Like the example in Washington state where a child had been prescribed, and taking, anti-depressant pills for several months without the parent's knowledge?
I quote: "if you are under the age 18, you can get healthcare services without an authorized adult’s consent if you are married to an adult (RCW 26.28.020), or have legally emancipated from your parents (RCW 13.64), or have been determined by a health care provider to be a mature minor." And there's no definitive requirement to determine what a "mature minor" is, that's left solely up to interpretation.
Is this what government, and by extension people, have become? Other people deciding "we have the right to YOUR child" and then legally they just do? Does that not seem like a bizarre concept to anyone? Like you just get to decide you have a right to my stuff, let alone something as critical as my literal child?
50 to 100 years ago, if somebody suggested "the government should be able to prescribe pills to your child behind your back," how would people have reacted? Are we all just frogs boiling in a pot?
this covers specific of the guidelines, a lot however simply boils down to :
It was determined that children under 16 can consent if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is involved in a proposed treatment, including its purpose, nature, likely effects and risks, chances of success and the availability of other options.
Some strange ones in the US.
you are not allowed to buy a beer until 21 but can buy a firearm before then.
ref the drugs point of the question.
you say they are not allowed to make a decision of consent with a medical professional but the same person is able to own and drive a car (granted parents consent is required to obtain a licence, however it’s not like they sit with them 24/7).
There does however need to be safeguarding in place for under 16’s and here it’s part of the overall process.
Then again here it’s not government controls it’s medical and legal… not everything is politics.
I’d need details on specific cases to say ‘yay’ or ‘nay’. We’re not going to assert that all parents are perfect parents, are we? If a woman locks her kid in the car and goes into a salon for two hours, is it wrong for the police, a government entity, to come and rescue that kid before it dies? Meds can save lives and preserve livelihoods. Unless you can prove the intervention was malicious or damaging, i don’t see a problem. With regard to the current deplorable state of mental health awareness and treatment in the US and its obvious contribution to our mass shooter problems, i’m certain i’d rather learn the government intervened, even poorly, than to read about another preventable attack. Just saying, context matters.
Well, breaking the glass window to remove a child from a car isn't actively trying to go behind a parent's back. I'm entirely certain the police would be entirely open with exactly what they did. And there's a big difference between trying to save a child's life when that child's life is imminently in danger, and prescribing medication to a child. Those two factors alone make that example incomparable.
And have you ever experienced, or heard of, medical malpractice? And if so, shouldn't there be an adult who has the child's best interest at heart be present? Or do you trust the wisdom and judgment of a child?
Do you feel as though everyone who is prescribed anti-depressants truly needs them? And if no, how do you feel about how the body can become dependent on this pills, where the brain will begin naturally producing less of needed chemicals because the anti-depressants are providing them?
And what about the notion the anti-depressants don't actually address or solve the issue at hand. If a child is depressed because of issue A, if you give them anti-depressants does issue A suddenly fade away from existence? Perhaps issue A needed to be solved, rather than the child needing anti-depressants?
And what about side-effects? Can we really trust a child to determine whether the risks are worth it?
For example, many anti-depressants can cause very serious, long-lasting, and sometimes permanent effects like the struggle to, or sometimes inability to, achieve orgasm, something that would heavily influence a person's relationships.
What if one of the side-effects can be seizures, wouldn't this knowledge be beneficial to a parent, in the off-chance their child begins having one? Not only would they understand what's going on but they could even prepare for such an incident and research what to do, like place the person on their side so they don't suffocate from their own vomit?
And if context matters, who gets to decide what context is acceptable, and what isn't? And whoever that may be, are they even present to stop a contextually improper occurence from resolving?
And lastly, are you okay with it just because they're providing something you happen to agree with? What if instead society and government were still anti-homosexual, and a child was having 'curious' thoughts and went to a counselor at school, and the counselor suggests conversion therapy without the parent's knowledge? Wouldn't there be someone with precisely the same opinion as you? That a flawed parent who might not care about "gay thoughts" or who might even support them are bad parents, and thus, the child needs access to resources that the parents would otherwise keep them from?
Not to mention, if the parent was present when the child was in the car, the police's first decision wouldn't be to shatter the window. It would be to ask the parent to open the car door and remove the child.
Well, you’ve made a great number of assumptions. You’re asking a lot of questions that need to be asked before judgement can be reasonably made. That’s exactly why my very first statement is what it is and i stand by it. The child locked in an overheating car is NOT a poor comparison. Parental neglect is parental neglect. End of story. Who said i’m trusting the kid? All i suggested is we can’t necessarily trust the parents either. What if the kid feels there’s something wrong but the parents actively ignore their concerns? That’s literally no different than locking a kid in a car to die of heat exposure. Psychopharmacology saves lives and preserves livelihoods. Is it perfect? No. But i’ll trust an attentive physician over a neglectful parent every day of the week and twice on Sundays. How about you simmer all of your assumptions out of your “argument” and see if there’s anything left. I’ll save you some time, there are none. The information provided in the original post is grossly inadequate to deliver a reasonable conclusion. Anyone who believes they could do so is beyond ignorant. Feel free to stay off my comments until you can manage a coherent, applicable response.
Doctor's shouldn't *have to* go behind a parent's back to get kids the medicine that they need. Think about it, would you rather the doctor have prescribed that kid antidepressants on their own, or asked the parents first and had the medicine refused? We aren't talking about 8-year-olds here we are talking about decently-mature teenagers. Probably the age that people used to get married and start having babies 100 years ago! And you think they shouldn't be allowed some autonomy on how their own body gets medically treated? Again they will likely only NEED this when their own parents are undermining their healthcare. Kids don't like going to the doctor, they won't unless they have a good reason to.
Becoming a parent dosen't automatically make you a better person. At times you can actively become a worse person after being a parent. In those cases a young person still needs to see a doctor and here's a way to still get help.
You can go on and on about what kind of parent you could be, it's not about you, it's just access to resources that people need. You don't need to include yourself in every fucking law. Young People need to get away from rotten no good parents at times and there's resources to go about it. Fucking Hallelujah.
Have you ever experienced, or heard of, medical malpractice? And if so, shouldn't there be an adult who has the child's best interest at heart be present? Or do you trust the wisdom and judgment of a child?
Do you feel as though everyone who is prescribed anti-depressants truly needs them? And if no, how do you feel about how the body can become dependent on this pills, where the brain will begin naturally producing less of needed chemicals because the anti-depressants are providing them?
And what about the notion the anti-depressants don't actually address or solve the issue at hand. If a child is depressed because of issue A, if you give them anti-depressants does issue A suddenly fade away from existence? Perhaps issue A needed to be solved, rather than the child needing anti-depressants?
And what about side-effects? Can we really trust a child to determine whether the risks are worth it?
For example, many anti-depressants can cause very serious, long-lasting, and sometimes permanent effects like the struggle to, or sometimes inability to, achieve orgasm, something that would heavily influence a person's relationships.
What if one of the side-effects can be seizures, wouldn't this knowledge be beneficial to a parent, in the off-chance their child begins having one? Not only would they understand what's going on but they could even prepare for such an incident and research what to do, like place the person on their side so they don't suffocate from their own vomit?
And lastly, are you okay with it just because they're providing something you happen to agree with? What if instead society and government were still anti-homosexual, and a child was having 'curious' thoughts and went to a counselor at school, and the counselor suggests conversion therapy without the parent's knowledge? Wouldn't there be someone with precisely the same opinion as you? That a flawed parent who might not care about "gay thoughts" or who might even support them are bad parents, and thus, the child needs access to resources that the parents would otherwise keep them from?
If you have a mildly decent relationship with your own child, they should on there own accord find confidence in there parents guidance. Being a good parent this should be a complete non issue.
The issue is bad parents and a young person needing help away from there bad parents. That's the whole point.
I've heard from a few people I know about a local elementary school trying to force then to get their kids on ridilin.
They shouldn't be allowed to prescribe antidepressants without a parents knowledge, there's a lot of dangerous side effects including suicide and it's no coincidence that virtually every mass shooter is on antidepressants.
That is medical battery and I will defend my children from people who assault them at whatever level of force the threat chooses to require to stop them from assaulting my child. It is a dereliction of duty as a father and a man to do any less.
I honestly dont see the problem. Healthcare has always taken privacy very seriously and I dont see why your parents would be any different under certain circumstances.
If you're legally emancipated from your parents they don't get a say. Why would they? And as a parent, what did you do to your child that means they now need anti-depressant medication? This sounds a lot like Operation Blame Someone Else.
Firstly, the part about emancipation was included simply because it was in the middle of the two parts of the quote that I wanted to point out. Following the quote I highlighted the part about determining whether a minot is a "mature minor." Obviously if you've emancipated then a parent wouldn't have a say.
Secondly, why are you jumping to a conclusion that if a child needs antidepressants (supposedly) it must be due to something the parents did to the child? Rather than say, at-school bullying? Discontent with physical/aesthetic qualities? Or a plethora of other things? You're not being reasonable.
Lastly, in the example of the child in Washington state, the child was inconsistent in actually going to the place where he would get and take his pills. Apparently he wasn't all that interested in having them. So perhaps just because a child is secretly prescribed antidepressants, that doesn't necessarily mean it's merited (and it certainly doesn't mean the parents "did something" to the child).
So I think over-prescription of anti-depressants is definitely a thing. I certainly wouldn't like to see them routinely prescribed to children who might respond better to cognitive therapy and shouldn't be getting hooked on drugs at an early age.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > How do you feel about how other people decided they get to legally prescribe your child with pills without your knowledge as the parent?
