Consent To Treat Minor Children This Consent Form Should: Fill & Download for Free

In the UK, you could approach a doctor, a walk in clinic, or even a hospital A&E unit, and you will get treatment.Doctors have a duty of confidentiality, but a doctor has a lot of considerations to bear in mind when treating a minor without a parent’s involvement.Is the child capable of understanding and consenting to the diagnosis and treatment?Is the lack of parental involvement a sign of neglect or abuse? Should child protection services be informed?Is it in the best interests of the child that the parents aren’t informed?It is informative to look at the guidance doctors receive: Protecting children and young people: The responsibilities of all doctorsIt is common for teenagers to receive confidential treatment, particularly around potentially embarrassing or sensitive problems.In principle, “a child under 16 can consent to treatment without parental agreement if the child has the intelligence and maturity to understand the nature, purpose, benefits and risks of the treatment, as well as the risk of going untreated and any alternatives. If so, her consent alone may be valid.If the child has capacity to consent, she has the capacity to give or withhold consent to disclosure of confidential information.”[1][1][1][1]Also, if the doctor considers there are signs of neglect or abuse (which may include witholding medical treatment), then they must report it to the child protection services.Footnotes[1] Patient Confidentiality - Judging teenagers' competency[1] Patient Confidentiality - Judging teenagers' competency[1] Patient Confidentiality - Judging teenagers' competency[1] Patient Confidentiality - Judging teenagers' competency

Would you let a doctor examine your child without a parent or relative present?In California, with Kaiser insurance, I don’t have a choice. I have to leave the room for all or part of the examination, and I do not have access to my children’s medical records after they turn 12.I wish I were kidding.I’ve tried to do research on this issue, and I’ve come up with conflicting and unclear information. Minors ages 12 and up can consent to treatment for a number of things without parental consent (and parents cannot be informed of results): rape, sexual assault, pregnancy, STDs, birth control, among others. I understand these things.But in the case of general health care and even dental care, there are many different confidentiality and consent rules, and they can apply differently in different contexts.This makes no sense to me. I’m responsible for my children until they turn 18. Yet I don’t the authority to make medical decisions for them?My oldest son has severe eczema. For years, he’s had angry red dry spots on his chest and back, around his ankles, and when he hit his teens, it spread to his scalp. It’s a constant battle, keeping him comfortable and battling his insecurity when it shows.We’ve tried numerous remedies over the years, but finally hit on a certain cream that was working. When we needed a refill, I went to the Kaiser website and tried to order the refill automatically…but nope. I couldn’t even see my son’s records. I called. Nope. They wouldn’t talk to me about my son’s medication. My 14yo son had to call!Snort! Like a 14yo boy is on top of anything! I had to walk him through what to say, how to call, and how to stay on top of it, but let’s just say, if I wasn’t hounding him, he’d never order his medication. At least eczema is not life threatening. I can’t imagine needing something more important and not being able to help my child. (And, yes, it has been a good life lesson for my son, to learn how to take care of his own health.)Now, there may be work-arounds to this. I suppose if I got a notarized statement from my son that I could act as his proxy and filed it with Kaiser, they might have to comply. Don’t know.But barring some potential criminal act (like child abuse), I should be privy to everything going on with my child. I shouldn’t be treated like a deviant, shoved out of the exam room so the doctor can ask my child if I drink around him, smoke around him, have guns in the house, or ever hit him. That’s not how doctors should treat parents. We should be a team.I’m just lucky that with four kids, the worst thing we’ve had to deal with is a skin condition. If something worse does come up, I’d specifically move to a state where I have more rights as a parent. My children deserve that.

My go-to argument when it came to defending abortion used to be the organ donation analogy. Pregnancy can be thought of as a temporary form of organ donation, in that a woman uses her bodily resources to sustain the life of a fetus, often to her own detriment. Simply put, no one, regardless of their legal status — meaning, semantic arguments about ‘personhood’ are irrelevant — has the right to another person’s blood, tissue, organs, etc. The state cannot compel a parent to donate, say, a kidney, to their child, even if the child will die without it. The state cannot compel a criminal to donate, say, blood, to their victim, even if the victim will die without it. Most compellingly, it is illegal to harvest the organs of a dead person if they have not given express consent to so while alive. Where abortion is criminalized, women have fewer rights than corpses.At this point, those who are against abortion may put forth the following argument — there is a morally significant difference between killing and allowing to die. They view a woman who aborts as actively killing (another person), while someone who withholds their blood or organs is merely allowing someone else to die. Additionally, they might argue that a pregnant woman retains the use of all of her organs after the pregnancy has ended, assuming there are no complications, while a donor physically loses their ability to utilize the blood, tissue, and/or organs that are donated.My response is to examine the nature of pregnancy more closely. I will grant that the organ donation analogy is not perfect (no analogy is) and also that the killing versus allowing to die distinction is non- trivial. As alluded to previously, however, a woman risks her health and life while pregnant.…far too many people think of pregnancy as, at worst, a minor inconvenience, as opposed to the massive physical, mental, and financial toll it is. In addition to the endless romanticization of parenthood by popular media, the dark underbelly (pardon the pun) of pregnancy and childbirth is covered up not only by religious and cultural narratives, but also by doctors and other healthcare professionals[1][1][1][1]…legal abortion is safer than pregnancy and childbirth. Based on the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Guttmacher Institute (among others), a woman is about 14 times more likely to die giving birth than while having an abortion[2][2][2][2]. Granted, this data is from the United States, where access to healthcare and maternal mortality rates are notoriously poor in comparison to other developed nations. But even here in Canada, where it is apparently three times safer to give birth than in the US[3][3][3][3], abortion is still a much safer medical procedure to undergo, with a complication rate of about 2%[4][4][4][4][5][5][5][5]. Because the majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, the actual risks are even lower. While it is true that modern medicine has alleviated many of the more harrowing aspects of pregnancy, there are still a boatload of potential risks, some of them fatal…[6][6][6][6]**For a more comprehensive list of obstetric complications: List of complications of pregnancy - WikipediaNot only would the symptoms of even a low-risk pregnancy be considered torture if one were to deliberately inflict them on someone, the embryo/fetus can be thought of as a parasite and hostile occupant of a woman’s body that she has the right to remove via deadly force.…This characterization will seem alarmingly callous to some, but if we strip back the layers of misinformation and romanticization regarding pregnancy, it becomes clear that, while the fetus and the woman carrying it belong to the same species, the relationship between the two can be thought of as parasitical in that the fetus directs nutrients and resources away from the woman’s body, endangers her life and health, etc…I am aware that the word parasite has a biological definition that doesn’t strictly apply in the context of pregnancy — I’m using the term in attempt to expound a political and ethical argument, not a rigorous scientific one. To understand why an abortion rights advocate may not view abortion as equivalent to murder, one has to understand that a fetus can be a hostile occupant of a woman’s body …and that killing doesn’t always rise to the level of murder. The classic example has always been killing in self-defense[7][7][7][7].As political scientist Eileen McDonagh argues in her book Breaking the Abortion Deadlock, which I cannot cite and recommend enough,…even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman's body and expropriates her liberty. If the woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus's imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it… as in rape, kidnapping or slavery[8][8][8][8].Those who are against abortion often bring up the issue of responsibility. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of a sexual encounter, they argue, and the majority of pregnancies are not the result of sexual assault. In my view, this constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of consent. Consent is not a discrete quantity, but a continuous process.Consent to sexual activity can be withdrawn at any time, and if said activity continues against either party’s will, we call it rape. Similarly, pregnancy is not a legally binding contract. Pregnancy requires the ongoing consent of a woman to use her blood, organs, and nutrients, often to her detriment, to sustain the life of the fetus…What are men’s responsibilities in these scenarios? Many seem to treat pregnancy as some sort of punishment that women face for sexual activity, which is disturbing enough, but what about the men who impregnate women? Those who are anti-abortion may respond that a man should be equally responsible for providing for his child, even if he never wanted to become a father, but child support payments are not equivalent to pregnancy. Only women’s lives and health are threatened when bringing pregnancies to term…No activity is entirely risk-free. People drive cars, despite the possibility of road crashes. People swim, despite the possibility of drowning. And people have sex, despite the possibility of disease and pregnancy. Luckily, we’re fortunate enough to live in a world with seat belts, flotation devices, and condoms. Of course, no form contraception is 100% fool-proof. Heck, even sterilization performed by qualified medical professionals isn’t guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. But the odds are low enough[9][9][9][9]that it makes more sense to provide comprehensive sexual education, access to contraception, and access to safe abortion than it is to criminalize abortion, which kills more women[10][10][10][10]and saves no babies[11][11][11][11].“Responsibility” often becomes a distinctly vindictive term in anti-abortion rhetoric, and pregnant women are often held to standards that the rest of the population isn’t. For instance, do healthcare professionals deny a smoker lung cancer treatment because their condition is a result of freely-made choices? To make the analogy more accurate, are people involved in car crashed penalized by the medical community, even if they were wearing seat belts? I don’t see how consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy if one was using contraception, just as driving a car isn’t consenting to being in a car accident. The use of both contraception and seat belts minimizes the risk negative consequences, and in many cases the failure to use protection is due to lack of education. Moreover, one could argue that having an abortion is taking responsibility. An individual (or couple) who chooses to actively minimize the risk of unwanted pregnancy, while simultaneously deciding what to do in the unlikely case that they are faced with one, takes responsibility for their choices whether that choice ends up being abortion (the only alternative to pregnancy), adoption (an alternative to parenthood, not pregnancy), or parenthood. In fact, one could argue that given a pregnant person’s lack of resources and/or the conditions of foster care, abortion is not just a morally acceptable choice, but a morally responsible one. While I am sympathetic to this line of reasoning, it is beyond the scope of this answer, as my goal is to provide a defense for the legal acceptability of abortion, not to speculate on the (potential) lives of children born to poor and/or incompetent parents.To elaborate on some of the empirical aspects of this issue in addition to the philosophical,There is no statistically significant variation in abortion rates between jurisdictions where the procedure is legal and where it is not[12].Tens of thousands of women die every year from complications relating to unsafe abortions[13], usually in developing countries where abortion is highly restricted…Abortion legislation disproportionately affects low-income women[14]for a number of reasons, including lack of access to quality healthcare, primarily contraception[15], inability to bypass targeted restrictions[16], and general lack of resources to provide for oneself and one’s family.[17][17][17][17]In short,Abortion is an imperfect solution to a problem that, as of now, cannot be completely eradicated. There is no getting around the fact that unintended and unwanted pregnancies occur….And we are still ignoring so many confounding variables — complex social issues that won’t be solved by improving the efficacy of birth control[18][18][18][18].I can respect a genuinely “pro-life” ethos, one that is, among other things, anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and anti-factory farming in addition to being anti-abortion. I can even respect a genuine belief in the sacredness of human life from the moment of conception, provided such a belief also translates into actively working to minimize the suffering and maximize the flourishing of already born human beings. What I cannot respect is any policy that would deem women gestational slaves and acceptable casualties while there is no law compelling men to use so much as a drop of their own blood in order to sustain the life of another.The abortion debate is often treated as an abstract intellectual exercise, but it has tangible consequences. Remember Savita Halappanavar, and remember the thousands of nameless, faceless women like her.This is personal, and I, for one, refuse to be an incubator.Footnotes[1] Angeli Adeen's answer to What are some strange but true facts about pregnancy doctors rarely talk about?[1] Angeli Adeen's answer to What are some strange but true facts about pregnancy doctors rarely talk about?[1] Angeli Adeen's answer to What are some strange but true facts about pregnancy doctors rarely talk about?[1] Angeli Adeen's answer to What are some strange but true facts about pregnancy doctors rarely talk about?[2] https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=jchlp[2] https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=jchlp[2] https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=jchlp[2] https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=jchlp[3] The Last Person You'd Expect To Die In Childbirth[3] The Last Person You'd Expect To Die In Childbirth[3] The Last Person You'd Expect To Die In Childbirth[3] The Last Person You'd Expect To Die In Childbirth[4] http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/76-Anti-choice-research-dangers-abortion.pdf[4] http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/76-Anti-choice-research-dangers-abortion.pdf[4] http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/76-Anti-choice-research-dangers-abortion.pdf[4] http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/76-Anti-choice-research-dangers-abortion.pdf[5] http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf[5] http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf[5] http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf[5] http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf[6] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to What are the reasons you would chose to abort a child rather than carry it to term and put it up for adoption?[6] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to What are the reasons you would chose to abort a child rather than carry it to term and put it up for adoption?[6] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to What are the reasons you would chose to abort a child rather than carry it to term and put it up for adoption?[6] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to What are the reasons you would chose to abort a child rather than carry it to term and put it up for adoption?[7] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to Why are abortions not seen as murder by pro-choice advocates?[7] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to Why are abortions not seen as murder by pro-choice advocates?[7] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to Why are abortions not seen as murder by pro-choice advocates?[7] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to Why are abortions not seen as murder by pro-choice advocates?[8] http://…even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman's body and expropriates her liberty. If the woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus's imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it… as in rape, kidnapping or slavery.[8] http://…even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman's body and expropriates her liberty. If the woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus's imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it… as in rape, kidnapping or slavery.[8] http://…even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman's body and expropriates her liberty. If the woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus's imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it… as in rape, kidnapping or slavery.[8] http://…even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman's body and expropriates her liberty. If the woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus's imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it… as in rape, kidnapping or slavery.[9] Contraception | Reproductive Health | CDC[9] Contraception | Reproductive Health | CDC[9] Contraception | Reproductive Health | CDC[9] Contraception | Reproductive Health | CDC[10] Preventing unsafe abortion[10] Preventing unsafe abortion[10] Preventing unsafe abortion[10] Preventing unsafe abortion[11] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to What pro choice arguments are the strongest / weakest?[11] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to What pro choice arguments are the strongest / weakest?[11] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to What pro choice arguments are the strongest / weakest?[11] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to What pro choice arguments are the strongest / weakest?[12] Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare[13] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/75173/WHO_RHR_12.01_eng.pdf[14] Disparities in Abortion Rates: A Public Health Approach[15] Why Do Poor Women Have More Abortions?[16] 23 ways anti-abortion activists are attempting to erode Roe v. Wade without repealing it[17] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to How do pro-choice people view pro-lifers?[17] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to How do pro-choice people view pro-lifers?[17] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to How do pro-choice people view pro-lifers?[17] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to How do pro-choice people view pro-lifers?[18] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to Why do pro-choice advocates get so defensive when labeled pro-abortion? Why not just own it?[18] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to Why do pro-choice advocates get so defensive when labeled pro-abortion? Why not just own it?[18] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to Why do pro-choice advocates get so defensive when labeled pro-abortion? Why not just own it?[18] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to Why do pro-choice advocates get so defensive when labeled pro-abortion? Why not just own it?