My Opinions Issues of the Day Part II

Well, yesterday's post seemed to spark some conversation and strangely some of us are not as far apart as we seem. So I thought I would try another day and see if we can't spark some controversy or conversation.

Parental/Guardian Consent for Abortion

I believe that children under the age of consent should have parental consent whenever medical procedures are performed and whenever medical circumstances allow. As a person that works in the medical field, we cannot provide medical equipment, medicine, much less an invasive procedure, including an IV, on anyone under the age of 18 or legal consent per state laws. The only circumstances that allow it is in medical emergencies where life and death are at issue.

We cannot even have a child under the age of legal consent sign documents accepting delivery of relatively benign medical equipment like oxygen because it is a "legend" item (ie, prescribed by a physician). We certainly cannot have them sign legal or financial documents on behalf of themselves or even on behalf of their parent who may be receiving the services.

As one friend recently said to me, "the school nurse can't even administer an asprin without parental consent". So, why would we allow an under aged person receive an abortion without consent?

This is not solely an issue of government power deciding via a federal or state law. As you must know, in the court of law, an under aged person cannot consent to a number of things, including sex (ie, statutory rape if the other participant is above the age of consent). In lawsuits regarding medical mal-practice, even if the doctor had the child's name signed in blood on documents consenting to treatment, it would be thrown out in every other case.

Except this one.

The only exceptions I can think of denying a parent parental consent is in the case of incest or other abuse. In which case, I believe that it is a legal/criminal matter and even then, the mother or uninvolved parent (assuming it is usually the mother) could still give consent. Or, where the parents may be deemed unsuitable as guardians. In which case, I believe the state should and would be involved in determining a suitable guardian who would then have the ability to consent to treatment.

If there is a case where no suitable guardian can be found in a near relative, I believe that outside sources could be brought in and ask the courts for an emergency hearing to determine the necessity of guardianship and the medical imperative.

I do recall the recent incident of a 13 year old who ran away from foster care and came back pregnant. Technically, she was in state custody and the state would not consent to the abortion.

I'm not sure which is worse, having a 13 year old with a baby or having one get an abortion.

Yes, I know that it happens today (and at some fairly alarming rates), but I have to say that an abortion has not only medical effects but emotional as well. I do have a friend who had an abortion between her two children's birth. It's been almost ten years since then, but I recall several times over the years where she wondered what her other child would have been like had she not done so. So, I can imagine the trauma of being 13 or 15 and having these questions and issues and not having support. I've seen the "offered" counciling from planned parenthood. If it's asked for , it can be had, but does anyone think a 13 or 15 year old who can't or won't seek parental consent will actually come back for this counciling?

My friend was an adult and didn't. I could see how it bothered her. Maybe some could be blase enough to simply treat it as the removal of cells, but I have to say that pregnancy and the idea of a living being growing inside of a woman by far usually creates a kind of bond or idea about motherhood and decisions to terminate can be tough and play on the person's mind for years. It would seem that parental consent has three important parts to play:

1) Legal as all medical procedures are guided by this principal and protects both the patient and the physician.

2) Support because it is a tough decision and a pregnant child already has many worries on their mind.

3) Doesn't the parent have the right to know and to intercede if their child is having unsafe and unprotected sex?

I know the last two are subjective and dependent on the child's home, but I believe that, while there may be some recriminations, by far, familial support plays a role in child development and certainly, if we should not be interfering in other issues of parental rights, we should not be interfering with this one. I might also mention that pregnant 13 and 15 year olds (just using those ages as examples) don't all come from disadvantaged or troubled homes.

I also believe that pre and post counciling should be mandatory for underaged children who have this procedure. That, I wouldn't demand, but think it's a good idea.

But the first issue, coming from a health compliance background, is a matter of previously set legal precedent and has a puprose that does not include embarassing or traumatizing a pregnant teen, but is there to protect everyone involved, medically, legally and financially.