I bet one of these legislators had their kid get knocked up or seek counseling without telling them, and this was their reaction to the realization that they were shitty parents and their child hated them.

5/8/2013 6:00:33 PM

^It certainly doesn't take a huge leap to imagine that some of these legislators' kids are probably in need of counseling.

5/8/2013 6:05:07 PM

The bill is monumentally stupid, but the problem that it fails to address is not so much. Parents are legally, ethically and morally responsible for the health of their children. They can not make good informed decisions about their child's health without knowing the issues that their child has. Especially given the side effects and interactions these sorts of drugs can have, I absolutely see a need for parents to know.

The two problems are, there are some parents who shouldn't know because they are abusive and would use the information to further abuse their child (one would hope the child is mentioning is to the doctor, but kids like to pretend their as normal as possible, so simply admitting depression might already be a huge step). Honestly, this seems like something where unless there some evidence of the abuse, you can't do anything about it. Not every teen who doesn't want to talk to their parents about their health is being abused.

The other problem (and IMO the much bigger one) is the set of teens who if doctors are mandate to report even just the medications to parents won't seek any treatment at all. I'm not sure how you solve this. Parents absolutely have a right to know what is going on with their child's health, but some kids won't get treatment if their parents will find out.

5/8/2013 6:47:54 PM

^ doesn't the market solve that problem though?

Under most circumstances, a kid will eventually need money for services and HAVE to tell some adult they trust.

And I would wager the majority of practitioners strongly encourage kids to tell their parents, if they haven't. And I would also wager the vast majority of kids who CAN tell their parents DO.

The problem of parents not knowing strikes me as one that probably isn't widespread, and for the kids who don't tell their parents, I bet the vast majority have a good reason. For the latter, would they even be able to get their parents to go to a notary to sign an agreement?

So this legislation addresses a problem that likely isn't widespread. And addresses in a way that would exacerbate the situations where it might even be a problem.

5/8/2013 6:55:31 PM

^Agreed.

This will be a non-event. Plenty will bitch about it but in the end there will be no real effect. Life goes on.

5/8/2013 7:09:08 PM

^^ Absolutely, and I do suspect that the problem the legislation is obstensively trying to solve is indeed very uncommon. It's a shit law.

5/8/2013 7:19:30 PM

^^
I think you misinterpret what I'm saying.

Any implementation of the law is going to deter some teens from seeking help, particularly mental help. If the law is written such that a letter is needed before any services rendered, doctors offices will have to get their staff certified as notaries, and more kids will be deterred from seeking help.

If help can be given and a letter is only needed "eventually", less people will be deterred but some people still would stop seeking help.

It's not a nonissue, it's a very problematic law, as the people who need the most help (kids depressed with parents they can't turn to) are most disserviced and inconvenienced.

You'd think after the recent shootings by people with mental health issues, they wouldn't want to deter people from seeking mental health.

5/8/2013 7:30:24 PM

Quote :

"Parents absolutely have a right to know what is going on with their child's health, but some kids won't get treatment if their parents will find out."

Do they have that right, though? If you've fostered a good relationship with your children, the lines of communications about things like this are quite open, and no law granting parents a "right" to the health/medical information of their minor child is necessary.

Again, children are not property that are transformed into full, rights-possessing humans upon turning age 18. A 17 year old can be acutely aware of any health issues and also their parents' reaction to treatments/diagnosis. The same can be true of a 15 year old or a 13 year old. Younger children will not have the knowledge to make health-related decisions, but there's still no need for laws granting an absolute right to parents over their children and their interactions with medical professionals/services.

5/8/2013 8:34:17 PM

^ Yes. As long as the parents are legally responsible for their child's health, then they have a right to know all relevant things concerning their child's health.

Let me put it in a simple example. If a teen goes to the doctor for depression, and gets put on a mood stabilizer, some of which have a potential side effect of increasing suicidal thoughts and tendencies, don't you think the parents might have a right to know that so that they can evaluate whether they need to change certain tags about the home (such as perhaps changing the combination on the gun safe that the teen might know because they go hunting)? Or simply to look out for those subtle signals that indicate their child might be having such thoughts?

5/8/2013 8:52:22 PM

Quote :

"Yes, because teens in abusive relationships with their parents really should be forced to get their consent for treatment due to that abuse."

This, alone, is why I could never get behind such a proposal. I imagine that most kids who go up to their guidance counselor or doctor or whoever don't come out with "hey, I'm being beaten by my dad." It's something that probably slowly comes out over several visits and discussions. Yeah.

I sympathize with the idea that if a kid is seeking medical treatment for reasons related to sexual activity that the parents should be notified, but that's about as far as I'd go, and I'd be much more comfortable with the doctor making the decision as to whether or not to contact the parents as opposed to the doctor being required to do so.

I also consider that the kid is doing something that affects the parent's insurance, for which the kid is most certainly not paying, and as such, the parent should be signing off on it, but even that can't get me past the objection above.

5/8/2013 9:15:55 PM

you make some good points. but some of them neglect the fact that many parents are stupid, crazy, or/and completely absent.

Quote :

"I sympathize with the idea that if a kid is seeking medical treatment for reasons related to sexual activity that the parents should be notified"

Perhaps, but this bill would discourage a lot of kids from seeking help who might need medical treatment for depression, an STD, schizoidia, addiction, etc. A lot of kids wouldn't even consider talking to a counselor/doctor if they knew they'd have to get their parent(s)' permission first.

Quote :

"I also consider that the kid is doing something that affects the parent's insurance"

If it affects a parent's insurance, of course a parent should be notified. But even if they weren't, the parents should be aware enough to catch-on to their kid milking their insurance.

But more importantly, this bill would discourage troubled kids from even visiting a counselor/doctor in the first place. If medical treatment/therapy/$ is needed, then it might be necessary to get the parent(s) involved. But until then, troubled kids shouldn't be required to get their parent(s)' permission for help or advice. Again, there are plenty of moms and dads who are stupid, crazy, or/and clueless/absent. The kids shouldn't be punished for that.

The bills this GA keeps producing are down-right frightening. They ran on improving the economy and jobs, but they think that if they keep introducing these "morality" bills with a healthy side of pro-business (anti-enviro) bills, they'll keep their base happy.


[Edited on May 8, 2013 at 10:34 PM. Reason : won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!]

5/8/2013 10:13:54 PM

http://www.wral.com/proposed-restrictions-on-teen-medical-care-spark-debate/12426592/

5/9/2013 10:37:37 AM

The arguments in favor of this bill are completely bunk when you consider the notary requirement.

This isn't just a signature, this isn't just asking the adult if they're the parent and to show ID. Even with a parent's full cooperation this will make care for teenagers more difficult and expensive to get!

5/9/2013 10:49:55 AM

Who has argued in favor of the bill?

5/9/2013 11:07:27 AM

plenty of people

5/9/2013 11:16:31 AM

"rednecks"

5/9/2013 12:11:13 PM

From a long term political strategy perspective, isn't this a bad idea for conservatives. North Carolina is already looking a demographic changes that are unfavorable for republicans. Won't this bill just increase birth rates in demographics that don't vote for them? Furthermore, doesn't the obviously predictable increase in teen pregnancy rates go against their idea of not wanting a welfare state?

5/9/2013 12:24:50 PM

I've heard theories that abstinence-only education during the Bush years will be what saves the American economy. If you compare us to Japan, the EU, and pretty much any developed nation... they're all going to decline economically because of low birth rates and a real demographic crisis.

The US is, in fact, using its teenagers to just bump the number up enough. Combined with immigration, it's exactly the right amount to allow our economy to out-compete with both the developed world and the developing world since neither group can manage their demographic balance.

Sometimes I just can't help but think this was engineered

5/9/2013 12:42:21 PM

Don't forget all-but-impassable abortion restrictions.

5/13/2013 9:31:10 PM