbench revolt many times, please read my posts. I said the extent of such a revolt would only be known when the legislation is brought to vote, not before. Thuthmose III has also stated that such "revolts" are hardly a rare occurence in party room.
I have said, and so has Thuthmose III, that the AMA is hardly unbiased in their opinion on these matters, again, please read the earlier posts.
Your assertion that the risk to children is clear and well-documented is untrue. It may be clear and well-documented in your eyes but it is not in mine. The perceived risk to children is speculative, not fact.

My comment about not understanding was not a personal attack, it was a statement based on having to repeat my reasons for supporting this legislation ad nauseum while noone seems to really read what I am posting.

I have said it many times. I support this legislation because I believe in the right of a parent to have a say and to be involved in the welfare of their children. The perceived risk that you will no doubt conter with yet again is your opinion based on speculation and hypotheses. I have read the information you and others have produced and I still maintain this legislation is good legislation. Is it impossible for you to accept that I just do not agree with you?

Your assertion that the risk to children is clear and well-documented is untrue. It may be clear and well-documented in your eyes but it is not in mine. The perceived risk to children is speculative, not fact.

My comment about not understanding was not a personal attack, it was a statement based on having to repeat my reasons for supporting this legislation ad nauseum while noone seems to really read what I am posting.

I have said it many times. I support this legislation because I believe in the right of a parent to have a say and to be involved in the welfare of their children. The perceived risk that you will no doubt conter with yet again is your opinion based on speculation and hypotheses. I have read the information you and others have produced and I still maintain this legislation is good legislation. Is it impossible for you to accept that I just do not agree with you?

Not at all.

I have stated on several occassions that you are entitled to your opinion.

How many times do you need to hear that?

It is obviously important to you as you are seemingly unable to offer anything else in support of your viewpoint.

If you wish to believe that the liberal backbench medical practiuoner, the AMA, and international research and case studies are either wrong, biased, or inconclusive, then you are entitled to that belief.

Equally, there are those who would consider that the weight of evidence in this instance cannot be so easily dismissed.

If the AMA is unreliable and politically biased (which I do not accept) how do you account for the fact that the Liberal backbench revolt was led by a medical practioner. Is he now to be described as "unreliable and politically biased" as a means of discounting his opinion?

A "lust for evidence and statistical reliability" I make no apologies for. Strangely, I consider that an informed opinion to be preferable to an uniformed one. We obviously disagree on this.

This issue is not about statistics, but nor is it about the rights of parents. It is about acting in the best interests of the health of young Australians...or is that perhaps just my "lust for statistics" or "lack of social awareness" speaking?

By the way, I would ask that you stick to discussing the topic, and arguing it on its merits.

Your fondness for personal attacks on those who disagree with you does you little credit.

A Liberal backbench revolt? Dear me...that has never happened before...oh wait...it has! Next!

As pointed out, statistics are not always reliable...and an American study cannot be used to substantiate a case in Australia to any informed degree. Apart from surveyed children lying (yes...amazing - children mock the system despite its ultra-left wing bias), Australia's health system is entirely different to America's. Perhaps, since you love numbers so much, you could provide "evidence" of a thorough Australian study into this exact issue (we want to keep on topic as you so furiosly pointed out).

I have argued this debate on its merits. Parents should be allowed to access their children's medical records for the following reasons:

1. Parents buy the medicine
2. Parents are expected to look after their children. How can they be expected to if they are not told of their child's medical status?
3. Children are not informed enough to make decisions on their own. A 10 year old is not capable (or legally allowed) to make decisions about their health (in terms of treatment).
4. Parents are expected to sign for their children for prescriptions and the like...so they should be informed as to what they are exactly signing for.

These are all legitimate, commonsense, concerns which you (and others) have avoided in this thread. It does not take statistics to see what is right or wrong.

As for personal attacks, I find such whining to be highly hypocritical from a person using derogatory terms such as "mad monk" to label a member of our parliament.

Not at all.

I have stated on several occassions that you are entitled to your opinion.

Yes, usually followed by a comment decrying your disbelief that I do not share your opinion.

How many times do you need to hear that?

Just once would suffice where it is not qualified by a comment of disbelief at my stance on this issue.

It is obviously important to you as you are seemingly unable to offer anything else in support of your viewpoint.

I have said numerous times why I support this legislation. I will not repeat it again.

If you wish to believe that the liberal backbench medical practiuoner, the AMA, and international research and case studies are either wrong, biased, or inconclusive, then you are entitled to that belief.

Thank you.

Equally, there are those who would consider that the weight of evidence in this instance cannot be so easily dismissed.

I have never said there wasn't. I am sure there are people who are swayed by the information you and others have presented. I am not one of those people for the reasons I and Thuthmose III have stated.

1. Parents buy the medicine

This is not valid in the areas that have been debated here, unless you're counting condoms or counselling/advice as medicine.

3. Children are not informed enough to make decisions on their own. A 10 year old is not capable (or legally allowed) to make decisions about their health (in terms of treatment).

And these decisions are, apart from determining whether to see a doctor of course? Children don't exactly prescribe themselves medicine. Neither do adults. Only a doctor can prescribe medication, so I don't quite understand what you're saying in this point.

4. Parents are expected to sign for their children for prescriptions and the like...so they should be informed as to what they are exactly signing for.

Parents signing for prescriptions? The only one who really needs to sign for medicine is a doctor. At least, in any normal pharmacy that's all that's needed. Since not all parents are doctors, this point doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I think the major issue here is that I have listened to your thoughts, read your surveys and I have decided that my stance will not change. Not a crime, not a slight on your views or on others views and by no means a statement that my views are more valid than anyone else's. The bottom line is the surveys are not gospel in my view, something you cannot understand or choose not to understand.

scientific studies aren't gospel to anybody here, i don't think, they're just worth more than a single person's unfounded opinion.

since you are posting in a public forum you obviously care what other people think, so why are you making so poor a case? if this issue is important to you then why do you not care what happens with it? the safety of children is at stake, and if you think your position is the one that will best protect them then shouldn't you be trying to get the word out to other people? shouldn't you try to encourage others to support such legislation, whether in your home town or other locations? if any of those are true, don't you think you need to give people a better reason than your say-so to give their support, and therefore don't you think you should provide some evidence that your course of action will help (or at least not harm) young people?

EDIT
what it comes down to is this: i agree that all opinions are, in themselves, equal. nobody has any more reason to listen to my opinion than yours. that's why i present evidence, to give them something besides just my feelings on the subject to go on. the fact that documented experiments and studies support me gives people a reason to give a damn what i think.

because this issue is important to me, i care whether people get involved and take the appropriate action; i care about health and safety for young people, and i want to make sure that we provide the best care possible. i think it is better to accomplish that by informing people of proven data than by telling them about my personal parenting philosophy, or by expecting them to simply follow me blindly. i think it is better to present evidence and let people decide for themselves. if you think that's best too then i would assume you'd post some studies or evidence supporting your positions, rather than just wanting people to lock-step and follow you.

[

Statistics and surveys are easily manipulated. Surveys are also a means of proposing a hypothetical scenario and are not conclusive fact, something you obviously don't understand. Taking the surveys and other information into account this has not changed my opinion on the legislation.


um, did you actually LOOK at the sources i posted? because what you are describing isn't at all what they are...it makes me think that you are just criticizing without even taking the time to read what you are passing judgment on. if you, as you claim, did want to come here to question your own views, then why would you ignore what i posted and just continue on with your assumptions?

I'm not Australian, but to the person who thinks statistics taken in America are null and void just because we're talking about Australia - you need to think about that statement. We aren't talking about a specific nation here, we are talking about something that will occur due to human nature. And I won't buy for a second that the types of bad parents that occur here don't occur there too.

Now, as for my opinion on the subject, I'm really going to have to take a
middle line on it. I'm not that old, so I still remember well what it was like
to be a teenager. And I was very lucky to have a mother that cared about me enough to be open with me from the time I was old enough to ask questions. I knew what sex was from an early age (in other words she didn't try to hide it from me until I found out from some boy in the back of a car somewhere.) I also heard her opinion that emotionless sex (which she admitted to having before) is just not as good as sex between two loving people in a committed relationship. I took that to heart and I never did have sex until my 3rd year of college when I was in a committed relationship. However, I was close to my mother because of her openness and I know that I could have gone to her with any problem. I never had an instance where I would have been upset if she saw my medical record because I told her all of my major health concerns anyways. Hell, I still do. So I understand the point of those parents who say they should be able to take care of their kids in any way possible.

My father, on the other hand, was an abusive drunk. He was pretty much out of my life by the time I was 15, but I can tell you honestly that I NEVER would have gone to him with a major health problem, especially if it dealt in any way with sex.

Now, on to the other side. I have a little anecdote for this too. I knew a
girl in high school, who, having been repressed by her parents religious views, was scared to death of her parents. It wasn't that they didn't care about her, I knew them as well and they very much did. It was that they were too strict in their views and never made her comfortable with talking to them. They also obviously never had a very in-depth birds and bees talk (see below). She also was somewhat promiscuous(sp?). I remember a specific incident where she (a 14 or 15-year old at the time) had unprotected sex with a 30-year old man who I thought was pretty skeezy. Her excuse was that "you can't get pregnant when you're on
the rag." I, of course, explained to her that you absolutely can and besides, getting pregnant isn't the only concern here! I begged her to let me drive her to Planned Parenthood where I knew she could confidentially (a) get on birth control (b) get education, testing, and counseling and (c) get condoms. And why did she refuse? Her parents might find out! Anyone who thinks this isn't a common situation is seriously naive.

So, in the end I think there should be a middle view here. As Bottle (I think) said, in most cases this isn't necessary and each case needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps the law should provide for a system in which a child can apply for certain information to be withheld. If a child is mature enough to find a way to get to a doctor on their own, they are most likely mature enough to explain why they need confidentiallity. It may be a religious-zealot parent, or they may have reason to believe the parent may react violently, or any other reason that a reasonable panel (which should be made up of people of varying ages and should include both parents and non-parents - not just old people who have long since forgotten what it is like to be a kid) will recognize. This way, not only are we allowing for those cases where telling parents may be more harmful than helpful, we are also allowing the child to take part in their own future by recognizing that they are nearing adulthood and deserve a little more responsibility. However, the "I'm a teenager and I
should have some privacy" excuse won't be enough.

Will there still be kids who don't get help because they are afraid their
parents might find out? Of course, but there are now too. My example above shows that teenagers, even when guarranteed confidentiality, will sometimes continue to put themselves at risk. Will some reasons get approved even though their parents would probably be supportive and loving? Of course, no system is perfect.

But I think the middle-of-the line tact in this case would probably keep more people out of danger than the "Parents should never have access" or the "All parents are perfect and thus should alway have access" arguments.

There are lots of parents that are abusive and bad, the kind kids don't want to talk to too. I know this girl who got pregnant, her dad would have probably killed her if he found out.

1. Parents buy the medicine

This is not valid in the areas that have been debated here, unless you're counting condoms or counselling/advice as medicine.

3. Children are not informed enough to make decisions on their own. A 10 year old is not capable (or legally allowed) to make decisions about their health (in terms of treatment).

And these decisions are, apart from determining whether to see a doctor of course? Children don't exactly prescribe themselves medicine. Neither do adults. Only a doctor can prescribe medication, so I don't quite understand what you're saying in this point.

4. Parents are expected to sign for their children for prescriptions and the like...so they should be informed as to what they are exactly signing for.

Parents signing for prescriptions? The only one who really needs to sign for medicine is a doctor. At least, in any normal pharmacy that's all that's needed. Since not all parents are doctors, this point doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Perhaps you are not Australian, because you clearly do not understand our pharmaceutical system.

Tell me what 10 year old has money to go out and buy prescription medicines, or for that matter even a 14 year old? Their parents have to buy even cough medicine, cause simply put, children do not have the money for it.

Certainly doctors precribe medicine, but tell me what 14 year old is going to ask what the medicine does, questions what they are being given etc? Not many is the answer, and often doctors simple precribe medicine and send you on your way without explaining much - and this happens to adults too.

In Australia, to purchase precription medicine, the signature of an adult or parent/guardian is required at the pharmacy. You cannot simply go up and take medicine. You must sign for medicines which are prescribed. We are not talking about flu tablets here which you can buy over the counter, but actual medicines which have to be concoted behind the counter.

Since parents have to buy medicines and sign for medicines for their children, they should have access to their medicial records. How could anyone be expected to sign for something for their children if they do not know what it is the doctor is prescribing for.

I think the major issue here is that I have listened to your thoughts, read your surveys and I have decided that my stance will not change. Not a crime, not a slight on your views or on others views and by no means a statement that my views are more valid than anyone else's. The bottom line is the surveys are not gospel in my view, something you cannot understand or choose not to understand.

scientific studies aren't gospel to anybody here, i don't think, they're just worth more than a single person's unfounded opinion.

since you are posting in a public forum you obviously care what other people think, so why are you making so poor a case? if this issue is important to you then why do you not care what happens with it? the safety of children is at stake, and if you think your position is the one that will best protect them then shouldn't you be trying to get the word out to other people? shouldn't you try to encourage others to support such legislation, whether in your home town or other locations? if any of those are true, don't you think you need to give people a better reason than your say-so to give their support, and therefore don't you think you should provide some evidence that your course of action will help (or at least not harm) young people?

EDIT
what it comes down to is this: i agree that all opinions are, in themselves, equal. nobody has any more reason to listen to my opinion than yours. that's why i present evidence, to give them something besides just my feelings on the subject to go on. the fact that documented experiments and studies support me gives people a reason to give a damn what i think.

because this issue is important to me, i care whether people get involved and take the appropriate action; i care about health and safety for young people, and i want to make sure that we provide the best care possible. i think it is better to accomplish that by informing people of proven data than by telling them about my personal parenting philosophy, or by expecting them to simply follow me blindly. i think it is better to present evidence and let people decide for themselves. if you think that's best too then i would assume you'd post some studies or evidence supporting your positions, rather than just wanting people to lock-step and follow you.

I have tried many times to explain my position on this issue but you do not want to hear it. I happen to think that parents accessing their childs medical records is a good thing because the parents need to know what is happening to their children to make judgements about their welfare. These children are DEPENDENTS of the parents, that is, the they are the parents responsibility.
To say this is endangering children because some will refuse to get medical assistance is hypothetical, a theory. It is a theory that I do not believe will become reality. Your reliance on surveys and statistics which are easily manipulated, which I am sure you are aware, is of no consequence to me because I have made a decision based on principles I live by. I don't know how many more times I have to say this before you can accept it. I am not on a recruiting drive to convert people to my way of thinking, as I have also said, I posted on this thread to see what people had to say and see if it challenged the principles I hold that shape my decisions. The information here did not change my mind.
In fact, commonsense argument from Thuthmose III has actually made my stance stronger on the issue.

I have tried many times to explain my position on this issue but you do not want to hear it. I happen to think that parents accessing their childs medical records is a good thing because the parents need to know what is happening to their children to make judgements about their welfare. These children are DEPENDENTS of the parents, that is, the they are the parents responsibility.


i hear you, and i have no problem understanding that this is your position. you are contending that a parent's right to control their children outweighs the health and physical safety of that child, and that children do not have the right to privacy that is guaranteed to adult citizens. it's not about me "not wanting to hear," i certainly do want to hear your opinion, it's that i would like you to give some evidence to support the idea that it is worth inforcing that sort of law.


To say this is endangering children because some will refuse to get medical assistance is hypothetical, a theory. It is a theory that I do not believe will become reality. Your reliance on surveys and statistics which are easily manipulated, which I am sure you are aware, is of no consequence to me because I have made a decision based on principles I live by. I don't know how many more times I have to say this before you can accept it.


the data collected are NOT theory. i am again forced to ask if you actually read any of the sources i posted, since if you had you would realize that they weren't theoretical surveys. over half involved direct case studies, as a matter of fact. data has been directly collected from clinics and medical centers on this subject, and one of my studies showed a direct link between establishment of an anti-confidentiality policy and a drop in teen report rates for injuries and illnesses involving sexual activity and/or drug use. that's not theory, it's a simple reality. you seem to been confused about the difference between hypothetical situations and documented history, so i would again encourage you to try reading my sources before you attempt a critique.


I am not on a recruiting drive to convert people to my way of thinking, as I have also said, I posted on this thread to see what people had to say and see if it challenged the principles I hold that shape my decisions. The information here did not change my mind.


so all you care about is your opinion, and helping others or improving the world means nothing? interesting. and yet you have refered to your decision as "moral."


In fact, commonsense argument from Thuthmose III has actually made my stance stronger on the issue.

yes, his arguments certainly have been stronger than your own. notice how he actually discusses and reasons, rather than simply stating and re-stating his feelings and expecting others to give a damn. perhaps you could follow his lead...?

I have tried many times to explain my position on this issue but you do not want to hear it. I happen to think that parents accessing their childs medical records is a good thing because the parents need to know what is happening to their children to make judgements about their welfare. These children are DEPENDENTS of the parents, that is, the they are the parents responsibility.


i hear you, and i have no problem understanding that this is your position. you are contending that a parent's right to control their children outweighs the health and physical safety of that child, and that children do not have the right to privacy that is guaranteed to adult citizens. it's not about me "not wanting to hear," i certainly do want to hear your opinion, it's that i would like you to give some evidence to support the idea that it is worth inforcing that sort of law.


It is the parent who is responsible for the physical safety and health of their children. A child cannot look after itself - hence Tygaland's explanation of "dependent" (you will notice that the tax department even uses this terminology, and you are unable to hold a job until 14 years and 9 months).

Since parents are legally, and I would also argue morally, responsible for their children, it is important that they are aware of their child's health status. It would be to the negative effect if a child was diagnosed by a doctor to have a serious illness (even the flu can kill) yet the parent was not informed as to the situation. Why should a parent not only sign for and purchase the necessary medicine, but make sure their child took it too without being told what it was their child has?

It is not uncommon for doctors to prescribe the wrong medication. I know from personal experience on many counts, involving a number of doctors, that sometimes they get it wrong.

Parents are legally responsible for their children. They are responsible for their wellbeing, schooling them, clothing them, feeding them etc. I would say that any information which helps them to meet these responsibilities should be made available to parents.

It is the parent who is responsible for the physical safety and health of their children. A child cannot look after itself - hence Tygaland's explanation of "dependent" (you will notice that the tax department even uses this terminology, and you are unable to hold a job until 14 years and 9 months).


i don't believe anybody is suggesting that children look after themselves. qualified medical professionals would be the ones administering care, not other children, and those professionals would be overseen by the same standards that bind them in adult care.


Since parents are legally, and I would also argue morally, responsible for their children, it is important that they are aware of their child's health status. It would be to the negative effect if a child was diagnosed by a doctor to have a serious illness (even the flu can kill) yet the parent was not informed as to the situation. Why should a parent not only sign for and purchase the necessary medicine, but make sure their child took it too without being told what it was their child has?


this is a fair argument, but i would say that the safety of a child outweighs the parental right to control of medical history. until somebody can provide a source showing otherwise, i must rely on my own research which has shown that the likelihood of serious untreated illness in young people will increase with lack of confidentiality, and that such an increase also represents a rise in the over-all health problems for that age group.


It is not uncommon for doctors to prescribe the wrong medication. I know from personal experience on many counts, involving a number of doctors, that sometimes they get it wrong.


true, but no study i have found shows that parental involvement decreases the likelihood that will happen. can you find any evidence that this is the case?


Parents are legally responsible for their children. They are responsible for their wellbeing, schooling them, clothing them, feeding them etc.

this is the strongest argument for your position, and i agree that it is a critical and valid point. what it comes down to at this point is who's rights we decide to prioritize: the child's right to health, or the parent's right to decide what is best for their child. while the two may often coincide, it is for the cases where they do not that this law becomes an issue. most of the time a parent will chose to do what is best for their child (at least, that is what i personally believe), but there are critical cases when the disconnect between a parent's wishes and a child's may result in serious medical problems.


I would say that any information which helps them to meet these responsibilities should be made available to parents.


parents are responsible for their kids, true, but we limit their power in many ways. we have plenty of restrictions on what they can and cannot do, and those restrictions pretty much all revolve around the idea that a parent cannot put their will ahead of their child's safety and health. since my research has shown that laws like the topic of discussion will lead to increases likelihood that a child will be sick and NOBODY will know, doesn't that make it harder for a parent to meet the responsibility of providing for their child's health?

It is the parent who is responsible for the physical safety and health of their children. A child cannot look after itself - hence Tygaland's explanation of "dependent" (you will notice that the tax department even uses this terminology, and you are unable to hold a job until 14 years and 9 months).


i don't believe anybody is suggesting that children look after themselves. qualified medical professionals would be the ones administering care, not other children, and those professionals would be overseen by the same standards that bind them in adult care.


Since parents are legally, and I would also argue morally, responsible for their children, it is important that they are aware of their child's health status. It would be to the negative effect if a child was diagnosed by a doctor to have a serious illness (even the flu can kill) yet the parent was not informed as to the situation. Why should a parent not only sign for and purchase the necessary medicine, but make sure their child took it too without being told what it was their child has?


this is a fair argument, but i would say that the safety of a child outweighs the parental right to control of medical history. until somebody can provide a source showing otherwise, i must rely on my own research which has shown that the likelihood of serious untreated illness in young people will increase with lack of confidentiality, and that such an increase also represents a rise in the over-all health problems for that age group.


It is not uncommon for doctors to prescribe the wrong medication. I know from personal experience on many counts, involving a number of doctors, that sometimes they get it wrong.


true, but no study i have found shows that parental involvement decreases the likelihood that will happen. can you find any evidence that this is the case?


Parents are legally responsible for their children. They are responsible for their wellbeing, schooling them, clothing them, feeding them etc.

this is the strongest argument for your position, and i agree that it is a critical and valid point. what it comes down to at this point is who's rights we decide to prioritize: the child's right to health, or the parent's right to decide what is best for their child. while the two may often coincide, it is for the cases where they do not that this law becomes an issue. most of the time a parent will chose to do what is best for their child (at least, that is what i personally believe), but there are critical cases when the disconnect between a parent's wishes and a child's may result in serious medical problems.


I would say that any information which helps them to meet these responsibilities should be made available to parents.


parents are responsible for their kids, true, but we limit their power in many ways. we have plenty of restrictions on what they can and cannot do, and those restrictions pretty much all revolve around the idea that a parent cannot put their will ahead of their child's safety and health. since my research has shown that laws like the topic of discussion will lead to increases likelihood that a child will be sick and NOBODY will know, doesn't that make it harder for a parent to meet the responsibility of providing for their child's health?

"Qualified medicial professionals" are not the ones in charge of caring for children. They diagnose illnesses etc and prescribe medicine...after that they have no contact with the children. It is the parents who are charged with the care of children.

You wants statistics (or "evidence" as you often use) yet you fail to recognise the failures of statistics in providing a reliable scenario 100% of the time. There is no guarantee that your statistics are accurate...for all you know, children interviewed could have easily lied (were they interviewed or simply handed a survey to fill out?). You need to address the reliability of such surveys and address the validity of the results in relation to Australian society. Australia has a very very different health system and indeed laws regarding minors than the US. Using US sources to make claim such a system would not work in Australia is impossible. There are no Australian studies thus far, and frankly, I believe that a more accurate study would involve questions directed towards parents - whether they feel access to their children's (dependents) medical records would help them to care better for them.

I am speaking from the commonsense perspective - one which you acknowledge but choose to ignore in favour of highly questionable statistics derived from the USA.

Ok...let us use some extra material to support my claims...

Say a survey showed that 4/10 American school students had reading difficulties. Under your argument for statistical reliability, this would mean that 4/10 Australian school students would have reading difficulties. Of course, such comparisons are ludicrous without an Australian study (which has limitations of its own that damage the credibility in regards to demographics, truthfullness etc) to support these claims.

...Perhaps you can provide a link so I might see this "research" you keep referring to in support of your claims. Perhaps you could also discuss its limitations with regards to demographics etc.

I have read your "studies" and they prove nothing. Not knowing the size of the statistical set, the diversity of the people surveyed and the context of the questions they are essentially meaningless.

I have brought up this question a while ago and it was conveniently ignored.

A Liberal backbench revolt? Dear me...that has never happened before...oh wait...it has! Next!

In this particular instance though, we have the Federal Health Minister proposing policy for his own portfolio. And the backbench revolt is led by a Liberal medical practioner, who says that the reason for his actions is that the proposal would be harmful to children's health. These circumstances mean that this particular backbench revolt cannot be so easily dismissed.



As pointed out, statistics are not always reliable...and an American study cannot be used to substantiate a case in Australia to any informed degree. Apart from surveyed children lying (yes...amazing - children mock the system despite its ultra-left wing bias), Australia's health system is entirely different to America's. Perhaps, since you love numbers so much, you could provide "evidence" of a thorough Australian study into this exact issue (we want to keep on topic as you so furiosly pointed out).

Perhaps, on the other hand you could supply any research, either from Australia, or anywhere in favour of your case. Note the word "research", as it is not only based upon surveys.



1. Parents buy the medicine

What a simplistic approach to health care. Not all ailments can be cured by simple pill-popping. Counselling, advice, and minor surgical procedures are all services available from a GP, without the requirement for prescription meciation.


2. Parents are expected to look after their children. How can they be expected to if they are not told of their child's medical status?

Yes, but they do not always live up to these expectations. As many of the actual case-studies quoted have revealed, sometimes the parents either are the problem, or contribute to it. Let's not pretend we live in a perfect world, let's instead provide solutions for real-world problems.


3. Children are not informed enough to make decisions on their own. A 10 year old is not capable (or legally allowed) to make decisions about their health (in terms of treatment).

Nobody is suggesting that decision making be transferred to children. The decision making would be left to the qualified medical practioners.


4. Parents are expected to sign for their children for prescriptions and the like...so they should be informed as to what they are exactly signing for.


See above. Not all medical problems are fixed by prescriptions.


As for personal attacks, I find such whining to be highly hypocritical from a person using derogatory terms such as "mad monk" to label a member of our parliament.

Firstly, it is not I who (rightly IMHO) nicknamed Tony Abbott as the "Mad Monk". Secondly, with your track record for flaming, I would imagine that there is really little point in asking you to stick to the topic, instead of attacking other posters.

I have read your "studies" and they prove nothing. Not knowing the size of the statistical set, the diversity of the people surveyed and the context of the questions they are essentially meaningless.

I have brought up this question a while ago and it was conveniently ignored.

*sigh*

to both you and Thuthmose III:

i have provided sources and citations, so feel free to look over them. i am not here to go hunting through the 'net for sources to spoon-feed you, so please don't insult me by asking that i do your work for you. if you question my sources then consult them yourselves, or provide your own sources for me to go over. i find it interesting that so much criticism is being directed at my references while nobody seems to have actually read a single one...perhaps that is why you are so eager to dismiss evidence, you don't want to take the time to read it?

hell, do a basic search on the subject and start skimming links. while the internet is never a good place to get one's facts from, you certainly can find references to solid sources, and you can consult them at your leisure.

to be honest, i don't think this debate will be interesting any more unless some new blood shows up. we're just going to keep going around in circles, and it's really not that much fun to go over the same territory so many times. i'll check back in every now and again to see if there's some new voice, but i'm thinking it's best to just all agree we're not going to come together this time. i don't want people feeling like i'm leaving this in the lurch, so feel free to telegram me if it's especially important that i come back to the discussion. i won't hold my breath, though ;).

well fought, on most counts, and i hope you all have fun!

well here, let me help you. here's just a few cases i have personally seen:

-a girl, pregnant by her stepfather via sexual abuse, needing help to deal not only with the physical consequences of her condition but also counciling to deal with the circumstances that brought it about. for obvious reasons, the step-father and mother would not allow such intervention.

-a young man with infected track marks who got his fix from his mother, who will beat him if he suggests going to "the authorities" (the hospital), since that might uncover her drug habit.

-13 year old twins who have been sexually abused by their father and both have genital herpes. the father had refused to take them to the doctor for at least 8 months. one of the twins was rendered infertile by the progression of the disease, since it had been untreated for so long.

-a 14 year old Catholic girl who's father broke two of her ribs when he found out she was pregnant, then told her she would "just have to live with it" and denied her medical treatment. she ran away from home and was living in a teen shelter when she was referred to us.

-countless girls facing unplanned pregnancies, who's parents would kick them out of their homes if they found out about it.

that's just off the top of my head, too.

Just to make it clear, the legislation proposed was to raise the age limit for parental access to their child's medical records from 14 to 16 so these examples are not relevant to the legislation. The law already allows access to children's medical records by their parents up to the age of 14.


Prime Minister John Howard's administration, which is bracing for elections later this year, had proposed raising from 14 to 16 the age until which parents can access their children's medical records in a bid to curb teen promiscuity and pregnancies.


(Source: http://www.emedia.com.my/Current_News/NST/Wednesday/World/20040615183045/Article/indexb_html)

to be honest, i don't think this debate will be interesting any more unless some new blood shows up. we're just going to keep going around in circles, and it's really not that much fun to go over the same territory so many times. i'll check back in every now and again to see if there's some new voice, but i'm thinking it's best to just all agree we're not going to come together this time. i don't want people feeling like i'm leaving this in the lurch, so feel free to telegram me if it's especially important that i come back to the discussion. i won't hold my breath, though ;).

well fought, on most counts, and i hope you all have fun!

Agreed, thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

Perhaps you are not Australian, because you clearly do not understand our pharmaceutical system.

Ahem. I am very much Australian born and raised. I am speaking from experience, having bought both morphine and quinine at a pharmacy for my mother, without her there, and without any signature but the doctor's.

Tell me what 10 year old has money to go out and buy prescription medicines, or for that matter even a 14 year old? Their parents have to buy even cough medicine, cause simply put, children do not have the money for it.

Funny. I don't recall arguing about prescription medicine when referring to cost. Only things like advice, counselling and condoms. All of which are cheap enough for a 10 or 14 year old, although why a 10 year old would need condoms...

Certainly doctors precribe medicine, but tell me what 14 year old is going to ask what the medicine does, questions what they are being given etc? Not many is the answer, and often doctors simple precribe medicine and send you on your way without explaining much - and this happens to adults too.

One can always find some smart kids, and some dumb adults. Doctors also explain what the medicine is for, or they should.

In Australia, to purchase precription medicine, the signature of an adult or parent/guardian is required at the pharmacy. You cannot simply go up and take medicine. You must sign for medicines which are prescribed. We are not talking about flu tablets here which you can buy over the counter, but actual medicines which have to be concoted behind the counter.

Of course one does not simply take medicine from a pharmacy. That's called theft. Other than that, please refer to my statement earlier in my post.

Funny how, in general, the arguments being proposed for the possible legislation is all about prescription medicine, and the arguments against the possible legislation are about things like condoms, counselling and advice.

Perhaps you are not Australian, because you clearly do not understand our pharmaceutical system.

Ahem. I am very much Australian born and raised. I am speaking from experience, having bought both morphine and quinine at a pharmacy for my mother, without her there, and without any signature but the doctor's.

You are actually now required to present a Medicare card at pharmacies when you first present a prescription at that pharmacy. I assume this was done or these events took place before this was required?

Tell me what 10 year old has money to go out and buy prescription medicines, or for that matter even a 14 year old? Their parents have to buy even cough medicine, cause simply put, children do not have the money for it.

Funny. I don't recall arguing about prescription medicine when referring to cost. Only things like advice, counselling and condoms. All of which are cheap enough for a 10 or 14 year old, although why a 10 year old would need condoms...

Nonetheless prescription medicines, surgery etc are relevant issues. Teenagers are not only in need of contraception or counselling.

Certainly doctors precribe medicine, but tell me what 14 year old is going to ask what the medicine does, questions what they are being given etc? Not many is the answer, and often doctors simple precribe medicine and send you on your way without explaining much - and this happens to adults too.

One can always find some smart kids, and some dumb adults. Doctors also explain what the medicine is for, or they should.

Regardless of the intelligence of the patients the doctors should explain how to use medications and what they are used for. Pharmacists are also required to outline the dosage of the medication and any other information such and side-effects and contraindications from other drugs that the patient may be using. This being said there is no guarantee the child will understand these instructions. Then again some adults may not understand either!

In Australia, to purchase precription medicine, the signature of an adult or parent/guardian is required at the pharmacy. You cannot simply go up and take medicine. You must sign for medicines which are prescribed. We are not talking about flu tablets here which you can buy over the counter, but actual medicines which have to be concoted behind the counter.

Of course one does not simply take medicine from a pharmacy. That's called theft. Other than that, please refer to my statement earlier in my post.

I have also addressed this earlier. I would be surprised if children can get prescription drugs without their parent's consent either through a signature or their presence these days.

Funny how, in general, the arguments being proposed for the possible legislation is all about prescription medicine, and the arguments against the possible legislation are about things like condoms, counselling and advice.

Condoms are available from vending machines and also available "over the counter" at pharmacies. There are also anonymous phone lines for adolescents to use to access counsellors which would not show up on their medical records.

Nonetheless prescription medicines, surgery etc are relevant issues. Teenagers are not only in need of contraception or counselling.

But it is in these areas that they are most likely to try and hide things from their parents. It is generally sexual or psychological issues that cannot be shared with bad parents. If the kid has the flu, they generally didn't do anything that they might get beat up for to get it.

Condoms are available from vending machines and also available "over the counter" at pharmacies. There are also anonymous phone lines for adolescents to use to access counsellors which would not show up on their medical records.

Do the vending machines explain how to use the condoms or bring up other forms of contraception? Can the vending machine, for instance, provide birth control pills too?

As for anonymous phone lines - not the best counselling in the world. The types of people that benefit from regular counselling generally need face to face contact. Such contact would go on a medical record.

By the way, how come my position is being ignored in this discussion? *pouts* hehe

Whoa.

I do not believe that you are trolling, nor do I believe that you should not be allowed to post.

Never said YOU did. Another poster in this thread has:

snip....quit trolling and get off this thread.

What I do believe is that if you do post, then you should be willing and able to defend your position.

I have defended my position, numerous times. I do not accept the surveys as gospel. Surveys are easily manipulated, they are also hypothetical and as such are not conclusive. My position is based on principles that I have developed throughout my life. Nothing presented here has changed my mind. Why can't people accept that?

And criticising others because they are able to substantiate their views from other sources when you are not does seem a little peculiar.

I have not criticised anyone's views. I have ask questions of their views to better understand them and so as I can challenge the principles by which I determine my stance on issues. Look back through the thread and show me where I have criticised people's views. I have asked questions in a civil manner for my own information, people have asked me why I believe the legislation is a good idea and I have tried on many occasions to do so. I think the major issue here is that I have listened to your thoughts, read your surveys and I have decided that my stance will not change. Not a crime, not a slight on your views or on others views and by no means a statement that my views are more valid than anyone else's. The bottom line is the surveys are not gospel in my view, something you cannot understand or choose not to understand.

Whoa There, big guy. I never once stated that you should be banned, DEATed, or otherwise (if I did, I would have gone to the mods long ago), my point is that all you have been doing on the last several pages is talking about how we cannot convince you otherwise, how your opinions are just as valid as ours (despite that you have not shown that in any way, shape or form), and how documented evidence and studies somehow make people LESS knowledgable about an issue, as opposed to the genius possesed by your parental hunches.

What I was getting at is that if you want to have people take your arguments seriously, you need to provide facts/evidence/arguments to back them up. And trolling doesn't necessarily have to involve dirty words, as you inferred earlier. Perhaps my example was not the best.

One more thing. In the last paragraph of what I quoted from you up there, you say that you have been overviewing the processes by which you came to your conclusions, and looking at the posts of those who disagree with you. I suppose this is meant to give us the impression that you're not completely inflexible. However, you also state at the same time, that despite looking at accredited studies, facts, and good ol' logic, you still will not concede a single point on this issue. I suppose this is because your entire "argument" hinges upon the fact that Bottle's studies are likely scenarios, not set-in-stone truth. While making educated guesses is perfectly acceptable (and is just more likely to be right). Personally, I would take the "assumptions" of accredited studies conducted by doctors, mental health experts, and those in the know about youth issues, above your gut instinct any day.

dp

Nonetheless prescription medicines, surgery etc are relevant issues. Teenagers are not only in need of contraception or counselling.

But it is in these areas that they are most likely to try and hide things from their parents. It is generally sexual or psychological issues that cannot be shared with bad parents. If the kid has the flu, they generally didn't do anything that they might get beat up for to get it.

Yes, perhaps but the issues covered by the legislation is greater than this. Children are taught about contraception and sexuality if not by their parents then at school. The advice phone lines are also there for those still unsure.

Condoms are available from vending machines and also available "over the counter" at pharmacies. There are also anonymous phone lines for adolescents to use to access counsellors which would not show up on their medical records.

Do the vending machines explain how to use the condoms or bring up other forms of contraception? Can the vending machine, for instance, provide birth control pills too?

Vending machines do not teach people anything, they provide easy and anonymous access to contraception. As I mentioned above, children are being taught about contraception and sexuality from an early age now (I was taught at 12) either by their parents or at school.
The "morning after" pill is also available "over the counter" in Victoria at the moment, not sure about other states.

As for anonymous phone lines - not the best counselling in the world. The types of people that benefit from regular counselling generally need face to face contact. Such contact would go on a medical record.

I never said it was the best form of counselling, it is however a source of anonymous advice on a wide range of issues which is also free.

By the way, how come my position is being ignored in this discussion? *pouts* hehe

I am responding to your position!

But it is in these areas that they are most likely to try and hide things from their parents. It is generally sexual or psychological issues that cannot be shared with bad parents. If the kid has the flu, they generally didn't do anything that they might get beat up for to get it.

Yes, perhaps but the issues covered by the legislation is greater than this. Children are taught about contraception and sexuality if not by their parents then at school. The advice phone lines are also there for those still unsure.

This is exactly why I took the middle-of-the-line stance I did a couple of pages ago. I think that if a child can give a reason for their wish to keep certain medical visits from their parents, they should be able to apply to have such hidden from their medical record if their parents request them. Thus, something like the flu would be reported to parents because there really is no reason not to tell them (at least none that I can think of). However, if the child came in for a pregnancy test and requested that it be hidden, it is possible that it would not be reported to the parents. I know the current legislation doesn't do that and neither does the proposed legislation. However, I think it would be a better system all-round.

[Vending machines do not teach people anything, they provide easy and anonymous access to contraception. As I mentioned above, children are being taught about contraception and sexuality from an early age now (I was taught at 12) either by their parents or at school.
The "morning after" pill is also available "over the counter" in Victoria at the moment, not sure about other states.

Yes, the same is true in America. However, many children don't really listen much in class. Take the example I cited a couple of posts ago for an example. The girl I mentioned had taken sex-ed classes since grade school, but was not aware that it is possible to become pregnant while on your period. Why? She didn't listen all that closely in class. A clinic, on the other hand, will generally not give you contraceptives without explaining proper use, what it will and will not do, etc. and making sure the patient understands.

By the way, how come my position is being ignored in this discussion? *pouts* hehe

I am responding to your position!

Yes, but I meant my original post where I laid things out in much more detail. =)

But it is in these areas that they are most likely to try and hide things from their parents. It is generally sexual or psychological issues that cannot be shared with bad parents. If the kid has the flu, they generally didn't do anything that they might get beat up for to get it.

Yes, perhaps but the issues covered by the legislation is greater than this. Children are taught about contraception and sexuality if not by their parents then at school. The advice phone lines are also there for those still unsure.

This is exactly why I took the middle-of-the-line stance I did a couple of pages ago. I think that if a child can give a reason for their wish to keep certain medical visits from their parents, they should be able to apply to have such hidden from their medical record if their parents request them. Thus, something like the flu would be reported to parents because there really is no reason not to tell them (at least none that I can think of). However, if the child came in for a pregnancy test and requested that it be hidden, it is possible that it would not be reported to the parents. I know the current legislation doesn't do that and neither does the proposed legislation. However, I think it would be a better system all-round.

[Vending machines do not teach people anything, they provide easy and anonymous access to contraception. As I mentioned above, children are being taught about contraception and sexuality from an early age now (I was taught at 12) either by their parents or at school.
The "morning after" pill is also available "over the counter" in Victoria at the moment, not sure about other states.

Yes, the same is true in America. However, many children don't really listen much in class. Take the example I cited a couple of posts ago for an example. The girl I mentioned had taken sex-ed classes since grade school, but was not aware that it is possible to become pregnant while on your period. Why? She didn't listen all that closely in class. A clinic, on the other hand, will generally not give you contraceptives without explaining proper use, what it will and will not do, etc. and making sure the patient understands.

By the way, how come my position is being ignored in this discussion? *pouts* hehe

I am responding to your position!

Yes, but I meant my original post where I laid things out in much more detail. =)