Quote:
In the UK, the criterion is "informed consent". If the medic believes the patient to be capable of making a genuinely informed decision, they can treat. For routine medical or surgical interventions, the parent is almost always with the patient anyway.
When it comes to sexual health or substance misuse, their judgement factors in the impact of intervening confidentially, versus the repercussions of breaking confidentiality on the patient's overall well-being. If the patient has made a judgement to keep it to themself, there's a reason, and a doc has to assess how reasonable this is.
In the OP, we're usually talking about adolescents or 'young adults'. Each case on its merit. To introduce blunt-instrument legislation appears crass at best.
In most areas of U.S. legislation minors are not considered informed adults. They are in the care of their guardians and for the most part the state does it's best to stay out of individuals rights to parent unless it is a situation that presents a danger to the minor. In those cases the state can and should step in and completely re-evaluate the situation without keeping secrets. This legislation upholds that belief in allowing parents to parent the way they see fit.
A medical procedure such as this warrents a guardians knowledge. Now if there is fear of retribution then the state needs to take that into consideration by providing whatever protection is neccessary to keep the minor safe. However, allowing a minor to keep secrets such as this from their guardians is irresponsible and a huge overstep of the states bounderies into what should be a family issue, same is if she was to get a tumor removed or a face transplant.
What if I don't feel my 13 year old daughter is competent enough to choose a reputable doctor to perform the procedure? Instead opting for whoever will do it for $40 or gives them a free Ipod with the procedure. The state has essentially denied my right to console my child before she makes what could be a life or death decision.
