Trustees weigh teens' privacy - will students have the right to confidential medical care.

Sacramento Bee ^ | 08/04/03 | Laurel Rosen

[bedolido]

What should school officials do when a teenager wants medical attention but doesn't want his or her parents to know? That essentially is the question trustees of the Roseville Joint Union High School District are scheduled to answer Tuesday night. They will weigh their lawyers' advice -- which is to follow the attorneys' interpretation of state law and allow teenage students medical privacy -- against what trustee Dean Forman calls "natural law," the notion that parents have ultimate authority over their children.

[Wolfie]

Might as well flip a coin, they're going to get sued either way.

[Lunatic Fringe]

What should school officials do when a teenager wants medical attention but doesn't want his or her parents to know?

Butt out, and try to teach Albegra???

[ibheath]

One more reason to homeschool.

[ladylib]

Nothing like usurping parental authority.

Perhaps schools should just tell students to sneak off to medical appointments after school hours and on their own time. No need to involve the schools.

[First Amendment]

Joiner has said that the policy is necessary to protect children who live in abusive households and that despite his opposition to abortion, the district must obey the law.

I suppose their definition of an "abusive" family is one who is opposed to their 13 yr old having an abortion ot being on drugs. Note that the only parent they quote is for this crap, calling it "trust". Doublespeak. "Trust" here means distrusting parents.

A transparent attempt to take control of their children away from parents. Let the state and its surrogates (Planned Parenthood receives vast amounts of taxpayer money for its evil work) control the raising and indoctrination of kids. Sane parents who have not yet done so should rip their kids out of state schools, CA are probably some of the worst. SInce 2001 is the law that all grades - K-12 - receive homo-positive education.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

What about the teenager who, under direction from the school, does have an abortion and then experiences medical complications?

Would the parents then sue the school?

[veracious]

The schools (and government) are out to slowly remove authority from parents; they want to take on that role. Just one more step in their concerted efforts to destroy the family. The family unit stands in the way of government that want to be God. God's plan was for the foundation of mankind to be family; governments plan is that foundation is government.

[The Electrician]

Joiner has said that the policy is necessary to protect children who live in abusive households and that despite his opposition to abortion, the district must obey the law.

A misguided and foolish policy. Under that policy, you could justify almost anything, for example, refusing to provide report cards or student evaluations to any parent.

Assistant Superintendent Don Genasci replied that Cody's approach would violate the student's right to privacy.

Well, maybe that's coming next. After all, doesn't it violate the student's privacy to disseminate their grades to their parents?

[trebb]

"All you have to say to the parent is: 'We're taking your child off campus for a confidential medical appointment,' " said the attorney, Dana Cody.

Perhaps the parents should then say, "If I don't have a say in it, but you do, then don't send Johnny back to my house, you take care of him from now on."

[Mr. Bird]

Hmmm. What if the student wishes to keep the nature of their absence from the school as well as the parents? Little Suzie can go to the office and say she's checking out for the day, but won't tell why. Gotta respect her confidentiality wishes, right?

Of course, the school would never allow such a thing. They'd have kids skipping school constantly, all under the auspices of getting confidential medical attention. So, the school is making an implicit assertion: it is more important for the school to know the child's confidential medical information than it is for the parent. This is on its face preposterous, and offensive to a thoughtful, informed citizenry.

[sickofthehandouts]

Does'nt this sound great?

My kid gets in a fight (under 18) and hurts somebody I am financially responsible as well as legally.

My kid kills or hurts somebody in a car wreck I am again responsible for this.

My kid sets up a doctor visit to have an abortion, get rid of the clap or crabs and while I am still responsible the school where my child goes can't tell me and they are going to provide or allow transportation to the visit.

What is wrong with this picture? Children have no rights except those to protect them from parents like the one in an earlier post that locked the kid in the car trunk while visiting dad in prison.

[sickofthehandouts]

Is it even legal for a doctor to render medical attention to a minor in the case of a non life threatening injury or illness without the consent of the parent?