Last night, on Today Tonight, there was a segment about a 14 year old child being taken, by a school nurse, to a doctor who prescribed medication. Approval of the parents was not sought and they were not notified. Afterward I contacted a friend who is an experienced nurse and doctors receptionist who informed me that yes it is within the law for this action to be done, if the child is 14.

In the highlighted case on TT the girl was given script for the contraceptive pill, but that is irrelevant. The issue is non approval of the parents and not informing the parents.

I am amazed that such a law could be passed in our country where parents are the guardians until kids are 18 years old. Why have parents and parental groups allowed this situation. If it were my kid I would withdraw the child from that school and seek redress through law. After having a bloody lot to say. In my view it is blatant removal of parental rights. Talk about Big Brother.

I wonder if this, so called, law has ever been challenged in court and in light of the ruling given against DOCS in the Hepatitis B vaccine for a baby, I think it should be.

Why are you surprised? The constant slogan of "Protect the Children" and other nonsense has caused this. The screams of socialists, other activists and the religious have called for the Australian government to parent our children, who are now essentially the property of the State. What the hell did you think would happen? And where do you think our country is going appealing to this obsession.

Banjo

I don't watch TT so am not familiar with the case you've presented here.

Did the program outline the position of the parents? Quite possibly, and I'm only guessing, they strongly opposed their daughter using contraception for strict moral or religious reasons. In which case, a responsible adult in whom the girl had confided would be morally obliged to take some action, if he/she knew the girl was sexually active and likely to fall pregnant. The school authorities should have contacted the parents first, I agree, but maybe they already had, and had received a brickwall response.

"In the highlighted case on TT the girl was given script for the contraceptive pill, but that is irrelevant."

No, it is not irrelevant. What anyone is given in this situation is extremely pertinent as to the justification or otherwise of the actions. If the child was medicated to make them easier to teach, I would entirely agree with your reaction. In this case, however, I see sense in the action taken. I do agree with you it was presumptious and would need to know the full details before I defended it unreservedly.

Unfortunately, authorites often have to step in when parents are neglecting their responsibilities to their children. That's the way a caring society works. To suggest we should turn our backs and leave all authority in the hands of parents is only to invite further abuse and neglect

Steel

'The screams of socialists, other activists and the religious have called for the Australian government to parent our children, who are now essentially the property of the State."

Give us all a break! What 'socialists' have 'screamed' what? What other 'activists' are you referring to? You have made so many of these wild blanket statements that they have become totally meaningless. I'm sure most posters now ignore them, and quite probably the rest of your posts as well, which would be a shame because you do have some worthwhile ideas to contribute in amongst the bile.

I don't like the thought of a 14 year old girl on the pill, but what I think is worse is 14 year olds having babies.

Bronwyn,
The segment may still be on TTs website. According to the story, the first the mother knew anything of it was noticing the pill packet in the girls school bag. It did not say if the girl had spoken about contraception with her parents prior and knew there was disapproval. that could be so or perhaps she was afraid to talk to her parents. What she told the school nurse is anyones guess, but not all kids tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I feel what the doctor prescribed is not the issue, as it could have been a boy who was covering something he did not want his parents to know about.

In the case of emergency yes attention be given or if suspected child abuse DOCS notified, but other than that no one should have the right to prescribe medication or do medical proceedures without parental approval. To have the right to not inform the parents if the child requests is a violation.

I was of the opinion that schools had to get parental permission to give asprin. Some schools have banned the kids from doing handstands and cartwheels for safety reasons.

Bronwyn... that's a shame. If you took a serious look at what is happening in this country and yes... socialism... you will understand what i'm saying. Feminists (of course) are amongst the other activists (the message: always the Children; always the Family). Both parties have heavy socialist views but in their own ways and it's abuse has caused incidents like we see here. The children are taken from the parents, without their consent and decisions are made on their behalf by the State. Think about it for a minute. Look at the title of this thread. The cards are laid out. We are getting more and more controlling governments. These parties are unrepentant. Why would anyone rational parent want the government to have the power to take away their children and decide their fate, or start dictating to them how to raise their children? It doesn't makes sense...except to someone who think the government should rule their lives and oppress certain areas of the population, which I consider antithetical in a free society. Do you want to live in free country, or not? We already have religious laws being dicated to us about gay people who merely want the same freedom as everyone else.... they are currently second class citizens. Right now we think this is acceptable right now in a "free" country, and "open democracy". Things are being banned by the day. Laws are being created to restrict us more and more. It's unacceptable.

I can understand the concerns of both sides.
Our children grew the time of the Year of the Child. Returning from school they would inform us that we could not tell them to do this or that etc., "We have rights".
I agreed they had rights but also informed them that with any right, was also a responsibility.
If they wanted to live within society there were also rules respecting the rights of others? They too had rights and responsibilities?
Unfortunately the rights and responsibilities of parents have been eroded away by so-called do-gooders and social workers.
As a result we have a confused and angry society, appearing not to know what to do. It blames others rather than accepting responsibility for decisions.
A lot of adults, marrying, have never learnt that a successful marriage includes a lot of compromise from both sides. Individuals may do things our own way but in a partnership we need to consider the opposite member of the partnership.
Thankfully our own children grew up to be responsible and to consider others.
Once a child has turned 13-14 year old, sometimes younger, without a good parental role model can find themselves in a situation where peer pressure will make decisions.
At least there has been an attempt to protect the child. I would rather the 14 year did not feel the pressure of needing contraception. However, I would much prefer the child continue to grow up from childhood into adulthood, enjoying every moment until they mature into adulthood.
The pressure on parents to have two income (or more) means that children are frequently left without supervision, becoming literally "latch key kids"; parents leaving early in the morning and returning late at night. There is very little of role models for the children to emulate. Like Topsy from Uncle Tom's Cabin who "Just growed up", they just grow up. What can we expect when society’s emphasis is on gathering assets?

I see ‘knuckles’, our resident Neanderthal, has taken to editing and rearranging what I say, instead of quoting me and making his own original statements.

Well at least he is starting from a point a reason, sure as hell, he would not have that if he relied on his own ‘creativity’.

But knuckles does not want creativity, he loathes it, someone might draw a “naughty bit” and outrage knuckles’ pet hamster….

“Also, drivers of fast cars do not target children.” no they are murderously indiscriminate, as far as that goes.

Concerning “And most people in our civilized community do not revile those who like or are good at driving fast cars.”

Obviously, the subtlety of the sentence went right over knuckles strangely prominent forehead…

Bugger .. . . apologies folks... that last one ended up on the wrong thread

Why should we be surprised? We have been dumb enough to allow the social engineers to tell us smacking kids is violence. Hence we have ended up with many spoilt brats full of drugs who have never had a smack in their life and are now committing more violence than ever before.

Dear Banjo,

I also did not see that "Today Tonight," program.

However, I did google several websites to
catch up on the story.

It is an emotive issue, and I can understand
the parents being upset, at first.
However, this issue should not be about
them, and their rights. This issue is about
their daughter, and her rights.

The school's first responsibility is
the welfare of the child, as Bronwyn pointed out.
There are also privacy laws involved., that the school
is obliged to obey.
The school is within it's rights to
act, if they believe that a child is at risk.

The nurse in question did not prescribe
anything, she merely sent the girl to a GP.
Which was the correct thing to do under the
circumstances.

The issue this case raises however is, why the girl
didn't feel comfortable talking to her parents
about going on the pill?

The message from all this
would be to open the lines of communication with
your kids. Explain to them that the pill does not
guarantee safe sex. Educate your children about
sexually transmitted diseases and safe sex.

This incident could be used as a teachable moment.
We would all, I'm certain, prefer girls to seek
advice on contraception to being pregnant.

Instead of being shocked by this incident, it
should be a "wake-up" call for the parents.
Don't alienate your children.
Sit down and actually talk to them.
It's not your rights that matter here,
it's their future - and the kind of relationship
that you want to have with them.
That's what matters.
Praise your daughter for having had the courage to
act as a responsible adult.
Take her initiative and give her the support
she needs.

Foxy,
I think the issue is about the rights of the parents. No privacy law should exist that gives a right for a child to keep matters from the parents.

What if the child was a boy who had a body piercing that became infected or a STI? Would your opinion change then?

If a medical professional(the school nurse) is of the opinion that the parents are not acting in the best interests of the child, DOCS should intervene. The parents should be notified.

No body has the right too have a say or touch or act with our children but the parents or parent..We give Birth to our babie's...

A single mum..

Banjo

"I think the issue is about the rights of the parents. No privacy law should exist that gives a right for a child to keep matters from the parents."

I agree, in an ideal world, all children should feel comfortable enough with their parents to be able to discus with them issues such as contraception. But in reality, for whatever reason, many don't. I know I didn't with my parents and neither my son nor daughter did with me. Neither tried to hide it from me but they didn't go seeking my advice either and, though I guess it would have been nice if they had, in all honesty I wouldn't have expected it.

The issue of becoming sexually active for the first time is a very personal one and not all young people wish to broadcast their decision by asking their parents about buying contraception, no matter how good their relationship with their parents might be.

"If a medical professional(the school nurse) is of the opinion that the parents are not acting in the best interests of the child, DOCS should intervene. The parents should be notified."

I would agree with you on some issues, but not this particular one. If the student for whatever reason strongly wished that her parents not know she was sexually active, as I presume was the case in this instance, then I think the school would be abusing the trust placed in it by the student if it informed the parents against her wishes.

Schools walk a fine line on these issues. To some extent they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. My gut instinct is to trust the school and medical authorities here to have handled a difficult situation with care and sensitivity. Equally, I'd always treat TT's version of events with a healthy degree of scepticism.

The advice in Foxy's wonderful post about using this as a teaching moment and a time to communicate with your children is I think a great idea to take from this.

Bronwyn and Foxy,
I was rather hopeful that you would get back to me in relation to if your views would be different should the situation be about a different matter than contraception.

I too am sceptical about TTs slant on things and is why I sought advice on the law, from a medical professional.I also understand that it can be a very difficult time for both kids and parents. Kids may well find it easier to seek advice from a stranger than be embarrassed talking to their parents. However I agree with you about having good communications with the kids.

Specificly, in relation to contraception, I would be quite prepared for my daughter to take the pill if she wanted that. I am very aware of the intensity of young peoples sexuality. I may even be a bit envious that we did not have the same freedoms young people seem to have today.

Having said that, we may have to disagree on some things.

By giving kids the authority to say to medical professionals that they do not want their parents to know, of their ailment and/or treatment, is taking away the rights of parents. We expect parents to be responsible for many things in the raising of kids, surely they must have some rights as well. Or is the parents role simply to feed, clothe and finance the raising of kids.

The present law also instills in kids that it is OK to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. When do we teach kids that one is responsible for ones own decisions. To avoid telling the parents about a medical situation is similar to lieing and we are making medicos party to this.What do kids say if the matter comes up in general conversation. Especially if the ailment is the result of something specific forbidden

I also wonder just who pays for the GPs consultation and the medication as apparently separate Medicare starts at age 16.

Just like the ruling in the case of the Hep2 vaccine, the parents should make the decisions for the kids.

Banjo

"Bronwyn and Foxy, I was rather hopeful that you would get back to me in relation to if your views would be different should the situation be about a different matter than contraception."

I don't see that as particularly relevant, Banjo. The case in question is about contraception afterall. I don't know all the ins and outs of the law etc as it relates to this situation, but personally I think you might be being a tad alarmist.

I think you should give the teaching and health professionals involved a little more credit. Even if they are able to legally send a student to a doctor without parental consent, my feeling is they would only do this on very rare occasions and I doubt very much the power would be abused. I'm also pretty confident its use would be confined to contraception matters, where I can actually see it being of value in certain cases.

I certainly wouldn't be jumping over TT's hoops as you're wanting us to without having all the facts available. Having said that, I'm glad you brought it to our attention. I'll definitely have more of an interest in it from now on as a result of this thread.

The health of a 14 year old should take precedent over the parents right to know. If you take away the child's right to privacy you'll NEVER get kids going to anyone for help.

Imagine the tragedy that has been avoided by the 'right to medical privacy'. This is one example of THOUSANDS we'll never hear about because of the privacy side of it.

At least she sort help. At least some was there FOR HER.

Yeah, it sucks the parents were kept out of the loop, and they should have a right to know. But at least their kid didn't come home pregnant at 14.

IF it saves lives, I'm for it. We've gotta trust someone at some stage. The school, the nurse, and the kid did the right thing, for a change.

With the way some are arguing, you can easily see the threat of State ownership of your child. If you do anything the State disagrees with, you can be assured it will act to remove your child or do what it will with it.

StG>"The health of a 14 year old should take precedent over the parents right to know."

Chilling.

Dear Banjo,

I apologise, I didn't realize that you were
waiting for a response from me.

I've really got nothing more to add however,
Bronwyn has said it beautifully.

I stand by my earlier post. The child behaved
responsibly. As did the school nurse and GP.
The parents should get over their shock of
"not being told," and move on. The welfare
of their child should be the key issue here,
and not their parental rights.

The child behaved as an adult in this case.
It's the parents who are behaving like children,
and they're risking losing their daughter's
trust completely in any future problems that
may arise.

The degradation of parental rights is another bi product of womens liberation. Women preferred to work rather than bring up their kids, so i don't see what you are on about. some-one has to take parental control. Our govt, can only rule for the majority so it's bad luck for the mothers that take the responsability in hand and stay in the house to raise their kids.

Banjo, I'll have a crack at your other scenario's given that no-one else has taken the bait. And this is a concern for me as I have young children and will soon have to face such issues.

Whether it be an infected body-piercing, an STD and a boy or a girl, I could probably come at not knowing SO LONG as someone makes the judgement that the behaviour will not be continuing. Eg an STD contracted by a 14 yo, it is likely to scare them out of sexual activity for a while (although some may be stupid enough to continue). An infected body-piercing is likely to be enough to prompt the child to let it close-over (with the right gentle guidance). In the case of contraception (and this would hold as true for my son caught buying condoms at the same age), there is an underlying inherent understanding that there is not going to be a ceasing of the behaviour that is putting the child at risk. And in the case of sexual activity the riskiness is as much one of emotional wellbeing as physical.

If an outsider assumes the role of confident of the child, then they have a duty to work out why the child is unable to discuss with their parents, strongly encourage involving the parents including acting as intermediary if necessary, and if it is clear that the child is going to continue with risky behaviour then there must be a requirement to inform the parents. I'd rather a pregnant child than one with HIV (and that would include my son finding out he is about to be a father at 14).

Hello Everybody.

Hang on we are not encouraging 14 year old kids to have sex are we?

The child was being reasonsible?
The 'child' needs a good kick up the bum and some discipline from where it should come " her parents" and the teacher and principle should be sacked.

The parents should Sue the Government if its a state school and the board if its not.'( After removing the child.)

I fully agree with Banjo.

Thanks to all the good do`ers I dont think.

What is to become of this country. God knows.

Whatever happend to our carnal knowledge laws and what idiot Government let this law in.

Dont tell me Let me guess

ALP

Interesting to see the mothers on this thread all fairly pragmatic in regards to their teenage children.

The school nurse acted absolutely correctly. As did the GP.

My youngest is a girl and also 14. Though I would be personally devastated if she went on the pill at this very young age and didn't have the confidence to speak to me I would be even more horrified if she couldn't have gone to other responsible adults in whom to confide and help her.

As a mother, as Foxy already alluded to, I can tell you that it is too late to start developing a trusting and meaningful relationship with a teenager. Parents are the ones who have to work at their relationships with their children from birth. That's about the only right we have. The right to develop a relationship from birth and to teach and expose your child to your morals and values over the course of years. Navigating mostly succesfully through teenage and young adulthood depend on this.

Banjo, I believe that children are deemed from about 13 to have the ability to consent on a number of medical issues on their own behalf when there are conflicts between child and parents. Though, don't quote me on this.

Body piercing of course is not a procedure done for medical reasons.

Banjo

We often ask ourselves what has happend to our morals. What has happend to our society. Why are our kids out of control. .

Well it seems clear to me these poor kids dont know the difference.
I can not imagine any parent thinking its ok for a 14 year old child to be sexually active.
I am really shocked that some mothers would support this.


No wonder kids dont know right from wrong anymore. We learn that through our parents. Well at least we used to. I just cant get over this its a real shock.What else can I say. How sad.
No wonder she wouldnt raise this with her parents because its pretty clear she knew darn well what they might say.

To think a school can interfear with parents rights who have
some morals is criminal and requires urgent address from the Government.

If the child was registered at birth to the State by the parents what does that tell you.

The Govt can do exactly as they choose with our children registered to it at birth because the parents would also vote for these grubs and consent to this exercise of power by the State as the parents are also registered electors ( slaves) on the electoral roll.

Very few on this forum realise how the authority to exercise the power over us and our children, by the State, is created.

As for the child on the pill the parents should have discharged their obligation to the child and spent more time educating the child in the years prior to the incident that appears to have upset so many on this forum.

I have had six children, three girls, and I did not have this problem and my sons did not cause these problems either.

There are two separate issues here: the first is the fact that a child has chosen, apparently entirely of her own volition, to become sexually active; the second, that the nurse at her school has chosen to make a referral to a GP for her to receive advice and possibly a prescription for the pill without informing the parents.

On the first issue, sexual activity among 14 year olds, I can only say that it was always part of our society. An age of consent is a very late invention and many of our forebears would have started having children at that age or earlier. In harsher times, it was regarded as a smart thing to marry off your daughters young so that they would have a better chance of surviving childbirth, which carried off so many women. Today's medical care for expectant mothers is so good that this simple fact is sometimes forgotten. Before anyone starts calling me a paedophile, I'd be disturbed if my daughter (who's 12) turned up pregnant any time in the next 8 or 9 years, but I'm prepared for the possibility, remote as I think it is.

On the second issue, whilst not exactly the same, I've experienced DOCS interviewing my children without notifying me (re a stupid complaint made about the ex by the new boyfriend's ex) and I was quite cross. Nonetheless, I can see the sense in it, given that the children are the ones who are actually experiencing any problem. While my reaction as a parent is to be affronted, my children are their own masters and I am merely a facilitator of their best interests as I see them. The school nurse in this case was doing what I would have done anyway, which was to ensure that the risk to the child as a result of her decision was minimised. I assume that some counselling was offered as well.

Sometimes, we as parents need to step back and allow our kids to tell us what they want, hard as that may be.

Terrific posts from Foxy, Bronwyn, Yvonne and Antiseptic.

I wouldn't want to be a teenager again, hormonally driven and in some cases unable to talk to their parents.

I was such a teenager, sexually active at 15, I went to a GP at my own volition and expense for contraception. Thus avoiding a teenage pregnancy.

It is never easy watching our children take their first faltering steps into the adult world, the best we can do is be there for them if they fall.

While we all hope that it is later that our children become sexually active, if it is sooner, then it is reassuring to know that there are responsible adults such as the school nurse and GP who act with the best interests of our children. Far from removing parental rights these professionals acted with common sense and care for the young girl in question here.

If you do your parental job properly there will not be a need for schools or nurses to take control of issues that should be done by parents. Not all parents are responsible. Some parents don't believe their kids can be sexually active at 13 or 14yo. These kids do have friends of the opposite sex, and probably up to 3 years older than they are. So just be careful, and keep ya head above sand level.

Fractelle, why do you assume that that the state can do whatever it deems "responsible" and in the child's "best interests". Who the hell are they to act in the child's best interests, but the parents are forbidden from doing so? That doesn't make any sense (for good reason) as indicated earlier. For example, the state stole children from aboriginals. Applying your reasoning, they were acting in the child's best interests. Really you must understand what the problem with this country is and where it's going. The state is removing parenetal rights. And the list of reasons for taking away your child or punishing the parent is becoming longer and longer-it's all part and parcel of the mentality I talked about but was rebuked for mentioning.

yvonne,

'Interesting to see the mothers on this thread all fairly pragmatic in regards to their teenage children.'
Why is it interesting? Because mothers aren't normally pragmatic, or because you are attempting to say fathers are not pragmatic?

This is how the system corrupts our children and ruins society. The age of consent is 16...To take a 14 year old girl to the doctor, without parental permission, for the pill, no matter how much she wanted to try sex, is a crime. Yet these people do it and do not get punished.

It seems that the system isn't protecting our children, following the law or doing the right thing. What sort of example is that to be set for the kids and to build the foundations?

It is not a good way that they are grooming our society. Underage sex, underage drinking, drug abuse all in the name of choice leading to issues like babies, drug abuse, violence and crime. Does anybody else see the pattern?

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

Jolanda,
you say: "To take a 14 year old girl to the doctor, without parental permission, for the pill, no matter how much she wanted to try sex, is a crime".

Do you mean crime in the legal sense or in the subjective 'moral' sense? Because if you mean the former you are absolutely mistaken. A 14 year old can consent to medical treatment as long as the medical practitioner is convinced that she understands the implications of such treatment (with the onus being on the medico to refute the assumption that the patient understood).

Illegality in this case would only arise if the school, nurse or GP breached the girl's medical privacy. In fact, if the TV show identified the parents (and hence the girl), then the TV network would have a case to answer.

That's the law; as a general rule I don't have a problem with it. In this case the school and GP appear to have acted entirely appropriately and no amount of ill-informed, self-righteous huffing and puffing from a TV show changes that.

The age of consent is 16 and school personnel take a 14 year old girl to get the pill so she can engage in something that is against the law and you do not see a problem with this?

Gee that is a worry.

Jolanda,
I'm just trying to explain the law to you; it's not that difficult to understand. You said that the school had committed a crime... and you are absolutely wrong. Whether or not the 14 year old has committed a 'crime' by engaging in sexual intercourse is irrelevant to the issues of consent to medical treatment and privacy. And my opinion (and your opinion) of the 14 year old's behaviour is also irrelevant.

Just because the system has set things up to protect those who encourage underage children to have sex doesn't mean it isn't a crime.

I am just trying to explain that to you.

Jolanda:"Just because the system has set things up to protect those who encourage underage children to have sex doesn't mean it isn't a crime"

There is no suggestion of encouragement, merely harm minimisation in a situation that already exists. Are you more affronted by the nurse's action in doing so, or in her failure to inform the parents?

Harm minimisation is a joke. It is a failure and it doesn't work.

If we teach the children to have no respect for the law then we should not be surprised when they have no respect for the law.

Get ya head out of the sand. This kid was obviously engaging in sex,no one told her the age of consent is 16. The age of buying grog is 18, so why is so many underage teenagers drunk. People are carrying on as if this is a surprise, ya gotta be jokin.

I think it's random coincidence Jolanda finds herself on the correct side of this issue about protecting parental rights... I think she has no idea what she is talking about when it comes to drugs. Making drugs legal will definitely take the shine off of them amongst the young and protect them from becoming criminals or overdosing. As you can see Helen Mirren took cocaine on many occasions and loved it. Look how stable and successful she is now... She is a role model. Col Rouge should be taking some notes as he is sadly subject to fallibility as everyone else.

Obviously Fractelle, Foxy, yvonne, Bronwyn and some others hold different views than me. They see the action taken by the nurse and GP as in the childs best interests.

Although the actions of the nurse and GP were within the law, I see the problem being with the law itself. For some independent person to be able to arbitrarily make decissions for the medication and medical treatment of a child without consulting or approval of the parents is simply wrong. As is not informing the parents.

DOCS has a lot of power, but it had to go to court to try to counter the parents refusal to give their baby a vacination for Hep B even when there was a high risk of infection.

It is simply wrong for the Governments to give authority to a child to instruct that his/her parents not be informed.

I concede that there are instances where children and parents are unable to communicate about certain matters, but by far the main reason the kids don't want the parents told is because they will get into trouble. It is not as though they can't talk to their parents, it is to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

Do not most parents teach their kids that if you do something wrong it is better to own up. Do not try and hide it. The respnsible thing to do is come clean. The current law allows kids from 14 to 18 to avoid responsibility for actions. The governments are saying that it is OK to not disclose, to cover up, and providing the means by which the kids can do just that.

Whether it be seeking contraception or treatment for an infected body piercing the issue is the same. Parents should be the ones to decide on what action, if any, is taken.

We are making medicos a party to a cover up by the child. It does not seem a very responsible thing to be teaching kids to me. Governments and schools should be supporting parents in teaching kids honesty and integrity.

Banjo: "Governments and schools should be supporting parents in teaching kids honesty and integrity."

Precisely.

In the case of the 14 year old girl, she was treated with respect and consideration for her situation. We don't know why she could not talk to her parents, the reasons are many and varied.

Therefore, the nurse and GP acted appropriately, they assisted the girl to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and kept her trust. Had they notified her parents against her wishes, they would've betrayed her. Who then would she turn to for help? No doubt her peers who are as young and in need of support as herself.

This is not a case of "the state" overriding parental "rights" it is a case of two professional people (nurse and GP) acting with all the discretion we would expect for ourselves if seeking treatment. I have no way of knowing, but I am sure that the girl would've been advised to consult with her parents, that she couldn't is sad. However, at least she was treated intelligently and no doubt avoided a pregnancy.

Banjo, you see parental control as being more important than the welfare of a young woman. Sooner or later parental control ceases to be. We would all rather it be later, but one thing we all have to learn, as adults, and that is we don't have control over everything that happens to us in life.

What is that saying:

"Grant me the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to accept the things I can't."

I wonder why there is no mention of involvement by the school counsellor. Surely this is a case where involvement of such a person is warranted.

And wat would a school councilor do about it . It is pretty obvious that sex has already taken place.

Fractelle,
We obviously disagree on what the issue is and I am not trying to change your mind but maybe you can see where I am coming from.

Yes, I do see the authority of the parents as very important. We do not need governments to undermine that trust and authority.

This privacy law for kids involves more than just contraception for girls. There are many aspects of medical treatments that could be involved.

However speaking of the contraceptive pill matter. The reason a girl would seek to get the pill is because she is, at least, contemplating having intercourse. Conception is not the only issue here as STD is also a consideration. I think that parents must be the ones to make the decision as to when their daughter is allowed to engage in this activity. As Jolanda said it is unlawful before 16, so how could the parents, or anyone else, approve of an actiity that is unlawful. That is a morality decision the parents have to make.

I do not consider there are many reasons for a child being unable to discuss the matter with her parents. After all sex education is part of schooling these days, but if the nurse thinks there is genuine embarrasment of the subject, she or a counselor could begin the discussions with the parents.

As I said earlier, if medicos believe the best interest of the child are not being met, DOCS should be informed.

Banjo,

You're on the ball here.

There are far too many unknowns in this case and probably will never be known.

The school Nurse in taking the kid to a Doctor is wrong. She should have taken her to a counsellor.

I am of the opinion that the Doctor is also wrong in prescribing something to a minor without the knowledge of the parents. That's my opinion.....full stop.
Surely a Doctor with half a brain is obligated to inform the parents what's going on with 'their' child. I'll tell you what, if it was my daughter I would be spewing.

How do we know that a criminal offence has not taken place here? Maybe the male concerned is above the age of eighteen? Folks condoning criminal activities?

Call in DOCS and leave it at that.

Banjo,
your post was not directed to me but I would like to say that I can see where you are coming from. However, I think you're conflating a number of different issues.

Legislative and common law protections for medical privacy are not undermining parental authority. Yes, the 14 year old cut-off for informed consent is arbitrary, but where would you put it...at 16 (age of consent)...at 17 (driver's licence)...at 18 (vote, join army, get tattoo without parental consent, drink legally)...early 20s (when the male brain has matured)? Some 12 year olds are more mature than 20 year olds so perhaps there should be some barrier test...like a driver's licence??

Your children may feel comfortable discussing their sexuality with you, but I don't think that puts you in the majority. And as to your statement "that parents must be the ones to make the decision as to when their daughter is allowed to engage in this activity"...well I think you are a little deluded if you think you will be in the position to 'allow' your kids to be sexually active.

And BTW, I don't really think you strengthen your argument very much by citing Jolanda's idiosyncratic interpretation of the law. She still appears to think that the school and GP have colluded in a crime.

Divey,

"I am of the opinion that the Doctor is also wrong in prescribing something to a minor without the knowledge of the parents. That's my opinion.....full stop."

You're entitled to that opinion but you are mistaken legally, medically and ethically.

"Surely a Doctor with half a brain is obligated to inform the parents what's going on with 'their' child"

You're also entitled to that opinion but you are mistaken legally, medically and ethically.

I guess your point about not knowing all the facts is correct...so we don't need to make gratuitous speculations about the age of sexual partners, etc.

Jason the girls virginity isnt the most important thing, its her ongoing health, both physical and mental. The fact that she has (maybe) had sex in the past is no biggy. Its the fact that she obviously intends to again in the future. A counsellor should be looking to address why the child feels she cant talk to her parents, and what underlying problem is steering the child towards risky behaviour. So there is a big role to play.

I didnt see the program Banjo - was the specific mention of the girl planning to engage in sexual activity? The thought just occurred that contraception isnt the only reason why the pill is prescribed. It can be used simply to regulate the menstrual cycle if its sporadic and painful - its certainly not beyond belief that a toung teen may have trouble raising this with her parents.

The age of 14 is enough for some parents to turn their kids out. 12Y/o kids roaming the streets at night. This is why govt's have to presume carer. The kids that are treated like human beings in the home would not be in this situation. If this situation were taken back from relevant authorities, these kids would miss out even further.

Kassie,

Thank you for accepting the fact that I am entitled to my opinion. I like that:-)

Kassie, the name of the Forum is after all onlineopinion!!

"I guess your point about not knowing all the facts is correct...so we don't need to make gratuitous speculations about the age of sexual partners, etc."

And you don't feel for one second that the truth of the matter should be 'investigated'. Or, is that morally, ethically and legally incorrect also. Or. would you be happy to simply shove head in the sand?

I couldn't find the story on the TT website, so I don't know who was identified in it. But there's a gross invasion of privacy in investigating a 14-year-old girl and her sexual/medical issues, and identifying her parents had the effect of identifying her. I wonder what school was like the next day?

Applying privacy laws to minors (and people with intellectual disabilities or dementia) is fraught. There are no easy answers. These kinds of laws are necessarily arbitrary — blanket rules overlaid on flesh and blood people. Nevertheless, I think it's incorrect to suggest this situation indicates over-governance, as Steel does. We need privacy legislation; the question here is about when it kicks in. And, when it comes to contraceptives, fourteen is not an unreasonable age. We must be realistic rather than idealistic about teenagers and sex. Not everybody wants to talk to their parents about losing their virginity. I didn't, although I'd be honest if they asked, which was, thankfully, infrequently. Parents are responsible for educating their children about sex. But, ultimately, their sex lives are their own business.

In this case, the privacy laws only kicked in because the girl in question DIDN'T talk to her parents about what had happened at school, and her parents found out. Now they want legislation that would reinforce their relationship with her, not provide her with a way to avoid talking to them. Unfortunately, even if the law was different, their relationships would remain the same. Their daughter wanted contraception, and odds are she would have found some. Their distress is understandable, but they're focussing on the wrong solution.

I think Yvonne's point, Usual Suspect, was that it was interesting that the parents on this forum who actually had teenage kids were generally being the most pragmatic. I'm sure that's right. It all sounds easy until you're faced with a living, breathing, raging-hormoned teenager in their rangy, strangely adult bodies. Then every thing that seems clear cut about this issue starts blurring at the edges.

Country Gal,
The programe may still be on TTs website, I don't know. Thanks for your input and no, it did not say the pill was for contraception. I did not consider the fact that it may have been prescribed for other ailments. However I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a girl starting menstration and not talking about it with her mother.

But I still consider that irrelivant, it is the fact that she received medication without parential approval or knowledge that is the issue.

Kassie,
Parents are responsible for their children until they are 18, after they are free to make their own decisions. Yes, some kids may be very mature at 12 but many are not. I have seen 30 year olds that should, IMHO not be able to vote, they are so immature.

I think you and Jolanda had some crossed wires there as I took it that Jolanda was refering to the age of concent at 16, which is correct and what I referred to.

I do not think I am delusioned to believe that when a young girl becomes sexually active is up to the parents. No other person should have that right or to aid and abet it. Surely you do not condone underage sex. Would you knowingly allow your daughter to be involved in criminal acts. She may be infatuated with an older male.

It may well be rare these days, but it is not unknown for young people to be virginal when they turn 18. If that is what some parents decree. I may not agree, but I respect that.

Banjo

I can well understand your distress at not being consulted by your children in what is a major transition for many teens.

However, if the choice is between accurate information and support versus misinformation and no support - which do you choose? Ideally the 14 year old go to their parents, but failing that this young girl was apparently well treated and cared for. There is insufficient information to determine whether she received counseling, I would hope that is the case.

Reality: we don't live in an ideal world, that is why schools have support staff to aid students, I am glad to know that they were there for her, when her parents (for whatever reason) couldn't be.

It's called the y generation. They are different from every other gen; that has ever been. Drugs, niteclubs, outdated education, No respect for law, Parents that say do wat ever ya want, as long as it is not here. Don't blame the system.

Whatever the parents want, they don't OWN their children. A teenagers sexuality is all their own. They have a right to explore their own sexual thoughts and feelings in private, and share their bodies with whoever they trust, should they so wish. The law is in place to prevent an unequal power balance based on age difference.

Parents really need to butt out of teenagers sex lives. Some start early, some don't and that has always been the case. If you aren't constantly looking over your kids shoulder making them feel like sex is wrong or they are living in a fish bowl, perhaps they may feel like they can approach you.

The most important thing you can teach a teenager about sex is contraception, and to value their body, and tell them they own their sexuality and it's alright to keep it private, from you and from people who would pressure them to share what they aren't ready to share.

It's inconsistent to say to your child, I own you and I control your sex, your innermost private part, and then expect the same child to have the feelings of self worth and ownership of their body to reject others that may pressure them into something they're not ready for.

Banjo,

I would have to go with Bronwyn on this. The child of 14 has her own rights which include the right to seek confidential medical advice. And if so the doctor has the duty to refuse to disclose this.

If you treat your children like your property then you will get a wake up call.

A 14 year old child is a child.....Children are not emotionally, physically or mentally ready to engage in sex. A child of 14 should not be given rights that they are not developed and mature enough to really understand.

Many in our society do not encourage young people to wait until they are older before they engage in relationships and sex. You would have to question why?

Young people should be encouraged to wait until they are older and more self sufficient and better equipped to make good choices before they consider sex. Where is a 14 year old girl going to go to have sex? How old would her boyfriend have to be to have his own place?? If they start having sex that young, how many men does she plan on sleeping with? Young people have to understand the implications and the consequences of thier actions and long term effects.

Society seems to be Assisting youngesters to make bad choices and it isn't teaching them well. Children do not need to be involved in sex at 14 or even 15 or 16 for that matter.

I am so glad Banjo to hear that there are some sane voices in the crowd who see our children as children and don't want them to grow up before time and put them in a position where they can be easily abused.

Veronika,
You say the use of contraception is OK at 14 and you mentioned being realistic. Then you say that their sex lives are their own business.

Can we deduce from that you would agree to the lowering of the age of consent to 14 for both sexes?

I also wonder how the others, that expressed opinion that it was OK for the 14 yo to be given contraceptives by the GP, feel about lowering the age of consent.

Can you not see a conflict here? We have laws dictating the age of consent and our governments choose to ignore that law in allowing the child to bypass his/her parents to obtain contraceptives at age 14.
Oh well, its a bit like us having laws banning FGM. The laws are there but they have never been enforced.

In this case the government line is that giving contraceptives is in the best interests of the child. I have yet to see argument that carrying out FGM on a girl is in the best interests of the child. There is evidence aplenty that FGM is done to girls here in Aus. Governments uphold the parents rights to do this by ignoring their own laws.

I see some gross hypocracy in this.

In this particular case the mother seemed very distressed which is understandable, especially if she had thought she had a good relationship with her daughter. The government has encouraged her daughter to deceive her.

I know there are problems in dealing with children, but removing all parental rights is not the solution.

Usual Suspect,
If you believe the garbage in your last post, you are an absolute fool.

Parents are responsible for the well being of their kids until 18.
They care about if their child is having sex and who with. The childs health and well being is at stake. Parents need to butt out of teenagers sex lives. INDEED.

Usual Suspect, see Veronika's explanation of my comment re pragmatism.

Other than that. Your last comment exactly expresses my opinion. Parents do not own their children. Parental rights seems to be often confused with ownership.

Banjo, parents have almost full say re their children when they cannot speak for themselves, as during babyhood. But this diminishes as they grow older and mature.

What do you say about parental rights when they insist on having their daughter's ears pierced when she is six and the child is screaming she doesn't want this?

What do you say to parental rights when they refuse a blood transfusion when a child is bleeding to death with no time to consult DOCS or wait for court orders?

The parents of this 14 year old should be congratulated that their daughter is at least responsible enough to seek contraception. This child is more responsible than some 20 and 30 somethings I know regarding sex.

My daughter is 14, I'd be horified if she at this young age engaged in a sexual relationship, but I'd be devastated if she was then also irresponsible and risked pregnancy.

As Usual Suspect said, parents should butt out of their teenage children's sex lives. By this stage parents had their time to pass on their values to their children. A person's virginity does not belong to their parents.

What I'm saying Banjo, is that the fact that this medication is for preventing pregnancy makes it very relevant to the discussion of whether parents should be informed or not.

The whole notion of 'age of consent' is unsatisfactory anyway. A 15 year old with another 15 year old is illegal, but a 16 year old with a 30 year old is A OK? I know which scenario I know to be exploitive and harmful and its not the 'illegal' minors.

Yes Banjo - parental rights over their children's bodies are absolute.

At least that's what those who practise the FGM that you often bang on about would say, eh?

Has it occurred to you that the kid in question here may have had to go to the school nurse for contraceptive advice because her parents were religious fundies of some kind, or were otherwise so prudish that she felt more comfortable talking to medical personnel about her sexuality?

My daughter at 15 talked to me, her single-parent father, about going on the pill. I expressed my surprise and even appreciation that she could come to me about this, but realised that my feelings were immaterial and kept the remainder from her, advising that that while I thought it was illegal to have sex before the age of consent, she should consult her GP, and if that did not work, to get a second opinion. She did.

Even by that time, we had issues. These issues got bigger before they would subside. Parenthood can be as tough as childhood. Looking back, I think neither of us can be sure that optimum choices were always made along the way. We both hope to improve in future. That’s life, I guess.

Have our two lives been enhanced by state intervention? I doubt it very much.

But I hear others have benefited so that’s enough for me. Kevin may have been plotted to the right of Genghis Khan on a political scale, but I think he means well. He has an eye on things and shares those visions with working families. That’s good enough for me. I’m just so glad I’m no longer responsible for anyone. I’m hoping Kevin is.

Seeker> "He has an eye on things and shares those visions with working families. That’s good enough for me. I’m just so glad I’m no longer responsible for anyone. I’m hoping Kevin is."

I wonder how far this mentality extends amongst these "Working Families".

Seeker>"I’m just so glad I’m no longer responsible for anyone."

Very interesting. The public want the government to babysit it because parents can't handle the pressure and simply want to forsake any of their responsibility. This sentiment is intriguing.

Jolanda:"Children do not need to be involved in sex at 14 or even 15 or 16 for that matter. "

At what age do they "need to be involved in sex" then?
Given that you believe your children are "gifted", at what age do you think "ordinary" children "need" to have sex? What do you think your kids think about the subject, or do you believe they don't "need" to discuss the subject?
Take this as you will, but your posts are giving me the impression of a domineering mother, determined to "give her kids the best" as she sees it, regardless of their own desires. You gave birth to them, but you don't own them.

Banjo, what on earth does FGM have to do with the topic you raised? Are you suggesting that schools are encouraging this nasty practise? Surely it's normally arranged by parents who are trying to maintain their own cultural mores in the face of a society that condemns them? You seem to have no problem with the state usurping their role, yet you would have those same parents given total control over their daughter's sexual activity. Strange.

The age of consent is an arbitrary invention of the law, designed to protect young people from sexual abuse by adults. It does not have any place in a discussion about two young people exploring their own bodies together. Far better to acknowledge the situation exists and help the parties to avoid consequences that may be long-lasting, such as pregnancy or STDs. Aren't we fortunate to live in an age in which such a course is possible? A mere 50 or so years ago, the boy she is involved with would have had the sole responsibility to take care of contraception and we all know how well that worked.

Much of the negative comment on this thread seems to basically come down to a sense that the girl is a "slut" and that her parents should "sort her out". No one has even mentioned the boy. Welcome to the New Wowserism.

Antiseptic,

Your quote,

"Much of the negative comment on this thread seems to basically come down to a sense that the girl is a "slut" and that her parents should "sort her out". No one has even mentioned the boy. Welcome to the New Wowserism."

You've got to be kidding.....have you read the whole thread? I think not.

Folks on here are attempting to have a meaningful discussion and you come up with that crap!! Nearly as bad as 'The Real' Suspect....I could not even bring myself to reply his/her rubbish.

Antiseptic. I don't 'think' that my children are gifted. Due to issues with regard to a difference in my children that made them struggle to be educated and to fit the age based system we sought advice from experts and more than one Registered Psychologists have identified them as highly/exceptionally intellectually gifted.

My children believe that society is sexualising children and that it is wrong. They get so upset with what they hear and what they see it doing to their peers as more often than not it ruins their life. They cannot understand how adults allow it and why adults would push children that way. The wonder why, if children can see how wrong it is why adults cannot?

My children understand that sex involves more than just a physical act and that they can be involved in sex for the rest of their life and they can drink and even choose to have drugs for many, many years to come and that at this stage in their life, when they are children, they do not need to go there and instead they need to focus on sports, having fun, being educated as they do not want regrets and they want good memories of their childhood and to be able to afford the finer things in life when they leave home. They want to get married, buy a house and have children and having sex, drinking and involving themselves in drugs at a young age makes their goals and dreams much less likely.

You appear to just have no respect for children Antiseptic.

Banjo, you may be very surprised at how many girls wouldnt talk about menstruation with their mother. I'm obviously a little older than a teenager, but I remember well the embarrassment and discomfort. We didnt even discuss it with friends except to joke. One girl I knew couldnt handle it and just used facewashers as pads and hid her undies and other evidence. Obviously it was eventually found out and dealt with. I didnt have a mother, so my dad borrowed a book from the library and told me to read it and ask him if I had any questions (sounds a bit rough but even at the time I appreciated it, as I knew he had refused to go to a library for nearly 50 years after a childhood fight with a librarian, so was a big thing for him). My sisters handled it very differently - one came and asked for "supplies" very matter-of-factly, the other came in tears and distraught. Even within the same family kids will handle such matters differently.

But back to the topic again. I keep coming back to a concern about the pill - its fine for contraception, but no help with STD's, which surely should rank as highly on the list of worries. So I think that if in this case the pill was prescribed as a contraceptive, then the doctor and nurse were highly irresponsible (much better would be to help the girl purchase condoms to protect from both pregnancy and STD's). Also if for contraception I'd have though that they might use one of the more long-term devices that are now available such as patches or slow-release chips. Which brings me back to other medical reasons that the pill is used for. Yes, perhaps there is a call for parents to be involved no matter what the medical issue, but much of the hype on this thread has been devoted to sex.

Banjo: "You say the use of contraception is OK at 14 and you mentioned being realistic. Then you say that their sex lives are their own business.

Can we deduce from that you would agree to the lowering of the age of consent to 14 for both sexes?"

No. You can deduce from that that I think the age of consent is arbitrary. People will not be ready the day they hit sixteen. Some will be earlier, others later. We cannot legislate human relationships. We can only teach our children to value themselves highly, and to understand that sex changes things, and it is serious. And that, until they are adults, they *can* come to us, but not that they *must*. Usual Suspect put it beautifully — parents do not own their children, they have sexual thoughts and feelings and activities that are, quite properly, not their parents' business.

It's not that I don't think fourteen is not very young to have sex. It is. It's not that I wouldn't be devastated if it were my daughter. I would. But, ultimately, while it may make me uncomfortable, I think it's not an unreasonable age for someone to being having an independent relationship with their doctor, and making decisions about their sexuality.

As others have pointed out, your FGM analogy doesn't hold water.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I just want to say again that Today Tonight was the real culprit in terms of violating privacy.

Seeker, lovely post.

Antiseptic,
Sheeze, don't you, at least, scan threads before commenting?

Quite early, I pointed out that the privacy laws related to both genders and gave example of a boy having a, forbidden, body piercing that had become infected. He is using this law to avoid being in big trouble with his parents.

However, most posters wanted to stick to the scenerio of the TV segment that was about a girl seeking 'the pill'. That is OK by me as my gripe is with the privacy laws that allows kids to say to medicos that their parents not be informed.

FGM was given as an example of government hypocracy. They claim the privacy laws are for the childs best interests but take no action to uphold other laws supposedly there to prevent young girls from gross abuse and mutilation. If you cannot see the difference between parents having the say in medical treatment for their child and outright parental abuse you need help.

Furthermore no one here has made any suggestion that girls are 'sluts' as you crudely put it. Everyone has recognized that children of this age have intense sexual feelings because of hormonal changes and both the parents and the children often struggle to deal with that. If some parents take steps to curtail their kids sexual activities, for various reasons, until they reach 18, that should be their right.

Country Gal
I am surprized that you say some girls have trouble talking with their mums about menstruation. Is that not a basic part of sex education and body awareness that is taught in schools.

Seeker,
You will find that the laws are State laws and Kevin has nothing to do with them.

yvonne,
My view is that parents should take an interest in their kids sexual actiities, if for no other reason than health. Would you not be concerned if your child had an active and unprotected sex life?

Banjo: "I am surprized that you say some girls have trouble talking with their mums about menstruation..."

Sorry to butt in to this exchange, but I also didn't tell my mum when I got my period. She had already told what would happen and bought me supplies, so I knew what to do, in fact I was looking forward to it. Begin a woman and all. But I didn't expect the shame and embarrassment.

For all she knows I never got it! In reality, I expect she indulged in some detective work, but she was tactful enough never to ask. I appreciate that. Now, of course, I can talk to her about anything.

As I said earlier, you can't legislate human relationships. I'm wasn't alone — many of my friends didn't tell their mums when they got their periods. Whether they learned it in school or not is irrelevant.

Adolescence is the process of detaching oneself from one's comforting, suffocating parents, and venturing into the adult world. (Why I love Bill Henson so much, he imagines the adult world as twisted tress in twilight, dark, dangerous, seductive... but let's not go there...) It's hard for the kids and it's hard for the parents, but good parents have given their kids a good moral/ethical/practical/intellectual compass to navigate their way around.

Banjo: "My view is that parents should take an interest in their kids sexual actiities, if for no other reason than health..."

I'm butting in here too, but you have misread Yvonne's post. Of course parents should take an interest! However, this issue is about whether their right to know about their child overrides their child's right to privacy. And at what age? And for what issues?

Banjo: "FGM was given as an example of government hypocracy..."
I see what you mean now, and I appreciate that, if police really are ignoring incidents of FGM, then that's indeed hypocritical.

Personally I reckon Australia should remove the parental right to circumcise girls AND boys. Unless there is compelling case for it. And religion is NOT a compelling case.

Veronika,
Just a quicky. FGM is against the law in all states, but no one has ever been charged.

You want some hypocrisy take !@#$ing look in the mirror. You sexists only care about human rights as it applies to women. Hundreds of thousands of male children are being mutilated every year and you people just don't give a damn. It's disgusting

Take chill pill Steel.

1. The discussion is about oral contraception that was prescribed for a teenage girl. At this point in time there is no oral contraception for males.

2. Do you not read people's posts?

Check the last line in Veronika's last post:

>>>Personally I reckon Australia should remove the parental right to circumcise girls AND boys.<<<

Just because boys haven't been mentioned in this thread as often as girls is no reason to get your knickers in a twist.

My comment was more to Banjo. It's nevertheless still true whenever the debate arises in the media or amongst sexist lobby groups

So when is a girl or boy 'READY' to be involved in sex?
How young will people want to go?

So when is a girl or boy 'READY' to be involved in sex?

Jolanda, the answer to your question depends on whether your talking about physically, mentally or emotionally. Unfortunately the physical seems to come first, and teenager's decisions to have sex usually occur before they are mentally and emotionally developed. (Even though teenagers think they are, as well as knowing everything else there is to know about life). The natural functions of reproduction don't recognise that a person is too young too have sex.

As a parent I don't like the idea about being left out of the loop but I also would rather my 14 year old be on the pill than pregnant. I would also rather she have a relationship with a GP that could advise on other issues such as STDs, pap smears etc.

It is a difficult one, because the privacy laws override the rights of parents but ultimately it is the health and interests of the child that counts.

I was lucky in that I do talk to my girls and even when my oldest at 17 revealed her sexual relationship with her boyfriend I made an appointment for her to see our GP with no conditions attached. She went to the GP by herself and got all the information she needed. As a parent, it was a bit late to make a noise after the horse had bolted so to speak and also 17 is not 14.

The truth is as parents we won't always know everything about our children including, and expecially, sex. I would be hopeful that other people in my children's life - teacher, counsellor, family friend might provide some support or advice rather than have none at all.

Jolanda: "So when is a girl or boy 'READY' to be involved in sex?
How young will people want to go?"

Maybe 14. Maybe 40. I wasn't ready until I was 20. My best friend was ready at 13. I think if we teach children about sex, how to resist peer pressure, how to choose partners wisely, how to communicate, how to develop supportive rather than manipulative friendships, how to best conduct relationships and how to trust themselves then they'll work out what the right time is for them. It may be younger that 16, but it may just as easily be older.

But, having said all that, Steel Mann makes a wise point. Our physical ability to have sex often precedes the maturity that makes it fulfilling. It's very tricky. But just because it's hard doesn't mean we should shouldn't address it.

Steel, it's presumptuous of me to give you advice, so ignore it if you like, but if you're really interested in eradicating circumcision I think there's little point in getting angry at people who haven't thought the issues through. Most people don't object to male circumcision not because they're hypocritical or sexist but because it's such a common cultural practice and they've simply never considered whether it's right or wrong. Many men want their sons circumcised so that they look "like me". I think we will eradicate circumcision eventually, but it will happen with education and persuasion, not slagging people off because they haven't given it the same amount of thought that you have.

Also I just wanted to point out that, pace some posters, having sex before the age of consent is not illegal. Having sex with someone under the age of consent is illegal.

I see the doctor having a difficult choice.

The girl is having sex, She has the right of confidentiality. He has 2 choices, not give her contraceptives and let her fall pregnant, or give them to her.

What would you prefer him to do?

Democritus,
The whole point is that the child should not have the right of confidentiality. The State has passed privacy laws that enable the child to legally avoid the responsibility for their actions. We should not put medicos in that position. If the child has not the confidence to talk, about her being sexually active, with her parents she is hardly mature enough to make decissions regarding her sexual activities.

Whether anyone likes it or not, parents are responsible for the childs well being until they are 18. How much freedom, responsibility and privacy children get is determined by the parent. Most parents give kids more slack, and privacy, as they show compedentcy and responsibility. When kids fall short, the reins are tightend a bit.

After years of parents teaching kids about honesty, integrity and owning up when one does something wrong, we have government saying 'Hey, you do not have to be answerable for you actions, its fine to deceive your parents, to lie, to cover up. Your mum and dad don't have to know what you do. Privacy laws give you the means to stop your parents from finding out. If you can get away with something you should do so'.

Governments lie, cover up and not disclose, all the time. They are experts at it.

Is that the message we want to give to the children.

Parents should not simply wash their hands of one very important aspect of their childs growing up by saying it is the kids private business and we will butt out, we don't want to know what they get up to. This is what some have been saying on this thread and that is frightening.

Banjo, there’s a lot to agree with you in your last post. I think it clarifies your position beyond the confusion accidentally caused by your FGM clunker. Thanks for distinguishing state and federal responsibility for me after my Kevin rave. Kevin was more of a metaphor. I am well aware that we all interpret Kevin differently so take it as you wish. Besides, we in NSW have no state leader worthy of respect, so try to understand my exaggerated love for Kevin.

Banjo, I see what you're trying to get at. It was a bit obscured by all sorts of side issues.

As it happens, I disagree with you, though. My responsibility is to ensure that my kids have a set of values that allows them to make informed decisions when they feel moved to do so and to be available to them for advice if they need it.

I do not and cannot have the responsibility to make all of their decisions for them once they demonstrate an ability to do so for themselves, whether I agree with their choices or not. I don't much like the state acting on my childrens' behalf without informing me, but I also doubt that my children would place me in that position, as we have a strong relationship that allows them to raise the sorts of issues that might lead to the situation under discussion.

As has been said, the nurse and doctor (and possibly, school counsellor) must have had reasons for not informing the parents, and those reasons probably include the girl's inability to talk openly with her parents or an anticipation of punishment. It may have even been a wish to protect the parents from knowledge that may be hurtful to them. I disagree that this lack of communication is necessarily anything to do with the girl's maturity. I know people in their forties who can't tell their parents about aspects of their private lives; even spouses get kept in the dark. We know little about the case, and it seems there are a lot of assumptions being made.

In general, you see the rights of the parents outweighing the rights of the child, based on parental responsibility. If the child takes the responsibility on for herself, what then?

Banjo,

The very reason that a person has the right of confidentiality is so they can seek medical help with no fear of repercussions.

What if the parents were actually part of the problem.

You don't own your children, you only have a right of care and custody. Their rights override any of yours.

Banjo

*The whole point is that the child should not have the right of confidentiality. The State has passed privacy laws that enable the child to legally avoid the responsibility for their actions. We should not put medicos in that position. If the child has not the confidence to talk, about her being sexually active, with her parents she is hardly mature enough to make decissions regarding her sexual activities.*

Banjo
You are one hundred percent on the money.
Children do not make adult choices - thats what parents are for.

The huge funds given to Citz Right from Saudi and policy promises is what led us to this.

To lower the age of consent and bring us in line with other countries who approve of children having sex and babbies.

Next we will have the legal age of marriage lowered to 14 as well.
Its all quite political and made on a promise pre elections and before.

Its good to see someone with a few morals.

I was going to say I am shocked at first but then again- I guess I shouldn be.

Your Children are one of the lucky ones to have some proper parents.

The only thing you have to do now is to hope they meet partners of the same background.

Welcome to the New Australia - Its frighting.
It was already lowered from 18 to 16- guess they werent happy with that.

Take a good look behind all policys and you will always find a political reason- but not neccessarily a moral one.

Good Luck Banjo I take my hat off to you+ anybody else bring their kids up with some morals.

Pity about the Governments lack of morals.

Boy I wonder how much that mob donated.

I've been following this thread with interest and assessing the arguments everyone put forward. Concerning the posters who have engaged here I think its impossible to say to any group "Yep. You are the mob who is right." Because the one thing that is constant for each camp is that you are being true to what you believe in - and so, whichever way you come down on this question, you are obviously teaching your kids what your firmly believe to be truth and honour.

However, there are not just hundreds, but thousands of families out there with whom many of you do not come into contact who do not have the privilege of having had firm moral guidelines, educated (either formal or informal) assessments or even adequate knowledge in order to arrive at such conclusions.

I think some people are reading about this problem and transposing it into their own world of experience wherein it's relatively easy to take a moral stance.

However,lets all keep in mind that there are different layers of society and different world and societal views. For everyone who has said they have approached parenthood with certain ideals, stances, and agenda - whether that be to take full responsibility until age 18, to allow incremental freedoms until age 18, or to butt out completely - there are familial groups out there who have never given any consideration whatsoever to the rights of anyone other than themselves. Who would find the entire concept of responsible parenting alien. For them life happens; kids happen; and the results are random.

Whatever your views on parenthood, at least you see it as as a responsibility - perhaps this young girl, and thousands like her - are products of families that believe differently.

In such a case the state needs to intervene and we, no matter in whatever way we have chosen to bring up our kids, continue to do so knowing that, if we have been true to our ideals, such cases do not impact on us?

Romany,

I could not have said it better myself.

what's the problem?

indulge me by considering this simplification of english:

a 'right' is a freedom that you can enforce, from your own power, or your membership in the ruling group.

a 'privilege' is a freedom given you by some other agency that you cannot enforce, as it does not depend on your own power.

ozzies don't have rights, they only have privileges. when the government curtails 'parental rights', they are merely revealing that you had only a privilege.

the situation is complex because the power of the ruling caste, parliament, is diluted and obscured by law and custom. but at the end, parliament rules, making or changing laws if necessary.

"but we elect them!" is heard at this stage. elections are a charade. you elect them because of one publicized policy, typically benefiting your bank account. at the same time, you elect them to carry out many other policies, some of which dismay you. for example, 'australia' went to war against iraq when 65% of the people were against it. a great many muslims hate us with justification for an act we would not have done if oz were a democracy.

on a more familiar level, some parents are useless, even evil. the state must protect their children. state agencies are staffed with human beings and don't always deliver the service we would like. here too, i would argue that a democratic society would do better, but what we have is better than dickensian britain. so unclench your teeth, and save your anger for when government intervention is more clearly against the interest of the child.

by the way, parental rights begin and end with serving the interests of the child. you should be talking about parental duties, unless you imagine your off-spring is your slave.

The Government pays children to leave home which puts them many times in extreme danger.
A friend of mine who has (not only had her own) but over twenty full and part time foster kids has had more trouble with the Government than the kids themselves.

They allowed a child to just go in and apply for center link without and contact with Marie.

The kid just wanted to roam and rob and take drugs and do whatever else came along.

That’s what the child did for many years. The only time anybody ever heard from the child was when she was arrested - or wanted something when finally put into detention.
.
Maria had this kid from a 6 day old bub and cried herself to sleep each night worrying where she was and whom she was with.

She begged the Government to stop the public money going to the child because she could see the terrible outcome.

Then my friend would run about and borrow on her home to pay for lawyers and silks to give the kid the best chance of not serving a long sentence.

Each time it was agreed if the child was not sent to detention she would return back home with Mum as she called her to study.

Each time she would take off again to get Government money to blow and live on the streets.

Twice she turned up pregnant and of course just dumps the baby on ‘Mum’.
My friend tried and tried to talk to the Authorities giving this child money to say please DONT she spending it on drugs.
Finally a homeless man was burnt to death.

The moral of the story the Government should not do anything without working with the parents UNLESS they are unfit.
In which case remove the child from a bad environment. If not let parents be parents.

Antiseptic and Democritus,
We do not know if the nurse and the doctor, in this case, thought that the parents should be informed. It is irrelivant as State law ensured that they had to respect the privacy of the child.

This is wrong as the only privacy a child should be entitled to is that which is given by the parents. No medico should have to withhold information from parents. Next it will be mandatory for parents to provide a seperate room for each child, with a lockable door.

If a child cannot speak to his/her parents about menstruation or sex, I think we should have a close look at what they are taught in schools sex education. Do they not have open disscussin in class? Sex education has now been in schools for a long time so there would be few parents of 14 year olds that did not receive instruction at school themselves. Maybe the kids need instruction on how to raise such issues with their parents.

Children do not have a 'right' to take responsibility for themselves. More independance and privacy is given with age.

Demos is right about the parents duty. It is a 'duty of care' until 18 years old. If one set of parents allow their child to be sexually active at,say, 14 that should be their right, and if another set of parents want to keep their child virginal until 18, that also should be their right. Neither should be seen as bad parenting.

The problem will not be solved by removing rights from the parents and giving children the right to say their parents are not to be informed about medical matters.

So Banjo what about if one set of parents think it is okay for their say 9 year old to be involved in sex. Is that also their right! We have an age of consent for a reason......it is to stop adults abusing young children.

No child needs to be involved in sex at 9,14 or at 15 or even 16 for that matter. Children are groomed for sex from a very young age and that is wrong. We shouldn't be supporting young people to have sex, we should be teaching them that sex is more than just a physical act and making them consider their actions. The role of the parent is to teach their children and to teach them well. It is never in the best interest of a young person to start having sex at a young age. They are neither emotionally, psychologically, mentally to be taking part in sex. Before anybody considers sex they should be old enough to be able to support what they are doing and by that I mean having somewhere clean and safe to do it. In the park, in the back seat of a car is not what we should want for our children. They should be old enough to understand the implication of sexually transmitted diseases and the fact that it can make them infertile. We should be teaching them that they may regret having sex at a young age later in life as they might find themselves in a position where it is used against them. We have to make young people understand that there are consequences and teach them to wait until they are older so that they make better more informed choices and decisions. Plenty of time later on to have sex. There is no need to rush.

"Allowing" a child to be sexually active at 14 is NOT good parenting. It's BAD, irresponsible parenting. Of course "allowing" usually doesn't come into the equation, as parents are generally NOT informed beforehand by the child that he/she will engage in sex acts.

But to actively "allow" a child to engage in sexual acts with others is BAD PARENTING.

I've been reading comments on the forum for a few months now and I notice there's a certain number of men here who have no real problem with the combination of underage children and sex, be it with other children or adults. Our children need to be protected from these types of ideas, and thank heavens only a tiny percentage of men think it's ok. Unfortunately, in a large population that tiny percentage adds up to quite a few men. If the age of consent is lowered, they will argue for it to be lowered still, using their same logic. And so it goes on and on, until there's basically no age of consent and it becomes legal to have sex with any child.

If a so called man came up to me in person and "seriously" expressed approval for underage child sex or related things, he would be lying on the floor pronto, badly injured. The internet gives these individuals "protection", where they can express their damaging ideas and opinions on underage sex in safety. They're just cowards.

Samsung,
Don't you think you should read what this thread is about before commenting? I suggest you start at the beginning and read.

Jolanda,
You also are going off topic a bit. You know this is about kids of 14 being able to get medical treatmet or medication without informing the parents. The governments give them this 'right' through privacy laws. Below that age I think medicos are obliged to inform parents and if they suspect abuse DOCS or the police informed.

I used the 14 age because that is the age some girls are going on the pill, some with and others without parental knowledge. Whether I personally agree with sexual activity at that age is not the issue. In my view the legislation is wrong. As you pointed out earlier, there is also the issue of unprotected sex that needs to be considered.

I am of the view that parents make decissions for their kids, not others. Some have maintained that some parents and kids are unable to converse about sexual matters or even menstruation. I think that if a child cannot talk to their parents about such matters, they are hardly mature enough to make decissions about sexual activities. I also think that those parents who wish their child to be older before being sexually active should have that right.

Banjo,

My post was in direct response to "your" second last paragraph in "your" last post on page 15. "You" brought up this side topic, and as a result, I replied to "your" comments.

So please, don't get holier than thou and all judgmental just because you don't like or agree with what I wrote. This is a free country, and I or anyone else can write what we choose. Live with it.

Samsung,
You post was about some people trying to get the age of consent lowered and some people advocating underage sex.

That is not what this thread has been about

As I said, you should read a bit of the thread before commenting.

And as I said, I was replying to "your" paragraph, written by "you", concerning underage sex and your written belief that allowing an underage child to have sexual activity is not bad parenting. It IS bad parenting, whether you admit it or not, and whether you like it or not, and what I wrote needed to be said. Live with it.

If you don't want people to comment on things you write, then just don't write it in the first place. But if you write something, you must be prepared to receive comments on what you wrote. If "you" go off topic, expect others to follow you.

Samsung,
Ok your introductory sentence was all right, Even though it could be strongly disagreed with.

But you simply used that to bombard us with your opinions on other matters that are not relative to the thread. If you want to discuss other issues why not start a new thread, it is easy enough.

If you want to discuss the matter raised in your first sentence, I will be happy to accommodate you.