Authorization For Medical Treatment Of Minors: Fill & Download for Free

I will go even further . Not to alarm you, but while menstration (periods) in the first year after you start them can be erractic, after that they should be rather regular. The number one reason for missing periods is pregnancy. Yes, it has been longer than that, but you could have missed four months, then who knows. It would help to have more info. Are you sexually active? Do you use birth control? If so, what kind.You do have rights over your body and your health. You can go to any physician, and I recommend that you do. It would be confidential unless they needed to intervene in some way. However, if they felt it was expedient, they could ask one of your guardians, parents, to give consent. If they don’t, my sense is they would involve social services. If only to get permission. Of course, the best course would be for the provider to reach the parent and to have them come down. The mere fact that their daughter were that worried should go a long way.She could also ask a friend to talk to their parents confidentially. One things as adults, adults tend to know the options better than teenagers.YOU NEED HEALTHCARE. At the very least, walk right into an emergency room and tell them your story. They can’t turn you away. They know the laws. And, they should work to resolve it.Meanwhile get a pregnancy test from the drug store. If you have been sexually active with or without birth control over the past six to nine months.I wanted to add some information for you as I am very concerned about your health and well-being. The following is based on Maine state law and is directly edited by my attorney as I see this type of thing about four times per year. I will highlight important sections as not all of it will apply. Certainly, you are not talking about becoming emancipated, but attaining healthcare as a minor is a lot a like. Also, the word “incompetent” in the law is not calling you imcompetent, it is just a legal term for this statute.1) If a 16 year old were emancipated by court order would she be able to come to office appointments by herself without parental permission? Yes.2) If a 16 year old is not yet emancipated by court order, is she able to come to the appointment by herself without parental permission? Answer: No, unless: (i) she is a pregnant minor contemplating whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy, in which case she is authorized to receive information and counseling concerning public and private agencies available to provide birth control information and services, or (ii) she is a minor who may be treated as an adult on the basis that she has been living separately from her parents or legal guardian for at least 60 days and is independent of parental support.3) If the 16 year old is able to come to the appointment, is she authorized to start birth control without parental authorization? Answer: No, unless she is a minor who may be treated as an adult. In this case, only if: (i) she is emancipated by court order (which doesn’t appear to be the case), or (ii) she is a minor who may be treated as an adult on the basis that she has been living separately from her parents or legal guardian for at least 60 days and is independent of parental support.Keep in mind, that if you were to show up at my office, my staff would hopefully pick up on the fact that you were a minor. I would then note that I could not treat you without consent of a guardian (parent if that is the case). But, that does NOT mean I would say to you, “I can’t treat you. Bye.” I would then be faced with a medical situation that I would deem requires some type of intervention. Whether that means speaking with your parents or hopefully having them come to the office, I would like do that. My number one concern would be that you left and were lost to follow-up. At that point, I would feel completely responsible for your health and well-being. While a minor is considered unable to make prudent decisions for their healthcare, they are also by the same token, considered not to know when the lack of healthcare is not safe. One good thing about a solo physician is he or she will know the family. I would know your mom and how she would deal with this issue.BackgroundIn Maine, the person legally authorized to provide consent to treat a minor varies according to the minor’s legal status, the type of treatment or health care service being provided to the minor, and, in certain circumstances, the age of the minor. A minor is defined as any person less than 18 years of age.Generally, minors are presumed to be legally incompetent to provide informed consent for medical treatment or health care services. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated, informed consent must be obtained from the minor’s parent or guardian.However, there are exceptions to the general consent rule for minors. Some minors have the same rights as adult patients to consent to medical treatment. Other minors have a limited right to consent to specific medical and mental health treatment services, depending on the type of care rendered, the circumstances in which care is provided, and, in some instances, upon the age of the minor. In all cases, the authority of the minor to consent is predicated upon the treating healthcare provider’s determination that the minor possesses decisional capacity to provide informed consent to treatment.1. Minors Who May Be Treated as Adults: The following minors are legally authorized to provide consent to all health care services:a. Minors who have been living separately from their parents or legal guardians for at least 60 days and are independent of parental support.b. Minors who are or have been legally married.c. Minors who are or who have been members of the U.S. Armed Forces.d. Minors who have been emancipated by court order.e. Minors who are residing in a correctional facility pursuant to a conviction as an adult.A treating healthcare provider should request appropriate documentation of the above circumstances (e.g. marriage license, Armed Service ID, emancipation order, etc.) prior to providing treatment to the minor.2. Minors Authorized to Provide Consent Under Certain Circumstances: A minor is authorized to consent to the following healthcare services:a. Treatment for Alcohol Abuseb. Treatment for Drug Abusec. Treatment for Emotional or Psychological Problemsd. Spiritual Treatmente. Organ Donationf. Sexual Assault Forensic Examinationg. Birth Control Information: A pregnant minor contemplating whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy is authorized to receive information and counseling concerning public and private agencies available to provide birth control information and services.h. Family Planning Services: The following minors are authorized to provide consent to receive family planning services:(i) Minors who are parents;(ii) Minors who are married;(iii) Minors who have the consent of their parent or legal guardian to receive family planning services; and(iv) Minors who, in the professional judgment of a physician, may suffer probable health hazards if family planning services are not provided.Family planning services include: ·Counseling with trained personnel regarding family planning, contraceptive procedures and the treatment of infertility;·Distribution of literature relating to family planning, contraceptive procedures and the treatment of infertility; and·Referral of patients to physicians or health agencies for consultation, examination, tests, medical treatment and prescription for the purposes of family planning, contraceptive procedures and treatment of infertility and provision of contraceptive procedures and supplies.i. Minors Who are Parents: A minor who is a parent is generally entitled to provide consent to health care services on behalf of his or her child in the absence of a guardianship, custody order, or other limitation on the minor’s parental rights, even though the minor may lack the authority to consent to the same healthcare services on behalf of his- or herself.A minor authorized to consent to a specific type of medical treatment or health care service is also authorized to refuse that same treatment or service.A minor who consents on his or her own behalf to healthcare services is responsible for the costs of such services, unless the minor’s parent or guardian has expressly agreed to assume full or partial responsibility.First, cost would not be an issue. As a minor, you would not likely be held responsible for cost, and hospitals would work with you anyway. For me, I would never turn away a patient for healthcare costs.Just like anything, things are not written in stone. If a minor shows up in an emergency room for an ear infection, they will not be treated without consent. But, if they show up with a major concussion, etc., they will receive a Cat Scan of the brain, because the physician will deem it emergent. He/She will try to get hold of your mother or father or other guardian, but they won’t wait longer than five to ten minutes.Keep in mind the following: The decision of whether or not you can give consent as a minor and be treated by a healthcare provider, is completely up to the provider. If I see an 11 yo walk in with a cold, I will not treat (although I would likely call social services to find out why an 11 yo is by himself. But, if I feel that by not treating you, your health is at risk, I can treat you, and if there is any legal recourse, it will be on me.The very fact that in your question you state 254 days and not a year reveals the level of concern you have. As a 16 yo, I am very proud of you for coming on Quora with this question. Ultimately, you are the one who has to advocate for yourself. I should say, knowing only half the story, that your mother THINKS she is doing the right thing. I would start with your FP or your pediatrician. You can always call them confidentially and see what they say. If you parents have any questions, let me know, and I will give you my phone number so I can help.Good luck. Please comment back if you need more info.

Yes.A child has the right to consent to an abortion as long as she understands what the procedure will involve. Her parents have no say over the matter, and they do not even have the right to be told what is happening if their daughter does not wish for them to know.(Note: this applies to England and Wales. I’m not sure of the position under Scots law, but I doubt it’s different. I’ve no idea what the situation is in Northern Ireland, where abortion itself was only legalised a few months ago.)There was a court case in 1985, Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority, where a woman named Victoria Gillick sued her local health authority for prescribing contraception to girls under 16. She lost her case, and the legal principle was established that a minor could give consent to medical treatment provided they were mature enough to understand what was being proposed; and their parents had no right to interfere. This is known, ironically, as “Gillick competence”.As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.The age at which a child reaches Gillick competence is not set by law; it’s assessed individually based on the maturity of each child. However, 11–12 seems to be the rule of thumb.In 2006 another woman, Sue Axon, brought a legal challenge to this law, claiming that a parent had the right to know if her under-16 daughter had an abortion. She lost the case; the High Court confirmed that doctors have a duty to preserve their patient’s confidentiality even if the patient is a minor, provided the patient is ‘Gillick competent’.

Indeed it is. Both Fatah, the government of West Bank Palestinian Authority, and Hamas, who rule Gaza, are guilty of maltreatment of Palestinian as too are the governments neighbouring Arab countries with substantial Palestinian-origin populations, and even the Israeli government.The other Arab countries that have substantial populations of Palestinian origin are actually much worse. Besides direct maltreatment, with the single exception of Jordan none of these countries accords these Palestinian-origin residents full citizenship rights. In Lebanon, for example they are denied access to education and employment in any but the most basic labouring jobs. They can rise above poverty only through business success. ( There is an interesting parallel here with the historic treatment of Jews.)Oh wait, I just had a look at the source article that your question points to, a summary by Salon magazine of the US State Department report on human rights violations in ‘Israel and the occupied territories’. I read the article, which starts by noting that ‘The 124-page report is divided into multiple parts, distinguishing Palestinian citizens of Israel from Palestinians living under illegal military control in the occupied territories.’ I also read the report, which by the way, does not use the term ‘illegal military control’. (Misrepresention by Salon).The Salon piece then goes on to highlight sections of the report, but only those which accuse Israeli Jews, even though the report itself also harshly criticises the Palestinian Authorities.O.K., so I get it: the Salon piece is a trashy bit of biased journalism. Even just singling out the State Department report on Israel and the ‘Occupied Territories’ to report to its readers demonstrates bias by Salon. I looked at some of the other State Department reports on Middle Eastern countries. It looks like Israel is by no means one of the worst offenders. No matter how you slice it Israel actually seems to be at the better end of the scale.I conclude that this piece is just one more example of singling out Israel for ‘special treatment’, and I don’t mean the preferential treatment received by ‘special needs’ students at your local school.The editors at Salon, like the author of this question, selectively target Jews for criticism. They are not especially interested in the maltreatment of people of Palestinian Arab ancestry, and very far from interested in human rights in general. They are specifically interested in criticising only Israel and influencing public opinion to see Israel as one of the worst human rights offenders, the opposite of the truth.If they actually were interested in human rights, they would start with addressing the massive death and destruction caused by wars in Congo, Syria and Yemen, etc; systematic torture of hundreds of thousands of dissidents in almost all the Middle East; oppression of women, including ‘honour killings’; the maltreatment of non-Arab minorities throughout the Middle East, including destruction of places of worship and systematic discrimination, in some cases overt and officially sanctioned; the treatment of gays. I don’t know where to stop but Israel would be so far down the list that you would never get to it.Look at yourself in the mirror. If you target Israel for criticism amidst so much human rights abuse in the world, you are a bigot, an anti-Semite. If you tell yourself that Israel also deserves to be criticised along with others, you are a hypocrite. There are armies of people already targeting Jews. They don’t need your help - but many other human rights advocates do in addressing much more serious abuse elsewhere.If this is you, you are part of the problem, not a part of the solution. You may just be a left-winger who has been unwittingly led into what is effectively anti-Semitism by starting with criticism of everything to do with the USA and its allies.Or you may just truly, sincerely hate Jews. If that really is the case, own up to it; don’t be a spineless wimp.