Mother challenges child abortion rules

[monkeytrousers]

here

I see your point, but at 15 I would have thought that would happen to me but that was a figment of my own imagination, frankly: I didn't realise how understanding my parents could be when I was that age. I missed out on support for a lot of very bad stuff because of that.

Perhaps parent free abortions should be available in extreme cases, but there should be very distinct guidelines (or there may be alrady- no expert) on what they are.

Message withdrawn

At a guess I'd say there probably were Peachy, but it's not as news worthy. But those are the points raised by Pruni and Crunchie.

I think it's so much nicer if a girl is beaten to death by her family for getting pregnant, don't you?
What a splendid idea.

Sorry, am I being pedantic about the 'baby' language. Isn't it a 'potential' baby - we're all told by the doctors at the early stage not to get too excited incase well..aren't we?

Message withdrawn

It's such an easy trap to fall into though Pruni, I'm sure no one really thinks about the political resonances it might have, especially when we all have our babies in front of us.

Well I think if I'm not allowed to know about my child having an abortion, then I shouldn't be sent to prison or forced to give up my job when she plays truant.

Either I'm responsible for her or I'm not. I don't want to be responsible for her only when the State wants me to be.

Message withdrawn

caligula - some girls might well get beaten to death by their families if they get pregnant. is that a lesser evi;l.
frankly if my daughter would rather not tell me that's my failure.

daisy 1999, a child can have an appendix removed without parental consent....the law is very woolly regarding consent for surgery in adolescents- there was a case recently (I can't remember how it ended) where a girl of 12 or 13 (I think) refused a liver transplant that would/ could save her life- her parents weren't able to force her to have the surgery.

Let's look at it from another point of view...at what point and for what reasons, would you deny an adolescent the right to confidentiality that all other patients have? You are 15 years, 364 days old and your Mum has to know everything, you are 16 years and 1 day and your Mum needs to know nothing.

It sends out the message that an abortion is no big deal with no lasting emotional and spiritual repercussions. Which isn't always the case.

so what's the alternative

Sorry, but I think people underestimate how secretive and jealous of their privacy teenagers are. The fact that your child won't talk to you, isn't necessarily a sign of your failure, and we're the first generation in history to beat ourselves up like this. No-one else has ever thought it's automatically their fault if their children withhold information from them. And I just think we live in an absolutely demented world, where on the one hand my daughter can have an abortion without me knowing about it, and on the other hand I can be threatened with prison if she truants. There's something very unsettling about a society so thoroughly hostile to parents and parenting, and which so totally places parents in a vacuum and pretends that children are not subject to other influences outside that little microcosm.

It's very easy when our kids are little, portable and malleable, to imagine that when they're big they'll talk to us because we've been such great parents; but the fact is, for most of us, our children will hate us for most of the time between the ages of about 12 and 25, and that really won't be our fault (most of the time). It's a rite of passage that we don't actually have that much control over, much as we'd like to think we do. I'd love to believe that how I behave now as a parent will pay dividends when they're teenagers, but the part of me that understood that much as I wished labour wouldn't be as hard for me as other women, it would be just as nightmarish, also anticipates gloomily that my teenagers will be as horrible and heartbreaking as everyone else's, irrespective of how well I prepare for it.

I don't know whether parents should be told or not; but what I do know, is where they are so totally disempowered about one issue, it simply doesn't make sense that they should be held so totally responsible (to the extent of being held so liable that they can be sent to prison) for everything else.

How does not forcing a teenage girl to discuss or gain the consent of her parents alter the consequences of an abortion Spidermama?

Message withdrawn

but on this issue, do you think girls should be put at risk or forced to have babies the donot want?

An teenagers are so woefully umprepared for the harsh realities of life in almost every way. Most of them have no idea that actions have consequences.

Message withdrawn

being pregnat always has consequnces - i think an early ternmination is less of a consequnce than being forced to give birth to an unwanted child.

Each case to be taken on its merits.
Society should also be less concerned about young people having babies. They always have and they always will.

My BIL had his boy at sixteen (the mum was also 16). They were told by all around them that they had ruined their lives. Actually they were really happy and did a great job.

Now they both have decent careers. My SIL's only regret is not having another. She and BIL believed what society told them about themselves and vowed not to make the same 'mistake' again.

Pity.

Quite true....sadly most of seem to be programmed to be incapable of learning from much except our own mistakes.

I am pro choice and would agree that for many girls an ealy termination could be the 'best' outcome.

I just worry that teenagers are very unprepared for the harsher realities of life....I don't know if they are worse than we were.....possibly it just seems that way.

They were happy with their baby. A girl seeking an abortion and who categorically does not wish to tell her parents is clearly not happy.
In reality changing the law would mean forcing girls of 14 or 15 to carry and give birth to babies they do not want, with potentially catastrophic effects on their lives. It would also mean putting some girls very lives in danger.

From the Medical Defence Union site:

Children under 16 can truly consent to treatment only if they understand its nature, purpose and hazards. That ability will vary with age, the child and the nature of the treatment. A ten-year-old will, for example, usually understand what is involved and may be able to give reasonable and informed consent when asking a doctor to dress a cut knee. The same child is, however, unlikely to be able to consent to major surgery. To be able to consent, the child should understand not only the nature of the proposed treatment, but also fully understand and appreciate the consequences of the treatment, and equally of the failure to treat.

and, regarding termination of pregnancy:

The MDU has been advised that when a girl is under 16, her parents should be consulted unless the girl forbids you to do so. You should obtain the patient's consent and the written authority of the parents. But their refusal should not prevent a lawful termination to which the patient herself consents, if you are satisfied that the patient is mature enough to understand the nature of the operation, common complications and the issues involved - the same approach as in the Gillick case. When you are satisfied with the girls capacity to understand, you may proceed in her best interests, though every effort should be made to involve her parents.

Regarding confidentiality:

Children over 16 should enjoy the same rights to confidentiality as adults under the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which enables children of 16 and over to consent to medical treatment. You may have to use your discretion with children under 16. When the child is mature enough to understand what is involved in the proposed treatment (i.e. is 'Gillick competent'), you should respect the child's wishes if he does not want his parents to know about the proposed treatment. However, you should make every reasonable effort to persuade the child to involve his parents or guardians or to tell them himself. If you decide to disclose information to a parent or legal guardian against the child's wishes, then you should tell the child that you are about to do this, except in very rare cases. The overriding consideration must always be what is in the best interests of the child. If a child is not 'Gillick competent', whoever has parental responsibility under the Children Act 1989 must give the authority to disclose. Again, in deciding whether to disclose information, your overriding consideration must always be what is in the child's best interests.

IMO, the law is fine as it stands.

Haven't read whole thread but she was on the news and said that as things stand she would be contacted by school or whoever to check if it was OK for her daughter to be given paracetamol, or to have a plaster put on a cut, but that for her to have an abortion requires no parental input!!!

Which is mad however you look at it.