Mother loses court battle over parents' right to know on abortion

[Ambrosio Spinola]

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=114282006

A MOTHER of five expressed her disappointment yesterday after losing a landmark legal battle over whether parents of girls under 16 should have the right to know if their daughters are being advised on obtaining an abortion.

The case was brought by Sue Axon, 52, who had an abortion 20 years ago - and says she still regrets it. She has two teenage daughters, Joy, 16, and Amber, 13, but the court heard neither had sought an abortion and she was fighting the issue on "a matter of principle".


However, a judge at the High Court in London ruled that parental rights under human rights legislation were overridden by the child's right to confidential advice from doctors - as long as the child was sufficiently mature and competent to make decisions on sexual matters.

Mr Justice Silber said to force a girl to tell her parents might discourage her from seeking medical help - and "may lead her to make a decision that she later regrets or seek the assistance of an unofficial abortionist".

He said children should be urged to talk to their parents when seeking advice and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, or about contraception or an abortion.

But if they did not want to tell their mothers and fathers, the parents had no legal right to know, subject to certain conditions to protect the health and wellbeing of the child.

He was upholding the legality of Department of Health guidelines introduced across the UK in 2004 to help combat the high levels of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.

Mrs Axon, a divorcee from Wythenshawe, Manchester, will not be seeking leave to appeal, but she said: "I am obviously disappointed by the judgment of the court."

During a recent hearing, it was revealed that her daughter Joy was pregnant and expecting a baby, due on her 17th birthday on 25 March.

Mrs Axon, whose own abortion she said caused her "guilt, shame and depression for many years", went on: "I do not regret having brought these proceedings. The court has explained that a young girl needs to understand all the implications of the options if she is to be allowed to have an abortion.

"I hope these proceedings will help parents and children to recognise the trauma of abortion and to talk openly about sexual matters.

"It is only then that our children can be protected from potentially damaging advice offered by professionals who do not know them."

In her application for judicial review, Mrs Axon said the 2004 Department of Health guidance "undermined" her role as a parent and infringed her parental rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judge pointed out that children also had rights under Article 8, and that those overrode the parents' rights.

He said there had been a "general movement towards giving young people greater rights concerning their own future, while reducing the supervisory rights of their parents".

In the light of this change in "the landscape of family matters", he said it would be "wrong and not acceptable" to retreat from a 1986 House of Lords decision in the case of Victoria Gillick, in which the Law Lords ruled that parents did not have to be told that their children, if competent to deal with their own lives, were being prescribed contraceptives by their GPs or other health professionals.

The judge said it would be wrong "to impose greater duties on medical professionals to disclose information to parents of their younger patients".

Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said: "This is a welcome ruling which I hope will settle once and for all the question of a child's right to medical confidentiality versus parents' alleged rights to know.

"Doctors already know they have a duty to put the best interests of their patient first and that will very rarely involve breaching the confidentiality of a girl capable of giving consent.

"Sexually active under-16-year-olds need to know they can trust their doctors, otherwise they will be at greater risk."

Caroline Flint, the public health minister, said: "This judgment confirms our guidance is fully in line with the law.

"I understand this is a very difficult issue which is why, while recognising the high value young people place on confidentiality, our guidance makes it clear that healthcare professionals should always try and persuade a young person to involve their parents."

[Leif]

However, a judge at the High Court in London ruled that parental rights under human rights legislation were overridden by the child's right to confidential advice from doctors - as long as the child was sufficiently mature and competent to make decisions on sexual matters.

"Sexually active under-16-year-olds need to know they can trust their doctors, otherwise they will be at greater risk."

This is ridiculous - no one considers someone under sixteen to be "sufficiently mature and competent."

[Jimbo Gomez]

The Brits do, they have the highest amount of teen pregnancy in all of Europe.

[Excorcism]

This is ridiculous - no one considers someone under sixteen to be "sufficiently mature and competent."

The U.S. is divided on where the law stands with 15 and 16 year olds.

[Starr]

However, a judge at the High Court in London ruled that parental rights under human rights legislation were overridden by the child's right to confidential advice from doctors - as long as the child was sufficiently mature and competent to make decisions on sexual matters.

So this is basically saying that what could be an irresponsible child has more "rights" to make decisions about what is in their best interests over their parents. That is insane. But it is not at all surprising that a court would rule in this way. And who is it that decides the child is mature and competent enough to make decisions on sexual matters, is that decided simply when they reach a standard age?

Mr Justice Silber said to force a girl to tell her parents might discourage her from seeking medical help - and "may lead her to make a decision that she later regrets or seek the assistance of an unofficial abortionist

How full of holes is this?:confused:
So if a young girl is forced to talk to her parents she may instead decide to do something stupid like visit a "back alley" abortionist(for lack of a better term) to quickly get rid of the problem in what she thinks will be a quicker and more confidental way. And these same young girls, that may resort to something like this, are being thought of as being mature and competant enough to make decisions on sexual matters?:confused: That seems contradictory to say the least.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Teenage girls need to keep their legs closed, period. All this fornication only leads us to moral decay such as demonstrated here.

[Banat]

Teenage girls need to keep their legs closed, period. All this fornication only leads us to moral decay such as demonstrated here.

Damn right. I fully agree. :)

[sugartits]

After 12 years-old (the real childhood years) people should have the right to patient-doctor confidentiality. If parents want their children to come to them with difficult problems like an unplanned pregnancy perhaps they should work on having that kind of relationship with their children.

Why is it that a young girl would not feel comfortable talking to her parents about something like this? There is a certain uncomfortability and inpropriety about parents and children talking about sex. So let's make it a law that they have to talk to their parents. What a perfect solution for those who can't say "penis", "vagina" or "spermicidal foam" in front of their teenagers...because they may fail to recognize or ignore the rate at which their children are 'maturing'.

[Billy Score]

Teenage girls need to keep their legs closed, period. All this fornication only leads us to moral decay such as demonstrated here.

:applauds:
Starr- and so what if they visit some back alley abortionist with a coat hanger? Good. There is a risk they too will die in these types of procedures so you kill two birds with one stone (the unwanted baby who never would have had a stable environment and the filthy whore of a mother who does not deserve such a venerable title as "mother"). ban it and let "god sort'em out."

Just because people are going to have sex at a young age does not mean that the state should either encourage or in any way AIDE this type of behavior. Just because society's standards of decency are descending like at the same rate as continental shelf does not mean that the state should cease to encourage high standards.

[sugartits]

Charles Martel
Teenage girls need to keep their legs closed, period. All this fornication only leads us to moral decay such as demonstrated here.

:applauds:
Starr- and so what if they visit some back alley abortionist with a coat hanger? Good. There is a risk they too will die in these types of procedures so you kill two birds with one stone (the unwanted baby who never would have had a stable environment and the filthy whore of a mother who does not deserve such a venerable title as "mother"). ban it and let "god sort'em out."


And teenage boys should keep their dicks in their pants?

What does the other part in the act of fornication deserve for punishment if the female is nothing but a 'filthy whore' and deserves what she gets if she dies from a 'back alley abortion'?

[Billy Score]

The female sets the standards, spoonblade. The male is by nature far more lustful and it is his purpose to pursue females. However he can only go as far as a female allows him to go (unless we are talking about rape). In this sense females set the standards, for it depends on how loose or virtuous they are. I can be the horniest teenage boy on earth but unless some girl is as lustful as i am, I won't be getting anything.

Also take into account that women have alot more to risk by promiscuity than men.

While a man who has sex is not physically altered, a woman becomes physically altered by not being a virgin.

[sugartits]

The female sets the standards, spoonblade. The male is by nature far more lustful and it is his purpose to pursue females.

That is a myth. The standards for what is acceptable sexual behaviour have never been determined by women, it has always been determined by social values and mores. Some of which may have been based on biological facts (like pregnancy).

It is just a modern sentiment to believe that women are the "brakes" and that men have "less control". It began when women were allowed the choice and when contraceptives were developed that allow women to control whether they get pregnant.

Before Kinsey in the 1950s it was thought that mature women's orgasms were primarily vaginal and clitoral orgasms meant a woman was immature or had a neurosis. An example of how the natural sexual functions of womens bodies have been posed as 'unhealthy' This article summarizes parts of his study well:

As a result of Kinsey's sexual history questionnaires - by the time he died in 1956, more than 18,600 men and women had submitted their most intimate sexual secrets - Kinsey discovered that the vast majority of women who masturbated used clitoral stimulation. Less than 20% included some form of vaginal penetration and then only because they felt they should. Kinsey concluded that the insistence on a vaginal orgasm was a reflection "upon their [men's] conceit as to the importance of the male genitalia" - or, in other words, an expression of male dominance. To put this in perspective, he also emphasised "that the orgasm cannot be taken as the sole criterion for determining the degree of satisfaction which a female may derive from sexual activity".
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1430426,00.html

The Kinsey report had been repressed during the conservative 1950s era and there can be no reason why other than that it challenged the current social values. Point being this was only around 56 years ago and many of the sexual mystifications from the leave it to beaver days are still around.

Also take into account that women have alot more to risk by promiscuity than men.

I agree with that because men cannot get pregnant. But in developed countries every female of child-bearing age has access to contraceptives and condoms, so it kind of evens out.

While a man who has sex is not physically altered, a woman becomes physically altered by not being a virgin.

How so? :confused:

[Starr]

[QUOTE=spoonblade]And teenage boys should keep their dicks in their pants?

They should, but like that is going to happen.

What does the other part in the act of fornication deserve for punishment if the female is nothing but a 'filthy whore' and deserves what she gets if she dies from a 'back alley abortion'?

Women, even teenage girls know the risk they take by deciding to have sex at a young age and they also know the risks that come with visiting some unqualified abortionist(the feminists saw to this by talking about shit like this in their quest for support for abortion on demand) It is not anybodies fault but their own if something happens. Again I have to bring up that these are the same young girls that are supposed to be "mature enough to handle decisions in regards to sexual matters." The guy doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant obviously or anything that may result from trying to get rid of the problem, but he does have to deal with diseases and other things that may result from his behavior. And also everything that will come his way for his part in getting the girl pregnant.

And Mazdak with all the in-your-face casual sex is good crap that young girls see on tv today, some are left with the impression that the only way they can get a guy is to "put out" And guys also reinforce this by going after the slutty girls. a young foolish girl is going to emulate the behavior that she sees attracting all the guys. So if some of you guys are tired of sluts you may just have to attempt to modify your behaviors as well.

[Jimbo Gomez]

They should keep their dick in their pants too. As mazdak said: women have more to lose; hat's true of course, but I feel that men should live up to the same standards of decency.

[sugartits]

Women, even teenage girls know the risk they take by deciding to have sex at a young age and they also know the risks that come with visiting some unqualified abortionist(the feminists saw to this by talking about shit like this in their quest for support for abortion on demand) It is not anybodies fault but their own if something happens. Again I have to bring up that these are the same young girls that are supposed to be "mature enough to handle decisions in regards to sexual matters." The guy doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant obviously or anything that may result from trying to get rid of the problem, but he does have to deal with diseases and other things that may result from his behavior. And also everything that will come his way for his part in getting the girl pregnant.


That's true but prevention of those risks does not require abstaining from sex. And if being informed of the consequences implies responsibility than men are just as responsible as women...for the consequences of what happens to both of them, it doesn't matter who has to sit on the abortion table. The experience of consequence is not the lone signifier of responsibility.

[Berianidze]

They should keep their dick in their pants too. As mazdak said: women have more to lose; hat's true of course, but I feel that men should live up to the same standards of decency.

Yes, Mazdak is correct. And as stated before, men should be not only expected, but rather, should feel compelled to achieve an even higher level of virtue by not chasing after women in the first place; it's just as pathetic for a man to go chasing various women around and "scoring" as it is for a woman to let him penetrate her. Both parties are guilty, but men shouldn't be so willing to put their dicks in anything that moves, and should feel obligated to at least operate on a higher level than to associate themselves with such behavior, and furthermore recognize that they can resist the temptations of a woman dressed like a complete whore.

[Billy Score]

They should keep their dick in their pants too. As mazdak said: women have more to lose; hat's true of course, but I feel that men should live up to the same standards of decency.
I agree with this however, and feel the need to practice what i preach. We cannot ask of women what we cannot ourselves do. I personally have a code of chivalry when it comes to women, however since there are no damsels or maidens worth anything, i tend to come off as an extreme woman hater. Were i to find a woman who knew her purpose and was kind and pure, i would treat her like a queen.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Both sides are equally responsible of the outcome. Women have more to "loose" from it but thats about it. I find it funny how some think women do not have also "needs" just like men. I agree with Vanessa on this one.

[Kodos]

Also take into account that women have alot more to risk by promiscuity than men.


Not really true since mandatory child support and birth control were invented( it is generally easier for STDs to go from men to women then vice versa) and as for not being a virgin( there are plenty of male virgins running around post high school in the western world but almost no women, either really introverted or really fat and ugly)... or even having a terrible reputation as a slut... that never stopped any woman from getting married and certainly not today.