A Parents Right in a Minors' Abortion...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Everyone who's pro-choice should be pro-parental notification. Why? Because the best pro-choice strategy is to normalize abortion, treating it as just one more surgical procedure. If my daughter can't have a kidney removed without my consent, she shouldn't be able to have a fetus removed without my consent.

[mrmitchell]

Everyone who's pro-choice should be pro-parental notification. Why? Because the best pro-choice strategy is to normalize abortion, treating it as just one more surgical procedure. If my daughter can't have a kidney removed without my consent, she shouldn't be able to have a fetus removed without my consent.

Actually I should very well hope that in the modern free world, that if it is medically necessary your daughter have a kidney removed, she definitely be able to do it without your consent. I think Sava already posted this and he put it best - would you approve of an extremist nutcase preventing their children from medical care?

In fact this is the better way to "normalize abortion". No one would support a parent who tried to prevent their children having legitimate treatment (for example removing a tumor). If abortion is legitimate treatment why should parents be able to interfere?

[OzzyKP]

Because parents have absolute rule over their children. If they don't want them to have life saving medical treatment, then damn it they don't get it. If the kid dies, tough luck. What are you some kinda permissive hippie nutcase trying to destroy our sacred family values?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
In fact this is the better way to "normalize abortion". No one would support a parent who tried to prevent their children having legitimate treatment (for example removing a tumor). If abortion is legitimate treatment why should parents be able to interfere?

Actually, no kid could have a tumor removed without parental consent either, unless it were immediately life-threatening. Tumors rarely are; ditto pregnancies.

[Drogue]

Really? I mean we're not just talking informed, they'd actually have to give consent to have a tumor removed? They could simply deny the child the medication and let them die? I'm shocked if that is the case.

[Provost Harrison]

I don't know how Mrs Axon has the nerve...

[TheStinger]

In the UK a child under 16 can consent or refuse treatment if considered "Gillick competent" if the doctor judges the child is mature enough to make an informed consent then the parents do not have to be told. However a doctor can come to the view that the child is not competent and would then refuse treatment without parental consent. This seems to be a sensible way forward.

However the judgement raises problems, because recent UK legislation is increasingly making parents responsible for their childrens actions regarding school attenedence and anti social behaviuor and thre is an obvious contradiction here.

The judgement though realises that an arbitary cut off of 15 years and 364 days as being not competent to make a decsion is not appropraiate in many cases.

[mrmitchell]

They could simply deny the child the medication and let them die?

IANA Lawyer but this is probably known as "criminal neglect" and is probably illegal