 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Medicine - Transcription Forum » Isn't this against HIPAA?... |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| bob... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <4ad6b1c1$0$1966$742ec2ed at (no spam) news.sonic.net>,
samhill at (no spam) TRASHsonic.net says...
[quote:fe662bcbc7]
Barbara Carlson wrote:
However, by the same token, I feel it is wrong for those opposed to abortion
to make that decision for others. Just as you say, it goes both ways.
I think everybody should be allowed to vote their own conscience and not
have to vote something in that violates their conscience, but as I have
said a bazillion times before, I would be happy with not giving abortion
preferred treatment and giving the same treatment as, say, a
hysterectomy? In California that means a complete informed consent must
be on the books for 48 hours ahead of time and minors must obtain
parental consent (although I think going to a family law court judge for
permission absent parental consent, which can be done on a same-day
basis in most cases the same as restraining orders, could be offered as
a substitute). That to me would be much preferable to what we have now.
I find it crazy that if a minor female finds herself pregnant here she
can get an abortion under her parents' medical insurance without her
parents' consent or knowledge BUT then if she has complications, she
needs their consent. A close relative of mine (specific relationship
omitted to protect the guilty party and all the other close relatives
who together conspired to keep me in the dark  ) had a very dangerous
surgery a number of years ago and I was only told about it after they
had arrived back home from the hospital, and all I could think of when I
was told after the sting/hurt/shock wore off was what it would have been
like to get a call that they hadn't survived the surgery that I had no
idea they had undergone.
And it is also sort of crazy that that same pregnant minor is in effect
considered an emancipated minor and can run away from home and set up
housekeeping by herself and get welfare, etc., but if her parents find
out and want her to come back home so they can support her through her
pregnancy, they are billed for the cost of all the welfare benefits
extended to her plus some surcharge. It sort of bamboozles me that the
parents get the responsibilities but none of the privileges. If the
state really wanted to do that, they should just lower the age of
majority or something.
[/quote:fe662bcbc7]
And in Texas where they only teach abstinence-only sex ed, if they teach
anything at all in schools, a 17 year old can get an abortion w/out
parental approval, but not birth control pills.
Then they complain about the high teenage birth and repeat birth rate!
There was just a story on the news the other night about an 18 year old
that was killed in a car wreck who had three kids. This was preceded by
the story a week ago of the arrest of the parents of a 4 month old baby
who was found dead, who also had a 2 year old. The mother was 15 and the
father 17. Babies raising babies:-(
Bob/Texas |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:03 pm
|
|