Michigan Hospital Incident with a 17 year old daughter and a Mom


Recommended Posts

When Christy Duffy took her 17-year-old daughter to her local hospital in Michigan, she was stunned to see a notice posted alerting parents that a nurse will need to “have a short 5 minute private conversation with your child.”

 

 In a fiery blog post published on Monday, Duffy took a bold stand in favor of parental rights. She explains how the situation unfolded:

 

 I was there last week for an appointment for Amy. She hurt her foot, which makes dancing difficult, so we had to get that checked out. Amy is 17; I asked if this policy was in effect and if so, how could I opt out. The receptionist told me it’s a new law and there is no opting out. Working to keep my cool, I said, “I’m sure there is.” She said, “No, there isn’t.” At which point I asked if I needed to leave and go to the urgent care center because I was not submitting my daughter to such a conversation.

 

    That did not go over well

 

 

 

Read more here:

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/03/i-am-the-mom-it-didnt-go-over-well-when-a-hospital-allegedly-told-a-mother-theyd-need-to-have-a-private-conversation-with-her-teenage-daughter/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the mom needs to move

 

Let's hope this does not infect other States... especially my State.  Otherwise, we're going back to my homeland where Freedom still means something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like the mom is pretty uptight.  Her daughter is 17, and Mom is completely deluded if she thinks that the daughter isn't getting information about sex and drugs from anyone but her.  Laws like this make people who have nothing to hide, completely uncomfortable, but they are absolutely necessary.

 

A doctor who offers a 13-year-old girl birth control isn't encouraging her to have sex.  He's assuming that that she already is having sex, or is likely to do so soon, which is, like it or not, accurate.  He's helping prevent her becoming a teen mom, which is a responsible thing for him to do.  Same thing with a boy and condoms.

 

Children who are abused by their parents aren't going to accuse the parents while in the same room.  Many won't accuse the parents even in a safe space, largely because such a thing doesn't exist in their minds.  Parents who abuse their children are also the least likely to permit those children to be in a room alone with an authority figure who could do something about.

 

If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to hide.  So why am I going to get upset about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the fact that HER child was 17.  According to that new law it states 12-17.  As a mother, until that child is 18 I have every right to be with my child in a doctor's office while they are asking questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss having a classy first lady, a conservative family in the white house, and a President that is actually a real man(watch his newly released working out video...), not weak at heart. I saw this earlier and I find it very disturbing, just one of the many reminders that I was fortunate enough to have grown up in the time that I did so I would not have to encounter this stuff as a child. I fear for the junk my daughter will be put through though, but she is a die hard conservative just like daddy so we will see who she puts in their place.

 

We live in an invasive era that many would rather accept and deal with than fight. The government should fear its citizens, but that is not the case anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like the mom is pretty uptight.  Her daughter is 17, and Mom is completely deluded if she thinks that the daughter isn't getting information about sex and drugs from anyone but her.  Laws like this make people who have nothing to hide, completely uncomfortable, but they are absolutely necessary.

 

A doctor who offers a 13-year-old girl birth control isn't encouraging her to have sex.  He's assuming that that she already is having sex, or is likely to do so soon, which is, like it or not, accurate.  He's helping prevent her becoming a teen mom, which is a responsible thing for him to do.  Same thing with a boy and condoms.

 

Children who are abused by their parents aren't going to accuse the parents while in the same room.  Many won't accuse the parents even in a safe space, largely because such a thing doesn't exist in their minds.  Parents who abuse their children are also the least likely to permit those children to be in a room alone with an authority figure who could do something about.

 

If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to hide.  So why am I going to get upset about it?

 

Very naive.  This is not about you having something to hide.  This is about your child hiding something from you with the aid of the guns of the government at their back.

 

Your 13-year-old daughter who got herself impregnated has a big likelihood of hiding it from you, going to that doctor to get an abortion, and come home with nobody none-the-wiser.

 

Sure, if you were only concerned about her physical well-being, whatever.  But, that daughter will not have the spiritual guidance and moral support from the ones closest to her especially in these formative years - that critical coming of age that refines the morality that will be carried over to adulthood.

 

This is just another one of those things that sounds about right but is just another wedge shoved in the heart of the family.  This is a cultural shift away from that eternal nucleus that will make it just that much more difficult to keep a family together.  The way to ruin is always paved with roses...

 

There are already a jillion laws to protect an abused child.  This does not improve the conditions of abused children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the mom needs to move

 

So we are to move every time a new law is passed that we have issues with?  Sometimes it takes people to make changes. People who aren't afraid to stand up for what they believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the fact that HER child was 17.  According to that new law it states 12-17.  As a mother, until that child is 18 I have every right to be with my child in a doctor's office while they are asking questions.

I went to highschool in Washington State in the 1990s.

A similar law was in effect there, then, although it was newish.

From my family in Seattle -teens assuming responsibility for their own healthcare- I assume it's still in effect.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we are to move every time a new law is passed that we have issues with?  Sometimes it takes people to make changes. People who aren't afraid to stand up for what they believe. 

 

 

Of course  you make a valid point, but let's be honest is this mother really going to be able to make a difference in her community? unlikely.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course  you make a valid point, but let's be honest is this mother really going to be able to make a difference in her community? unlikely.....

 

So you rally other like minded parents and get the ball moving.  One person can make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss having a classy first lady, a conservative family in the white house, and a President that is actually a real man(watch his newly released working out video...), not weak at heart. I saw this earlier and I find it very disturbing, just one of the many reminders that I was fortunate enough to have grown up in the time that I did so I would not have to encounter this stuff as a child. I fear for the junk my daughter will be put through though, but she is a die hard conservative just like daddy so we will see who she puts in their place.

 

We live in an invasive era that many would rather accept and deal with than fight. The government should fear its citizens, but that is not the case anymore.

Your feelings aside, did you note that this is a local, state law, not a federal one?  This has nothing to do with President Obama's physical stamina.

 

 

Very naive.  This is not about you having something to hide.  This is about your child hiding something from you with the aid of the guns of the government at their back.

 

Your 13-year-old daughter who got herself impregnated has a big likelihood of hiding it from you, going to that doctor to get an abortion, and come home with nobody none-the-wiser.

 

Sure, if you were only concerned about her physical well-being, whatever.  But, that daughter will not have the spiritual guidance and moral support from the ones closest to her especially in these formative years - that critical coming of age that refines the morality that will be carried over to adulthood.

 

This is just another one of those things that sounds about right but is just another wedge shoved in the heart of the family.  This is a cultural shift away from that eternal nucleus that will make it just that much more difficult to keep a family together.  The way to ruin is always paved with roses...

 

There are already a jillion laws to protect an abused child.  This does not improve the conditions of abused children.

My daughters are currently six years old and two-and-a-half years old.  I consciously strive to develop the kind of relationship with them that they will tell me if they become pregnant at a young and/or unmarried age.  But my husband and I are not the only adults that they should be able to trust.  They need to have opportunities to confide in teachers or doctors or other appropriate mentors if necessary.  This issue is completely separate from my parenting.

 

I actually see it very similarly to why I'm against "abstinence only" sex education programs.  Statistically, they do not work.  I think (I could be wrong, it's been awhile since I read up on it) that they're actually less effective than no sex ed at all!  My kids -- all kids -- need to have appropriate sexual education, including anatomy and reproductive processes of both genders, as well as birth control options.  It's my job at home to teach them the moral side of their sex ed training.

 

I just look at this issue differently, I think, than most others in this thread.  This law is about my child, not about me.  It's about my child's rights and safety, not my rights.  I feel that this law is something that makes my (and others') children safer, even if that means keeping them safe from me or my husband.  Having that perspective, I honestly cannot understand any objection to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words you put your faith and trust in strangers and the state over the bonds of familial love.

 

What if the medical personel, police officer, public school teacher wants to molest your child? If we continue down this road not only will they be able to do so, but they will be able to blame you and throw you in prison.

 

My wife is in the medical profession and has seen horrible things. But in the end knows it's far more dangerous on principle to allow strangers, even professionals, unfettered closeted access to our children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your feelings aside, did you note that this is a local, state law, not a federal one?  This has nothing to do with President Obama's physical stamina.

 

 

My daughters are currently six years old and two-and-a-half years old.  I consciously strive to develop the kind of relationship with them that they will tell me if they become pregnant at a young and/or unmarried age.  But my husband and I are not the only adults that they should be able to trust.  They need to have opportunities to confide in teachers or doctors or other appropriate mentors if necessary.  This issue is completely separate from my parenting.

 

I actually see it very similarly to why I'm against "abstinence only" sex education programs.  Statistically, they do not work.  I think (I could be wrong, it's been awhile since I read up on it) that they're actually less effective than no sex ed at all!  My kids -- all kids -- need to have appropriate sexual education, including anatomy and reproductive processes of both genders, as well as birth control options.  It's my job at home to teach them the moral side of their sex ed training.

 

I just look at this issue differently, I think, than most others in this thread.  This law is about my child, not about me.  It's about my child's rights and safety, not my rights.  I feel that this law is something that makes my (and others') children safer, even if that means keeping them safe from me or my husband.  Having that perspective, I honestly cannot understand any objection to it.

 

 

You can say that it keeps the child 'safe' and question why parents would have a problem with it and the answer is simple.

 

Who defines safe?  The atheist who thinks anyone who believes in God is mentally deranged?  Or the religious fundamentalist who thinks to keep a child safe they need to be indoctrinated?  So what

 

As a parent I hear them say they want to keep my kids safe, and I can be behind that...  Until I see what they mean by safe and where they expect to go with it.  That causes concerns, and it is always easier to stop these things before they get entrenched.

 

Then is the whole idea of treating all parent like criminals without the benefit of a trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I actually see it very similarly to why I'm against "abstinence only" sex education programs.  Statistically, they do not work.  I think (I could be wrong, it's been awhile since I read up on it) that they're actually less effective than no sex ed at all!  My kids -- all kids -- need to have appropriate sexual education, including anatomy and reproductive processes of both genders, as well as birth control options.  It's my job at home to teach them the moral side of their sex ed training.

 

 

 

Based on this I don't understand why you wouldn't be against it yet.  The article mentions that the 5 minute personal interview is to talk about the online account and blocking parents.  It is also about STD's and birth control.  Do you want them teaching or suggesting things that you, as the parent, want to be teaching at home?

Because I seriously doubt that they are teaching them anything about the moral side.  Both go hand in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife is in the medical profession and has seen horrible things. But in the end knows it's far more dangerous on principle to allow strangers, even professionals, unfettered closeted access to our children. 

You may feel that way "on principle," but statistically, you're wrong.  A child is far more likely to be abused by someone they know -- someone close to them, in fact, than by a stranger.

 

 

Based on this I don't understand why you wouldn't be against it yet.  The article mentions that the 5 minute personal interview is to talk about the online account and blocking parents.  It is also about STD's and birth control.  Do you want them teaching or suggesting things that you, as the parent, want to be teaching at home?

Because I seriously doubt that they are teaching them anything about the moral side.  Both go hand in hand.

 

I agree that they go hand in hand.  I'm not a medical professional.  I'm not trained to work with teens or talk with them about the medical side of these issues.  As a parent, I have stewardship over my child, and I'm blessed to be able to teach them whatever I feel is necessary (theoretically).  That's why I said that I would teach the moral aspects at home, but in the meantime, they need all the information as well.  I don't expect a doctor to teach my child anything about the morality of sex -- I might be upset if a doctor did, because it's unlikely that his/her brand of morality would match my family's.  If my child chooses to go against the morals that I teach her, I expect her to feel comfortable talking to her doctor about safe sex.  In fact, if my daughter comes to me at 14, and tells me she's having sex, the first thing I'm going to do is make sure she's on birth control.  We'll deal with the spiritual ramifications after we make sure there won't be a baby to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may feel that way "on principle," but statistically, you're wrong.  A child is far more likely to be abused by someone they know -- someone close to them, in fact, than by a stranger.

 

Wrong about what? I never argued the current statistics. But I don't understand your disregard of principle.

 

Could it be perhaps that these creeps molest those they have access too...and family members are the most accessible? So now you give strangers more private access and power and you expect what? Less family members abusing kids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong about what? I never argued the current statistics. But I don't understand your disregard of principle.

 

Could it be perhaps that these creeps molest those they have access too...and family members are the most accessible? So now you give strangers more private access and power and you expect what? Less family members abusing kids?

In the Seattle area, where these kinds of laws have been in place for decades...

It's 2+ people.

Not by law... But it keeps doctors & nurses from being sued / charged with inappropriate behavior.

If you're really concerned about access & strangers... NEVER send your kids to school.

Not 5 minutes with a stranger... But hours.

- Teachers

- Staff

- Volunteers

- Parents

- Older kids

I'm not saying that creeps aren't in the medical profession...

But there's not going to be a sudden influx of creeps migrating to the medical profession because of a 5 minute time period that, if it hasn't already become office & hospital policy... Will become so, so fast your head will spin... That no employee is allowed to be alone with a minor for safety checks. Ever.

Where you WILL find them concentrated is in target rich environments.

- schools

- tutoring programs

- coaching programs

- after school care

- babysitting

Where we aren't LITERALLY 3 feet away separated by 6" of drywall for bare minutes...

But for 6-10 hours a day leave our children in the hands of strangers.

And then, if your child is 17?

Like the person in this article?

Include no jobs in addition to no public schooling.

I think sometimes it's the CHANGE that makes things seem dangerous / more noticeable.

Rather than the actual risk relative to everything else.

Like the parent who drops their kid off at the YMCA for before school care has no issue, but will have an issue when asked to stand 2 feet to their right for 5 minutes.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Seattle area, where these kinds of laws have been in place for decades...

It's 2+ people.

Not by law... But it keeps doctors & nurses from being sued / charged with inappropriate behavior.

If you're really concerned about access & strangers... NEVER send your kids to school.

Not 5 minutes with a stranger... But hours.

- Teachers

- Staff

- Volunteers

- Parents

- Older kids

I'm not saying that creeps aren't in the medical profession...

But there's not going to be a sudden influx of creeps migrating to the medical profession because of a 5 minute time period that, if it hasn't already become office & hospital policy... Will become so, so fast your head will spin... That no employee is allowed to be alone with a minor for safety checks. Ever.

Where you WILL find them concentrated is in target rich environments.

- schools

- tutoring programs

- coaching programs

- after school care

- babysitting

Where we aren't LITERALLY 3 feet away separated by 6" of drywall for bare minutes...

But for 6-10 hours a day leave our children in the hands of strangers.

 

Whether it's leaving your kids at public school or after school care or involving them in sports..it's the parents CHOICE.

 

They could homeschool, they could watch the kids all day or teach them sports themselves.

 

The problem is that this is government enforced. This is where Anatess said very correctly that government mandated = you will be murdered if you don't comply (most likely from a gunshot to the head). Your child must have private time with a stranger and if you don't comply the police will be called, if you resist you will be taken into custody, if you resist incarceration with force you will be killed.

 

Q

what it really comes down to is those who trust government more then family. I could say if you want your kids having more private time with strangers, then go ahead. But that's not how progressives think, they think the solution to everything is more intrusive, invasive and powerful government. I don't feel that way. I think in general parents care more for their kids then "the village". I don't trust DSHS, the teachers union, the politicians etc, to care more about my children then I do. From what I've seen...if there is a mess somewhere..they step in and make it worse. If you don't see this, you really need to keep up on current affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I may not agree with this issue or with those that are okay with it, we do have to remember that we, as parents, have to do for our children what we are comfortable with.  That's the bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may feel that way "on principle," but statistically, you're wrong.  A child is far more likely to be abused by someone they know -- someone close to them, in fact, than by a stranger.

 

 

 

I agree that they go hand in hand.  I'm not a medical professional.  I'm not trained to work with teens or talk with them about the medical side of these issues.  As a parent, I have stewardship over my child, and I'm blessed to be able to teach them whatever I feel is necessary (theoretically).  That's why I said that I would teach the moral aspects at home, but in the meantime, they need all the information as well.  I don't expect a doctor to teach my child anything about the morality of sex -- I might be upset if a doctor did, because it's unlikely that his/her brand of morality would match my family's.  If my child chooses to go against the morals that I teach her, I expect her to feel comfortable talking to her doctor about safe sex.  In fact, if my daughter comes to me at 14, and tells me she's having sex, the first thing I'm going to do is make sure she's on birth control.  We'll deal with the spiritual ramifications after we make sure there won't be a baby to deal with.

 

Of course we are talking about what's good for the children.  PARENTAL RIGHTS is all about what is best for the child.

 

This is NOT about who your child can and can't choose to talk to, with or without your knowledge.  This is about the rule of LAW.

 

You are looking at it from a perspective of allow and not allow... you allow, others don't allow.. according to everybody's differing principles.  This is not the issue.  The issue is what IS LEGALLY protected.

 

Just like you are fine if your child sees a doctor on her own without you, others are not fine with it for the protection of their children.  Parents are fine with having their kids talk to their bishops without the parents, others are not.  It's practically the same thing.

 

BUT, in TODAY'S rule of law outside of Michigan... you STILL have the legal right to let your child see the doctor on her own without you just like parents STILL have the legal right to restrict access to their children.  Same as in the Bishop's office - there's nothing stopping you from refusing to let your child talk to the bishop on their own.  BUT... putting this NEW LAW in place makes it ILLEGAL for other parents to deny medical professionals access to their own children without parental supervision.  It would be just like the church telling the parents that if they won't allow Johnny to talk to the bishop without parental supervision, they will be excommunicated.

 

You have to look at LAW very very very differently from SIMPLY what is right or wrong...  you don't make it illegal for the majority to exercise their own method to protect their children to fix the problem of the few abused children... Note that the previous sentence does not touch at all on the right and wrong of parenting.  This would be a very simple discussion if EVERYBODY unanimously agreed that a doctor has the right to exert access to 12-17 year olds without their parents... .but then, you wouldn't need to have a law.

 

Now think about it... What exactly is this law trying to accomplish that makes it worth stripping parental rights?  Is that the only way to accomplish such a goal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share