| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2007 12:46:40 PM · #1 |
On CNN.com just now (probably changed by the time this is read), these two headlines were side-by-side.
Maine middle school to offer birth control
Docs tell FDA: No cold meds to young kids
So, young kids can be protected from cold medicine, but a middle school can intrude in the roles and desires of the parents and give 11 year olds birth control???
Very, very sad.
Parents should be involved in EVERY medical decision for their child until the child is 18 or goes to a court of law and is emancipated. Well meaning ne'er-do-wells like school counselors and administrators and teachers should butt out and get back to teaching.
But of course that's just common sense.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 12:57:36 PM · #2 |
Cold medicine might hurt them.
Sex education and disease prevention? How could that be a bad thing. Im one only 10 years out of middle school I guess, and there were plenty of kids doing drugs, having sex, etc when I was there. I also don't remember being 11 in middle school, Its more 12-14.
Were not living in the Cleaver's era anymore. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:00:07 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Cold medicine might hurt them.
Sex education and disease prevention? How could that be a bad thing. Im one only 10 years out of middle school I guess, and there were plenty of kids doing drugs, having sex, etc when I was there. I also don't remember being 11 in middle school, Its more 12-14.
Were not living in the Cleaver's era anymore. |
Primarily because we're encouraging it as a society. Kids should be taught not to do it, not encouraged to. And surrendering to the "they are gonna do it anyway" is crap and a copout.
The 11 y.o. is a quote from the article.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:05:41 PM · #4 |
| Isn't the cold medicine being banned because parents can't read the label and follow instructions? |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:06:41 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Cold medicine might hurt them.
Sex education and disease prevention? How could that be a bad thing. Im one only 10 years out of middle school I guess, and there were plenty of kids doing drugs, having sex, etc when I was there. I also don't remember being 11 in middle school, Its more 12-14.
Were not living in the Cleaver's era anymore. |
Primarily because we're encouraging it as a society. Kids should be taught not to do it, not encouraged to. And surrendering to the "they are gonna do it anyway" is crap and a copout.
The 11 y.o. is a quote from the article. |
I totally agree they should be taught not to. I glanced at that article and was amazed. I have one in middle school now and I don't even want to think about it. I am lucky that my daughter and I talk. I will continue to keep the lines of communication open with my kids and will pray that will keep them on the right track. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:07:24 PM · #6 |
| I say offer it to the kids. If a child's parents neglect their kids, it's not the kids fault, so why should the child go through pregnancy and the likes? Furthermore, is birth control in this case condoms? If so, even a better reason to be handing it out. Don't want your child coming back from school with herpes. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:09:35 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Noel_ZH:
I say offer it to the kids. If a child's parents neglect their kids, it's not the kids fault, so why should the child go through pregnancy and the likes? Furthermore, is birth control in this case condoms? If so, even a better reason to be handing it out. Don't want your child coming back from school with herpes. |
The article shows birth control pills, but I believe it's both.
It's not the school's right to make such decision. That idiot Hitlary Clinton's "It Takes a Village" is false.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:27:38 PM · #8 |
When I was teaching in public schools, the counselor could take a young girl to the health department to be put on the pill or to get the depo shot for birth control. Or, in an extreme, the counselor or school nurse could transport a young girl to an abortion, but not tell the parents. BUT, that same counselor could not give a tylenol because that would be practicing medicine without a license.
Say what you will about condoms, but the pill, the shot, and abortion have side effects, long term effects, etc that I think a parent should know about if their 14 or 15 year old (under the age of consent, here in NC, btw) is taking them. Yet, this counselor or the health department could not tell. The counselor could only "recommend" that the girl talk to her mother -- after it was done. That is my issue about such things. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:42:05 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by karmat:
When I was teaching in public schools, the counselor could take a young girl to the health department to be put on the pill or to get the depo shot for birth control. Or, in an extreme, the counselor or school nurse could transport a young girl to an abortion, but not tell the parents. BUT, that same counselor could not give a tylenol because that would be practicing medicine without a license.
Say what you will about condoms, but the pill, the shot, and abortion have side effects, long term effects, etc that I think a parent should know about if their 14 or 15 year old (under the age of consent, here in NC, btw) is taking them. Yet, this counselor or the health department could not tell. The counselor could only "recommend" that the girl talk to her mother -- after it was done. That is my issue about such things. |
In Laura Ingraham's new book, she references another author who took her daughter to the doctor for a routine sports physical. Everything was fine until the the doctor asked the mom to leave the room because she had to have a private chat with the girl. The mom refused to leave because she was her mother and had every right to be in there. The doctor finally relented and had the "chat" with the girl anyway, discussing sex, abortion, etc. with her -- when the mom stated that they believe sex was for marriage, the doctor dismissed her verbally and told the daughter "some people believe that"...
Truly out of line.
This world is upside down.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:50:19 PM · #10 |
Wow, this is a big topic today. I heard something about it on the radio, a friend sent me the article, and it's here now. Crazy. This is a really tough issue. I would initially agree that it shouldn't be the school's responsibility to provide this service to children. However, my mother is a first grade teacher, and I'd also say it's not her responsibility to make sure kids are getting their meds, to handle mentally disabled children in addition to 25-30 other students without any aids, or to provide a large portion of the student's basic school supplies. But some parents are remiss in all of these duties, and more. So honestly, I don't think they're doing this for the kids that have parents who effectively express their feelings on sex. This is for the kids who's parents never read with them, never supported them, and just use school as an excuse to get the kids out of the house to do whatever it is they do.
And in addition to all of this, I do think that school's are responsible for helping kids grow into healthy, and productive adults. And part of that is teaching them to be sexually responsible. This isn't a new problem. It's just that we're beginning to be willing to address it as a society.
I would agree that it is a serious issue that parents are not aware their children are taking drugs with documented side effects. But a pregnancy or STD will have far more significant effects on that child than any of the mainstream birth control that is being provided. And kids are far less likely to seek help if they have to go through their parents. It's an unfortunate reality. And this by no means a perfect solution, but it's a lot better than letting the kids fend for themselves. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:54:09 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
In Laura Ingraham's new book, she references another author who took her daughter to the doctor for a routine sports physical. Everything was fine until the the doctor asked the mom to leave the room because she had to have a private chat with the girl. The mom refused to leave because she was her mother and had every right to be in there. The doctor finally relented and had the "chat" with the girl anyway, discussing sex, abortion, etc. with her -- when the mom stated that they believe sex was for marriage, the doctor dismissed her verbally and told the daughter "some people believe that"...
Truly out of line.
This world is upside down. |
Kevin, I respect your right to your opinion, and I honestly respect that you feel so strongly about it. But I ask you to turn this anecdote around. Consider a situation where a mother escorts her daughter to a doctor to have an abortion. The doctor asks the mother to leave, but when the mother refuses, the doctor goes on to discuss Jesus and the Bible and how abortion is wrong. The mother states that they don't believe in Christianity, but the doctor disimisses her verbally and tells the daughter "many people believe in Christianity..." |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:56:22 PM · #12 |
While I agree that children SHOULD be taught the dangers of sexuality, that does not mean all parents will ensure such things, nor that children will abide such instructions.
There are children @ our daughter's schools which leave me sad, as they quite obviously aren't surrounded by caring adults in their lives. Yet, I also remember being young, passionate about experimentation, and ill-prepared to make informed decisions. I am absolutely certain that good teachings will NOT prevent any of my precious children from doing whatever they choose (while not in my presence).
Without knowing the full details, I cannot judge this ruling's merits. On principle, I do agree with Karma & a parent's inherent RIGHT to know of medical care given to their child.
ETA - I don't feel a physician has any basis in providing religious teachings of ANY type, unless asked. Should a doctor find themselves in an ethical delimma, simply recuse themselves politely.
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 14:05:20.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:00:37 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
In Laura Ingraham's new book, she references another author who took her daughter to the doctor for a routine sports physical. Everything was fine until the the doctor asked the mom to leave the room because she had to have a private chat with the girl. The mom refused to leave because she was her mother and had every right to be in there. The doctor finally relented and had the "chat" with the girl anyway, discussing sex, abortion, etc. with her -- when the mom stated that they believe sex was for marriage, the doctor dismissed her verbally and told the daughter "some people believe that"...
Truly out of line.
This world is upside down. |
Kevin, I respect your right to your opinion, and I honestly respect that you feel so strongly about it. But I ask you to turn this anecdote around. Consider a situation where a mother escorts her daughter to a doctor to have an abortion. The doctor asks the mother to leave, but when the mother refuses, the doctor goes on to discuss Jesus and the Bible and how abortion is wrong. The mother states that they don't believe in Christianity, but the doctor disimisses her verbally and tells the daughter "many people believe in Christianity..." |
That doctor would be just as wrong (and unChristian) to dismiss the parents views outside the realm of his profession. But then he would not be performing abortions if he had that view would he?
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:02:47 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
That doctor would be just as wrong (and unChristian) to dismiss the parents views outside the realm of his profession. But then he would not be performing abortions if he had that view would he? |
No, and I did think of that. But a more relevant anecdote to my point would be the case of the pharmacist who refused to fill birth control perscriptions to single women because of his religions beliefs. Perhaps he shouldn't be a pharmacist.
Either way, the world would be a much happier place if people didn't feel the need to try to enforce their opinions on each other. BTW, this is just my opinion, and you can take it or leave it :) |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:06:29 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
That doctor would be just as wrong (and unChristian) to dismiss the parents views outside the realm of his profession. But then he would not be performing abortions if he had that view would he? |
No, and I did think of that. But a more relevant anecdote to my point would be the case of the pharmacist who refused to fill birth control perscriptions to single women because of his religions beliefs. Perhaps he shouldn't be a pharmacist.
Either way, the world would be a much happier place if people didn't feel the need to try to enforce their opinions on each other. BTW, this is just my opinion, and you can take it or leave it :) |
Well, I think the case, if I'm not mistaken, was the pharmacist not issuing the abortion pill, not birth control. Pharmacists and pharmacies should be allowed to not carry any medicine they don't wish to -- but I think they should be even handed (so no pill for anyone) for example.
But you're right -- that pharmacist might need to change his/her line of work. My wife and I would love to run a bed and breakfast, but then it always comes back to we would have to rent rooms to other than married couples and that ruins the idea.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:09:12 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
That doctor would be just as wrong (and unChristian) to dismiss the parents views outside the realm of his profession. But then he would not be performing abortions if he had that view would he?
...But you're right -- that pharmacist might need to change his/her line of work. My wife and I would love to run a bed and breakfast, but then it always comes back to we would have to rent rooms to other than married couples and that ruins the idea.
|
I'm a bit confused on a couple of points: Is it necessary to be Christian to be an effective doctor? Where is the rule stating that a self-proclaimed 'christian' could not also perform a legal abortion? And what in the WORLD does marital status have to do with two persons of age renting a room?
Sad, indeed... ;)
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 14:11:22.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:10:23 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Parents should be involved in EVERY medical decision for their child until the child is 18 or goes to a court of law and is emancipated. |
With all due respect, the birth control distribution appears to be a desperate attempt by the school to stem a rash of very young pregnancies precisely because the parents AREN'T getting involved enough. The cold medicine thing looks like a common sense recommendation based on findings that the medicines present very real risks for little or no benefit. I'm no fan of government intervention, but I can certainly appreciate putting the safety and well being of the kids ahead of parents' complaints that they should be responsible for doing the things they aren't doing.
If parents were responsible enough to talk to their kids about sex, then availability of birth control really shouldn't matter. If they're NOT responsible enough to have those conversations, then LACK of availability means there's no safety net to prevent the consequences of that failure. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:14:02 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Well, I think the case, if I'm not mistaken, was the pharmacist not issuing the abortion pill, not birth control. Pharmacists and pharmacies should be allowed to not carry any medicine they don't wish to -- but I think they should be even handed (so no pill for anyone) for example. |
You may be right, and if the pharmacists owns and operates the business, then they may have the right to stock what they wish, although there may be laws that govern that, I'm not sure.
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
But you're right -- that pharmacist might need to change his/her line of work. My wife and I would love to run a bed and breakfast, but then it always comes back to we would have to rent rooms to other than married couples and that ruins the idea. |
It always amazes me that people who have diametrically opposed view points on issues can almost always find a common ground like this to begin an actual coversation around -- instead of just retiring to our respective corners.
As for the issue at hand, I personally think that children who have the potential to be sexually active should have access to birth-conrol, and if it came to a vote, I would vote that way. But I would never unilaterly try to impose that opinion on someone else, and I can understand someone's desire to not allow children access to this. But this is why we have a democratic system, so the majority can rule. If the majority in the Maine school district don't like this plan, you can be that the school board will have a real change in the near future and the plan will be overturned. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:14:48 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
That doctor would be just as wrong (and unChristian) to dismiss the parents views outside the realm of his profession. But then he would not be performing abortions if he had that view would he?
...But you're right -- that pharmacist might need to change his/her line of work. My wife and I would love to run a bed and breakfast, but then it always comes back to we would have to rent rooms to other than married couples and that ruins the idea.
|
I'm a bit confused on a couple of points: Is it necessary to be Christian to be an effective doctor? Where is the rule stating that a self-proclaimed 'christian' could not also perform a legal abortion? And what in the WORLD does marital status have to do with two persons of age renting a room?
Sad, indeed... ;) |
No one said a you had to be a Christian to be an effective doctor (it was the poster's example).
A follower of Christ would never willingly and unrepentently murder a child.
And as my example showed, renting a room to a non-married couple would have me profiting from the wrongdoings of others -- so because the law states I have to, then I should not be in that line of work.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:16:09 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Parents should be involved in EVERY medical decision for their child until the child is 18 or goes to a court of law and is emancipated. |
With all due respect, the birth control distribution appears to be a desperate attempt by the school to stem a rash of very young pregnancies precisely because the parents AREN'T getting involved enough. The cold medicine thing looks like a common sense recommendation based on findings that the medicines present very real risks for little or no benefit. I'm no fan of government intervention, but I can certainly appreciate putting the safety and well being of the kids ahead of parents' complaints that they should be responsible for doing the things they aren't doing.
If parents were responsible enough to talk to their kids about sex, then availability of birth control really shouldn't matter. If they're NOT responsible enough to have those conversations, then LACK of availability means there's no safety net to prevent the consequences of that failure. |
The school should draw the line at teaching the kids NOT to have sex. They should not EVER prescribe medications or medical procedures.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:19:16 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by karmat:
When I was teaching in public schools, the counselor could take a young girl to the health department to be put on the pill or to get the depo shot for birth control. Or, in an extreme, the counselor or school nurse could transport a young girl to an abortion, but not tell the parents. BUT, that same counselor could not give a tylenol because that would be practicing medicine without a license.
Say what you will about condoms, but the pill, the shot, and abortion have side effects, long term effects, etc that I think a parent should know about if their 14 or 15 year old (under the age of consent, here in NC, btw) is taking them. Yet, this counselor or the health department could not tell. The counselor could only "recommend" that the girl talk to her mother -- after it was done. That is my issue about such things. |
In Laura Ingraham's new book, she references another author who took her daughter to the doctor for a routine sports physical. Everything was fine until the the doctor asked the mom to leave the room because she had to have a private chat with the girl. The mom refused to leave because she was her mother and had every right to be in there. The doctor finally relented and had the "chat" with the girl anyway, discussing sex, abortion, etc. with her -- when the mom stated that they believe sex was for marriage, the doctor dismissed her verbally and told the daughter "some people believe that"...
Truly out of line.
This world is upside down. |
"They" may believe it, but the real question is what is the girl going to actually do? Lots of people want to believe their kids would never do things like have sex, drink, take drugs, etc. so they isolate their kids from information about it. Yet, when reality comes knocking at the door and she's pregnant or has VD or gets busted smoking dope, these same parents wonder, "What happened?"
I knew a girl whose parents believed that "sex was for marriage" and "Drugs are bad" and similarly isolated her from facts about both. In 9th grade she got pregnant and had VD and then, when they did a blood test on her, they found pot and cocaine in her system. So much for the idea of the pure and chaste preacher's daughter. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:20:38 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
[quote=HawkeyeLonewolf]
Either way, the world would be a much happier place if people didn't feel the need to try to enforce their opinions on each other. BTW, this is just my opinion, and you can take it or leave it :) |
I agree! The problem is that much of society seems to think that it's only Christians out there "forcing" our views onto others. What about all the views that are being "forced" onto us?
The problem I'm seeing more and more often is that if your opinion is "Christian" you are automatically labeled closed minded. Let me assure you that all Christians do not think alike...shoot, we can't even agree whether to sprinkle babies to baptize them or douse adults in the river! :)
I think handing out condoms is okay...but much more intervention without parental notification is too much I think. I know there are many children and young teens out there not getting the guidance they need and it's not their fault. I don't see how handing out condoms at school contradicts what I teach my daughter...if anything, I can use that to reinforce what I teach about abstinence. She needs to know that her whole life is going to be about making choices and then the facing the consequences thereof. Since many kids don't get the guidance, I'd rather see them at least have the option to be physically safer.
My .02 I don't usually post to rants, but this one interested me as a middle school girl's mom. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:22:19 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by karmat:
When I was teaching in public schools, the counselor could take a young girl to the health department to be put on the pill or to get the depo shot for birth control. Or, in an extreme, the counselor or school nurse could transport a young girl to an abortion, but not tell the parents. BUT, that same counselor could not give a tylenol because that would be practicing medicine without a license.
Say what you will about condoms, but the pill, the shot, and abortion have side effects, long term effects, etc that I think a parent should know about if their 14 or 15 year old (under the age of consent, here in NC, btw) is taking them. Yet, this counselor or the health department could not tell. The counselor could only "recommend" that the girl talk to her mother -- after it was done. That is my issue about such things. |
In Laura Ingraham's new book, she references another author who took her daughter to the doctor for a routine sports physical. Everything was fine until the the doctor asked the mom to leave the room because she had to have a private chat with the girl. The mom refused to leave because she was her mother and had every right to be in there. The doctor finally relented and had the "chat" with the girl anyway, discussing sex, abortion, etc. with her -- when the mom stated that they believe sex was for marriage, the doctor dismissed her verbally and told the daughter "some people believe that"...
Truly out of line.
This world is upside down. |
"They" may believe it, but the real question is what is the girl going to actually do? Lots of people want to believe their kids would never do things like have sex, drink, take drugs, etc. so they isolate their kids from information about it. Yet, when reality comes knocking at the door and she's pregnant or has VD or gets busted smoking dope, these same parents wonder, "What happened?"
I knew a girl whose parents believed that "sex was for marriage" and "Drugs are bad" and similarly isolated her from facts about both. In 9th grade she got pregnant and had VD and then, when they did a blood test on her, they found pot and cocaine in her system. So much for the idea of the pure and chaste preacher's daughter. |
Exceptions don't define the rule. Or shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:27:55 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
::snip::
A follower of Christ would never willingly and unrepentently murder a child.
I'm glad to know that you are God / Christ AND a perfect Dr., to know of every viable instance where a mother's health should and should not be ignored. Strange, as I've known quite a few followers of Christ who are in fact doctors...
And as my example showed, renting a room to a non-married couple would have me profiting from the wrongdoings of others -- so because the law states I have to, then I should not be in that line of work. |
I'll refrain from agreeing with your not needing to be in that line of work. ;) What would your answer be if two young persons of opposing gender gave in to such 'none of your business what we're doing in a room' and told you that they were, in fact, brother and sister? I actually had to put up with such nonsense as a (legally married) 18 year old, from some busy-body who thought it her business....... oh, forget it. I'm sick and tired of arguing with people who deem THEIR religious beliefs to have a single damn thing to do with MY rights in this country!
::rant off::
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:32:03 PM · #25 |
Two words...
HOME SCHOOL
or
PRIVATE SCHOOL -- that way you can vote with your dollar. |
|
