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.