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


Recommended Posts

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

 

Uhm, you're missing the point here.  Parents don't want doctors talking to kids for 5 minutes because they fear the doctor will abuse the kid.  Parents don't want doctors talking to kids ABOUT SEX because they don't want to have to re-program the child.  You can opt out of Sex Ed in school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Wingnut, would you give a Mormon bishop the same kind of unreserved latitude to discuss sex with your daughters without your input, that you would give to your GP or a wholly unknown (to you) medical caregiver?

 

With regard to the issue at hand, I think you make an unwarranted assumption that "safety" is, and always will be, the number one concern of the people mandating and conducting these conversations.

 

Let's be blunt:  One in three Americans (not American adults, but Americans) currently has an STD.  Due to overuse of antibiotics, we're losing our ability to control/manage the symptoms of a couple of the biggies (Gonorrhea, for example).  Combine that with the fact that we have a culture--and even, arguably, a political party--that takes it for granted that people have a right to consequence-free sex.

 

What do you do when you want (and have been told you have a natural right to) disease-free sex, but all your prospective partners have diseases that can't be medically controlled?  Simple--you find the people who aren't having sex right now and are relatively disease-free, and try to get them onto the sexual market.  It may take a while to attain legal droit de signeur over adult abstainers/monogamists (I'm being a bit facetious here) (I think); but opening up the teenaged market can be done--is being done--with relative ease.

 

Few of the movers and shakers in our society will realize that that's what the end game is--and even fewer will admit it--but watch and see.  That will be the net effect of the legal, scientific, and social "advancements" over the next few decades.  You'll see it with the publication of medical studies showing that sexual intercourse by children is a part of healthy physical development.  You'll see it with a general social and legal softening of social standards regarding sexual relationships between adults and minors (have you noticed the recent prevalence of news stories involving affairs between young and improbably beautiful female teachers and sixteen- or seventeen-year-old male students?).  You'll see it with a marginalization of individuals and institutions that continue to publicly encourage abstinence.  And--yes--you'll see it with a deliberate attempt to limit or undermine conservative parents' abilities to influence their children's sexual mores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm, you're missing the point here. Parents don't want doctors talking to kids for 5 minutes because they fear the doctor will abuse the kid. Parents don't want doctors talking to kids ABOUT SEX because they don't want to have to re-program the child. You can opt out of Sex Ed in school.

Errrrrr.....

You do realize that sex gets talked about, both by kids & adults, in all of those contexts?

As a teacher, you try & constantly steer kids towards their parents when those questions (and stories) come flooding out...

But

- Especially with certain age groups (6yos esp, when many are first learning about it at home & then coming to school & sharing everything with everyone else... And then again big time in middle school) it can be a DAILY thing, and when not, is often a weekly thing.

- The minimum wage before & after school care workers don't have the same training & requirements to Deflect, Deflect, Deflect that teachers do, and the mostly volunteer coaches &'other adults often feel it their moral obligation to impart their own spin & understanding on their players.

- Parent volunteers are hopeless (in this area).

AND

- Teachers (as well as many coaches, who would otherwise NEVER talk sex with your kids) are Mandated Reporters. So if a kid comes to you (or is sharing with other students) detailed sexual information that leads you to believe that there is the possibility of sexual abuse taking place... These are not conversations that are shut down with "That sounds like a great question for you parents! Have you asked your parents about that? I'd bet your parents would know the answer to that." Etc. These are conversations you encourage as the "Go to a trusted adult, a parent, teacher, coach, or someone else you feel safe talking to" that kids get drilled into them from the toddler years onward, and that Mandated Reporters are legally REQUIRED not to shut down & send the kid away. Because you may be the only person, that ONE TIME, that a kid who is being abused will open up to.

_________

I apologize if I took it to mean not that there may be info about sex being shared, but it being a safety issue,,when you meant it the other way around.

This is a hot button topic right now on several other forums I'm on, as well, but the standpoint there tends to be parents from states where this isn't law freaking out about the safety issue, while parents from states where this has been law for awhile talking them down (You're right there on the other side of the door, there are 2 or more staff present, & you just chat up your kids afterward. 5 minutes instead of 8 hours at school. Easy. Easy compared to what we already cope with.).

None of them are religious forums, however, so it didn't even occur to me that it was an informational thing.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand both sides of the coin.

 

I can see where this sort of programme is beneficial, as pointed out, if the child comes from domestic violence and would not be able to confide their situation in any other context. I can also so where forcing an intervention with a minor and without parents present might be alarming for some, especially, if you are not comfortable with what information might be provided. I guess the other objection to this would be if the parent or parents were abusive.

 

JAG mentioned the bishop and minor 1:1 issue.

 

I see this quite differently. As of now, my understanding is that a bishop is free to consult/discuss X one-on-one with a minor without a witness, whether that be a parent or other. In many cases, I know it to be standard procedure for a nurse or assistant to stand-in on consultations/exams between doctor and patient, to help prevent foul play and false accusations. I wouldn't know about this supposed new law in the OP, but if there isn't a third party involved as a witness, I would hope that is something that changes. I think having that third person present (be it a parent or other) can ease a lot of concerns and worries when dealing with delicate situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, this has nothing to do with the finer points of sex and morality and potential abuse and yadayadayada. 

 

What this does involve is the state stepping into the parental role with rights for no good reason.  This is the State saying "We have more rights to your child than you do."

 

Sure, mention all the instances of family abuse you want.  Guess what?  There are already options in place for those iffy situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG mentioned the bishop and minor 1:1 issue.

 

I see this quite differently. As of now, my understanding is that a bishop is free to consult/discuss X one-on-one with a minor without a witness, whether that be a parent or other. In many cases, I know it to be standard procedure for a nurse or assistant to stand-in on consultations/exams between doctor and patient, to help prevent foul play and false accusations. I wouldn't know about this supposed new law in the OP, but if there isn't a third party involved as a witness, I would hope that is something that changes. I think having that third person present (be it a parent or other) can ease a lot of concerns and worries when dealing with delicate situations.

 

My understanding of current LDS policy is the same as yours.  But that doesn't mean that everyone's comfortable with that policy, particularly where issues of sex are concerned--and not just because of the possibility that the bishop may be a predator.  We've had discussions along those lines on this forum, I believe.  It's the same mistrust of adults talking to teenagers (especially teenaged girls) about sex and related issues that leads a certain segment of the Church to raise an unholy ruckus whenever the Ensign runs an article about chastity, traditional gender/family roles, or (heaven help us!) modesty.

 

There does seem to be, at times, a willingness to put blind faith in medical professionals to a degree that would never be given to ecclesiastical leaders.  I love science and the advances it has given us, but I get leery when people start deferring to science and its professors the way they used to defer to organized religion and its professors.  The religionists, at least, never pretended to be impartial and were quite willing to admit their long-term vision for societal evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errrrrr.....

You do realize that sex gets talked about, both by kids & adults, in all of those contexts?

As a teacher, you try & constantly steer kids towards their parents when those questions (and stories) come flooding out...

But

- Especially with certain age groups (6yos esp, when many are first learning about it at home & then coming to school & sharing everything with everyone else... And then again big time in middle school) it can be a DAILY thing, and when not, is often a weekly thing.

- The minimum wage before & after school care workers don't have the same training & requirements to Deflect, Deflect, Deflect that teachers do, and the mostly volunteer coaches &'other adults often feel it their moral obligation to impart their own spin & understanding on their players.

- Parent volunteers are hopeless (in this area).

AND

- Teachers (as well as many coaches, who would otherwise NEVER talk sex with your kids) are Mandated Reporters. So if a kid comes to you (or is sharing with other students) detailed sexual information that leads you to believe that there is the possibility of sexual abuse taking place... These are not conversations that are shut down with "That sounds like a great question for you parents! Have you asked your parents about that? I'd bet your parents would know the answer to that." Etc. These are conversations you encourage as the "Go to a trusted adult, a parent, teacher, coach, or someone else you feel safe talking to" that kids get drilled into them from the toddler years onward, and that Mandated Reporters are legally REQUIRED not to shut down & send the kid away. Because you may be the only person, that ONE TIME, that a kid who is being abused will open up to.

_________

I apologize if I took it to mean not that there may be info about sex being shared, but it being a safety issue,,when you meant it the other way around.

This is a hot button topic right now on several other forums I'm on, as well, but the standpoint there tends to be parents from states where this isn't law freaking out about the safety issue, while parents from states where this has been law for awhile talking them down (You're right there on the other side of the door, there are 2 or more staff present, & you just chat up your kids afterward. 5 minutes instead of 8 hours at school. Easy. Easy compared to what we already cope with.).

None of them are religious forums, however, so it didn't even occur to me that it was an informational thing.

Q

 

Of course.  But it is not by LEGAL MANDATE that I not be present.  You are very experienced in law.  You would know how bad an idea that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the intentions for this are good, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The idea is the same reason that (as was discussed in another thread) sexually active teenagers are less likely to admit to sexual activity with parents present.  Sexual activity (and various chemicals used to prevent pregnancy or enhance sexual performance) could radically change the diagnosis or treatment.

 

The problem is that the instant any government or subsidiary gets power it will be abused. Really as soon as nearly anyone gets power, it WILL be abused.  This is, has always been, and always will be human nature in a telestial state.

 

  • Doctrine and Covenants 121:39

    39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

 

Or as someone else put it, giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

 

Government is raw power.  As we see all through the Book of Mormon, a righteous person with total power can be a strong force for good, but if a wicked man comes to power (or a righteous man falls and becomes wicked), you've going to have a disaster.  The ONLY way to limit the power of a wicked man in control, is to also limit the power of good men when they are in control. 

 

Another way to look at it is what I call "the worst enemy test"  Would you be willing to let the worst person you can think of administer this law?  If not, you're giving the government too much power, because you might not have an evil person running things right now, but history shows us that eventually you will.

 

Having hospitals talk to minors unattended is opening the door to all manner of horrible disaster. 

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.....

 

This statement scares me. The biggest problem that I see with our society as a whole today is apathy. People are too busy to go vote. The turn out rate for most elections where I am from is less than 20%! That is ridiculous! When I was little there was an election that happened where my parents, who usually went and voted every time something came around, could not go. The candidate they would have voted for lost by one vote. Their two votes would have made the difference. Never doubt the power that one person has to make a difference.

I have heard this quote over and over again

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burk

I refuse to sit back and do nothing while my freedoms are trampled and taken away from me.

Mags

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