|
That's very well and good for you. Most parents that I know simply aren't qualified to teach thier kids.My own kids, who have never set foot in public schools, all scored above average last year when we finally had them tested.
I am glad you think I am so exceptional. Humility prevents me from vociferously agreeing with you. That plus the fact that the average test scores of homeschoolers is above average.
This leads me to contemplate a couple of possibilities:
Most homeschoolers are, by their nature, exceptional people with exceptional standards, and thus should be encouraged to pursue their excellence for the good of all. Society benefits by having each person maximize their potential.
--or--
Most homeschoolers are average and the school systems are substandard institutions which stunt the intellectual growth of the average student. Good parents should thus be encouraged to remove their children from that which will harm them. To argue otherwise requires believing the system is more important than the individual student or else requires believing the benefit of peer interaction outweighs the harm of stunted intellectual development.What are the other options?
I'd like to look into this, since i'm a student of educational science (not to become a teacher so I wouldn't consider myself to be "professionally biased") and this really interests me. Unfortunatly I couldn't find to much about standarts of american homeschooling (I live in germany myself), so I have two important questions for my own information:
1) Are there legal qualifications a parent must have to do homeschooling?2) How are thes tests managed / how are homeschooled children tested and how are there parents/teachers prepared for the tests?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
A subject that's not fully objective such as history where grading is frequently essay weighted, could give the student the sense that his grade depends on chiming with the opinion of his mentor.
Teachers should be very clear about how they will assess writing and make it clear that students are expected to voice their own opinions. They should model how opinions are formed and developed. Certainly, only the worst kind of teacher would lead students to believe that you will get more marks for agreeing poorly than disagreeing well.
A teacher must give freely of his mind, but should open her heart sparingly and with caution.
The more clearly and carefully a teacher expresses her opinions, the more developed and nuanced those opinions will be.
|
|
I'd like to look into this, since i'm a student of educational science (not to become a teacher so I wouldn't consider myself to be "professionally biased") and this really interests me. Unfortunatly I couldn't find to much about standarts of american homeschooling (I live in germany myself), so I have two important questions for my own information:
1) Are there legal qualifications a parent must have to do homeschooling?
2) How are thes tests managed / how are homeschooled children tested and how are there parents/teachers prepared for the tests?
American education is still (mostly) a state controled issue, so the qualifications for home-schooling changes from state to state. As I've stated above, we have homeschooled in PA, WV, and currently OH. I've never had trouble finding out the requirements using google. Generally, the parent needs to have completed highscool, though I think there are some states that require something like the parent be at least four years ahead of their student in education (i.e. four years of college to educate 12th grade). To find the qualifications for any particular state, just google in homeschool standards and the name of the state to start your search. Conversely go to hslda.org and use some of their stuff to begin your research.
Testing is normally done one of two ways. The first way is for homeschool students to sit in on the testing done in schools. Most systems are legally required to do this, but after two years of trying to get our local superintendant to help me get my kids in, I gave up on that option. The second option is for parents to pay for the testing to be done. Testing must be done by accredited testers in a controled environment (just like in school) and it is normally done in groups to defray expenses. One of the local homeschooling moms is an trained tester in WV and she arranges the testing each year for our group. The point would be, I think, that the testing is not just parents giving their kids the tests, its done in a manner more or less identical to the tests taken by the schools using the same tests.
What my family did to prepare for the testing last year was fairly straightforward. I bought a practice test book and we had practice testing to enforce the rules of using the right pencil, no talking, etc. I thought that important due to the fact our normal testing is more often a mixture of fill-in-the blanks, essay, and some multiple choice. They had no experience with the typical standard test taking.
|
New social studies curriculum stresses religion over evolution
Thought this seamed kind of appropriate to the current conversation.
That's the best argument for homeschooling I've seen on this thread to date.
|
|
That's the best argument for homeschooling I've seen on this thread to date.New social studies curriculum stresses religion over evolution
Thought this seamed kind of appropriate to the current conversation.
But wait. I thought the argument was that homeschoolers should be required to use the same textbooks as everyone else. :P
Please report yourself to the Godwin thread.
Why would an otherwise civilised people put millions of Jews and non Jews in gas chambers and tortue camps?
Kobold Cleaver was ninja'd. Point to LazarX.
That's the best argument for homeschooling I've seen on this thread to date.New social studies curriculum stresses religion over evolution
Thought this seamed kind of appropriate to the current conversation.
The funny thing is that the subtitle (New social studies curriculum stresses religion over evolution) has nothing to do with the article. It is like it was added in to throw fire by mentioning both religion and evolution at the same time. To go on a little about that, the topic is social studies curriculums. Religion is an important topic with respect to social studies because it has greatly influenced society throughout history, modern and ancient. Evolution on the other hand is a science (physical or perhaps life science) and although its introduction has had some effect upon society, I think its effect has been far less than that of religion itself.
Note, I'm not bothering to take a side on the issues discussed in the article but rather pointing out that evolution is not one of those issues and that I thus found it humorous for it to be listed as a key element of a descriptive subtitle to the article.
Carry on.
The funny thing is that the subtitle (New social studies curriculum stresses religion over evolution) has nothing to do with the article. It is like it was added in to throw fire by mentioning both religion and evolution at the same time.
Almost certainly, but...
To go on a little about that, the topic is social studies curriculums. Religion is an important topic with respect to social studies because it has greatly influenced society throughout history, modern and ancient. Evolution on the other hand is a science (physical or perhaps life science) and although its introduction has had some effect upon society, I think its effect has been far less than that of religion itself.
Certainly the theory of evolution by natural selection has a much shorter history than that of religion, the process of evolution by natural selection, however, is very important to the understanding of social issues. Cultures, like organism, live or die by their ability to propagate and adapt.
|
The funny thing is that the subtitle (New social studies curriculum stresses religion over evolution) has nothing to do with the article. It is like it was added in to throw fire by mentioning both religion and evolution at the same time.Almost certainly, but...
To go on a little about that, the topic is social studies curriculums. Religion is an important topic with respect to social studies because it has greatly influenced society throughout history, modern and ancient. Evolution on the other hand is a science (physical or perhaps life science) and although its introduction has had some effect upon society, I think its effect has been far less than that of religion itself.Certainly the theory of evolution by natural selection has a much shorter history than that of religion, the process of evolution by natural selection, however, is very important to the understanding of social issues. Cultures, like organism, live or die by their ability to propagate and adapt.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
"Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? --to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? --public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely... It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father... What is proposed... is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer, and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered." -Thomas Jefferson
Does anyone have any more on this story?
Mother furious after in-school clinic sets up teen's abortion
...or this?
Colville schools counselor/ law enforcement consultant admits molesting
|
|
Does anyone have any more on this story?
Mother furious after in-school clinic sets up teen's abortion
...or this?
Colville schools counselor/ law enforcement consultant admits molesting
Sounds as though the daughter worked the system to get around what she knew her parents would say. Faux News expounded on it a bit, but mostly it was just the teens mom saying she (the teen) was "pro-life" (doubt it). Are near adult children (who could be charged as adults with crimes, consequently) no longer allowed to have control over their medical care?
Sounds as though the daughter worked the system to get around what she knew her parents would say. Faux News expounded on it a bit, but mostly it was just the teens mom saying she (the teen) was "pro-life" (doubt it). Are near adult children (who could be charged as adults with crimes, consequently) no longer allowed to have control over their medical care?Does anyone have any more on this story?
Mother furious after in-school clinic sets up teen's abortion
...or this?
Colville schools counselor/ law enforcement consultant admits molesting
Minors aren't supposed to have control or liability for their medical choices unless emancipated.
I'm all in favor of having one age of majority at 18, but our laws are insipidly self contradictory.
For example, will the parent of a 25 year old adult child have to prove that the adult child has health care or be fined by the IRS under Obamacare? What if the parent hasn't heard from the adult child in years? Who pays the fines, and who goes to jail?
|
|
I advocate people having to take a "maturity test" before they can make "adult" decisions. It isn't that you're a child until you turn eighteen (or sixteen, or twenty-one, as the case may be), and then *BAM* you're an adult. Life doesn't work that way. In reality, it's a smooth gradient from childhood to adulthood, and everyone matures at different ages.
I advocate people having to take a "maturity test" before they can make "adult" decisions. It isn't that you're a child until you turn eighteen (or sixteen, or twenty-one, as the case may be), and then *BAM* you're an adult. Life doesn't work that way. In reality, it's a smooth gradient from childhood to adulthood, and everyone matures at different ages.
You're probably right, but I have trouble identifying with this generational segment that is afraid of personal responsibility.
I suppose it's because my experience seems so radically different. I worked full time at 14 in construction. By 16 I worked full time year round and went to school. I bought my first car on my 16th birthday with cash. I joined the Army at 17 and I was an Infantry NCO by 20. I was married at 19. I was deployed for the first Gulf War at 22. I have never asked my parents for one penny since I was 17.
So I guess my back ground causes me to expect a lot more out of people at a much younger age.
My daughter graduated high school at 17 about a year after her Mom died of cancer. She went to a prestigious college out of state at 17. It's a bit different than my story, but I really think we handicap our kids if we expect them to be helpless and incapable. She could balance a checkbook and pay her bills at 17. It's not rocket science, but I know parents in their thirties who can't hold down a job or balance a checkbook and they brag about being on food stamps and other assistance. I just can't wrap my mind around that.
To make things worse when I managed a group of FLGS's here some of my best workers were 16 and 17. Now it's harder every year in Colorado to get a job if you're 16 or 17 let alone if you're 14 or 15. It's hard to get a drivers license before you're 17, but you can be kicking doors down in Fallujah at 18 with an infantry squad.
On top of that I had friends who had two combat tours in Iraq by the time they were 20 and they can't buy a beer or a handgun! WTF!?
So that's the longer version of, "I'm all in favor of having one age of majority at 18, but our laws are insipidly self contradictory."
I didn't mean to generate a wall of text, but I think the way our culture views maturity and responsibility is just broken.
|
|
Minors aren't supposed to have control or liability for their medical choices unless emancipated.
I'm all in favor of having one age of majority at 18, but our laws are insipidly self contradictory.
For example, will the parent of a 25 year old adult child have to prove that the adult child has health care or be fined by the IRS under Obamacare? What if the parent hasn't heard from the adult child in years? Who pays the fines, and who goes to jail?
Older children should have a say in their medical care. Just because they are under 18 doesn't mean that they cannot have valid input on what happens to their body. I mean, by your reasoning a parent who hadn't circumcised their child could take him in on his 17th birthday and force a circumcision on him, etc, etc, ad naseum. Parents are supposed to have a loving, helpful relationship with their children...not a tyrannical stranglehold over ever facet of their lives.
Older children should have a say in their medical care. Just because they are under 18 doesn't mean that they cannot have valid input on what happens to their body. I mean, by your reasoning a parent who hadn't circumcised their child could take him in on his 17th birthday and force a circumcision on him, etc, etc, ad naseum. Parents are supposed to have a loving, helpful relationship with their children...not a tyrannical stranglehold over ever facet of their lives.Minors aren't supposed to have control or liability for their medical choices unless emancipated.
I'm all in favor of having one age of majority at 18, but our laws are insipidly self contradictory.
For example, will the parent of a 25 year old adult child have to prove that the adult child has health care or be fined by the IRS under Obamacare? What if the parent hasn't heard from the adult child in years? Who pays the fines, and who goes to jail?
If minors want to control their own medical choices they can move out, find work, get emancipated, and get their own health care.
There is a bright legal line between minors and adults for a reason. That line is getting more blurry every day, but the parents are basically responsible for the minors choices until they are adults. After they are adults who the financially responsible party is becomes much more ambiguous.
I agree that older minors should be increasing involved in making their own important decisions to prepare them for being an adult.
I don't think it's my place to force other parents to raise their children in a particular way or to tell them they have to be exposed to massive medical liability that could bankrupt them that have get little or no say about.
|
|
Older children should have a say in their medical care. Just because they are under 18 doesn't mean that they cannot have valid input on what happens to their body. I mean, by your reasoning a parent who hadn't circumcised their child could take him in on his 17th birthday and force a circumcision on him, etc, etc, ad naseum. Parents are supposed to have a loving, helpful relationship with their children...not a tyrannical stranglehold over ever facet of their lives.Minors aren't supposed to have control or liability for their medical choices unless emancipated.
I'm all in favor of having one age of majority at 18, but our laws are insipidly self contradictory.
For example, will the parent of a 25 year old adult child have to prove that the adult child has health care or be fined by the IRS under Obamacare? What if the parent hasn't heard from the adult child in years? Who pays the fines, and who goes to jail?
If minors want to control their own medical choices they can move out, find work, get emancipated, and get their own health care.
There is a bright legal line between minors and adults for a reason. That line is getting more blurry every day, but the parents are basically responsible for the minors choices until they are adults. After they are adults who the financially responsible party is becomes much more ambiguous.
I agree that older minors should be increasing involved in making their own important decisions to prepare them for being an adult.
I don't think it's my place to force other parents to raise their children in a particular way or to tell them they have to be exposed to massive medical liability that could bankrupt them that have get little or no say about.
IIRC any money a minor makes up until they are 18 is legally the property of their guardians. Do you advocate total control over that as well? The problem with your "bright legal line" is that it is not so bright or even a line. When a child can be charged with a crime as an adult at as young as 11 (happening to a kid out in Phili), things like that go out the window. Also, if children aren't allowed to vote, whey are taxes taken out of their wages? Taxation without representation was a key factor in the start of the revolution (or the great revolt, depending on what side of the pond you're on).
IIRC any money a minor makes up until they are 18 is legally the property of their guardians. Do you advocate total control over that as well? The problem with your "bright legal line" is that it is not so bright or even a line. When a child can be charged with a crime as an adult at as young as 11 (happening to a kid out in Phili), things like that go out the window. Also, if children aren't allowed to vote, whey are taxes taken out of their wages? Taxation without representation was a key factor in the start of the revolution (or the great revolt, depending on what side of the pond you're on).
I stated, "That line is getting more blurry every day, but the parents are basically responsible for the minors choices until they are adults."
May I ask if you have kids, or if you still live at home? I don't mean to pry, and you're welcome to tell me it's none of my business.
I get the impression you don't have kids, and that's cool, but it's hard to engage on an issue with this much complexity on a board like this.
There are bad parents, but the tough job of parenting becomes much harder when the state steps in and says, in effect, "You must let your kids do x, but if it goes terribly wrong you will be liable for far more than your life savings.".
If you don't have kids of your own, especially teens, I doubt that I'm a skilled enough writer to convey what that's like.
Perhaps another parent could help make up for my inadequate on-line communication skills.
|
|
IIRC any money a minor makes up until they are 18 is legally the property of their guardians. Do you advocate total control over that as well? The problem with your "bright legal line" is that it is not so bright or even a line. When a child can be charged with a crime as an adult at as young as 11 (happening to a kid out in Phili), things like that go out the window. Also, if children aren't allowed to vote, whey are taxes taken out of their wages? Taxation without representation was a key factor in the start of the revolution (or the great revolt, depending on what side of the pond you're on).I stated, "That line is getting more blurry every day, but the parents are basically responsible for the minors choices until they are adults."
May I ask if you have kids, or if you still live at home? I don't mean to pry, and you're welcome to tell me it's none of my business.
I get the impression you don't have kids, and that's cool, but it's hard to engage on an issue with this much complexity on a board like this.
There are bad parents, but the tough job of parenting becomes much harder when the state steps in and says, in effect, "You must let your kids do x, but if it goes terribly wrong you will be liable for far more than your life savings.".
If you don't have kids of your own, especially teens, I doubt that I'm a skilled enough writer to convey what that's like.
Perhaps another parent could help make up for my inadequate on-line communication skills.
I have 3 kids...but they're all younger (5y, 6y, 14m), been livin on my own for 10 years now :D.
The problem with stating that parents are responsible for minors choices until they're adults is that, well, they aren't. A child who goes out and kills somebody gets charged, not that child's parents. Also what are you referring to in your example of state says you must let kid do x and if it fails... etc.? I'm not really aware of any issues like that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
IIRC any money a minor makes up until they are 18 is legally the property of their guardians. Do you advocate total control over that as well? The problem with your "bright legal line" is that it is not so bright...
In general, laws regarding minors exist to prevent their abuse or exploitation by adults. The one that immediately comes to mind is statutory rape.
Obviously some people are more mature and capable of making responsible choices at an earlier age than others. Conversely there are folks in their 30s, 40s, and 50s that frankly I am disappointed to see breeding. There should be laws to protect minors, but since there's such a wide variation in the age at which individuals actually become responsible adults, an arbitrary age has to be used to codify those laws. Does it always fit? Hell no. It doesn't even always make sense. But as a society we have to set it somewhere. I do concur with BT that it's preposterously unjust that a 17 year old who can kill or die for our country can't buy a beer or even a pack of cigarettes, or VOTE.
IMO, part of the problem is that we continue to treat young people like children. Our ancestors were considered responsible adults at a much younger age than we and our children have been. Prior to the 20th century, men and women married and had children MUCH earlier. My grandmother was married with a child at 14. My dad was married, gainfully employed, and had a child at 19. Most of the current generation of 19 year olds aren't even responsible enough to do their own laundry. As a young professional, you don't really get respected as an adult until you're in your thirties nowadays. If we as a society demanded more responsibility from our young people, they'd step up... because with greater responsibility comes respect and self-determination. And that's something every teenager wants.
IMO, part of the problem is that we continue to treat young people like children. Our ancestors were considered responsible adults at a much younger age than we and our children have been. Prior to the 20th century, men and women married and had children MUCH earlier. My grandmother was married with a child at 14. My dad was married, gainfully employed, and had a child at 19. Most of the current generation of 19 year olds aren't even responsible enough to do their own laundry. As a young professional, you don't really get respected as an adult until you're in your thirties nowadays. If we as a society demanded more responsibility from our young people, they'd step up... because with greater responsibility comes respect and self-determination. And that's something every teenager wants.
TL;DR version:
The experiment of adolescence is a failure.
Which I for one completely agree on. Well put Charlie.
IMO, part of the problem is that we continue to treat young people like children. Our ancestors were considered responsible adults at a much younger age than we and our children have been. Prior to the 20th century, men and women married and had children MUCH earlier. My grandmother was married with a child at 14. My dad was married, gainfully employed, and had a child at 19. Most of the current generation of 19 year olds aren't even responsible enough to do their own laundry. As a young professional, you don't really get respected as an adult until you're in your thirties nowadays. If we as a society demanded more responsibility from our young people, they'd step up... because with greater responsibility comes respect and self-determination. And that's something every teenager wants.TL;DR version:
The experiment of adolescence is a failure.
Which I for one completely agree on. Well put Charlie.
+1
I have 3 kids...but they're all younger (5y, 6y, 14m), been livin on my own for 10 years now :D.
The problem with stating that parents are responsible for minors choices until they're adults is that, well, they aren't. A child who goes out and kills somebody gets charged, not that child's parents. Also what are you referring to in your example of state says you must let kid do x and if it fails... etc.? I'm not really aware of any issues like that.
Oops, so much for my impression.
I'll try to avoid abortion for minors as an example so we don't go crashing down that hill, and I'll try to avoid legal hypotheticals.
Let's say a teen minor contracts an STD and their state allows them to be treated without parental knowledge or consent. IIRC there are examples of this IRL.
Now let's say that said teen has a life threatening reaction to that treatment and winds up in the emergency room and ICU.
Those bills are going to hit the parents first. They can try to sue the initial provider, but they may well go bankrupt in the meantime.
As to your murder example some jurisdictions do have criminal penalties for the parents of juvenile offenders, and the parents will almost certainly be wiped out in civil court.
Does that help to explain where I'm coming from?
|
|
Oops, so much for my impression.
I'll try to avoid abortion for minors as an example so we don't go crashing down that hill, and I'll try to avoid legal hypotheticals.
Let's say a teen minor contracts an STD and their state allows them to be treated without parental knowledge or consent. IIRC there are examples of this IRL.
Now let's say that said teen has a life threatening reaction to that treatment and winds up in the emergency room and ICU.
Those bills are going to hit the parents first. They can try to sue the initial provider, but they may well go bankrupt in the meantime.
As to your murder example some jurisdictions do have criminal penalties for the parents of juvenile offenders, and the parents will almost certainly be wiped out in civil court.
Does that help to explain where I'm coming from?
So just because they are children they do not have HIPPA rights? Those same arguments could be made for a spouse that goes in without the knowledge or "consent" of the other spouse (in states where wealth and debt are automatically shared). The SCOTUS has stated in the past that just because they are children they don't check their rights to free speach at the doors of school, so why should they check their rights to privacy as well? As for the bill, well, is the parent NOT going to treat their child for that STD or for that life-threatening injury? If not, they shouldn't be parents.
As to the murder example, that is a civil judgement, which is much more liberal in what can and can't be brought before the court than in criminal court. IIRC you can try just about anything in civil court...whether or not you should win is another story. BLUF: the parents aren't going to be serving the jail time, the child is.
EDIT: just out of curiosity, what exactly came across to you as me being childless and living at home? not being confrontational, just curious.
+1IMO, part of the problem is that we continue to treat young people like children. Our ancestors were considered responsible adults at a much younger age than we and our children have been. Prior to the 20th century, men and women married and had children MUCH earlier. My grandmother was married with a child at 14. My dad was married, gainfully employed, and had a child at 19. Most of the current generation of 19 year olds aren't even responsible enough to do their own laundry. As a young professional, you don't really get respected as an adult until you're in your thirties nowadays. If we as a society demanded more responsibility from our young people, they'd step up... because with greater responsibility comes respect and self-determination. And that's something every teenager wants.TL;DR version:
The experiment of adolescence is a failure.
Which I for one completely agree on. Well put Charlie.
This is a tricky one because of the role culture plays. It's one thing to demand more of your young people, it's another to think about what you're actually asking. My perspective is weird because of my Afro-Carribean roots- I really don't want to get into how old certain members of my family were when they had kids(or didn't), got married(or didn't), or had sex(or, in one distressing case, didn't). Don't get me wrong- someone who is 19 and can't do their laundry, iron their clothes cook or clean their house is below irresponsible in my eyes(afro-carribean speaking again, although the american in me demanded I put in an OR instead of an AND), but this setup isn't necessarily ideal, utopian or even one that you would recognize.
Oops, so much for my impression.
I'll try to avoid abortion for minors as an example so we don't go crashing down that hill, and I'll try to avoid legal hypotheticals.
Let's say a teen minor contracts an STD and their state allows them to be treated without parental knowledge or consent. IIRC there are examples of this IRL.
Now let's say that said teen has a life threatening reaction to that treatment and winds up in the emergency room and ICU.
Those bills are going to hit the parents first. They can try to sue the initial provider, but they may well go bankrupt in the meantime.
As to your murder example some jurisdictions do have criminal penalties for the parents of juvenile offenders, and the parents will almost certainly be wiped out in civil court.
Does that help to explain where I'm coming from?
So just because they are children they do not have HIPPA rights? Those same arguments could be made for a spouse that goes in without the knowledge or "consent" of the other spouse (in states where wealth and debt are automatically shared). The SCOTUS has stated in the past that just because they are children they don't check their rights to free speach at the doors of school, so why should they check their rights to privacy as well? As for the bill, well, is the parent NOT going to treat their child for that STD or for that life-threatening injury? If not, they shouldn't be parents.
As to the murder example, that is a civil judgement, which is much more liberal in what can and can't be brought before the court than in criminal court. IIRC you can try just about anything in civil court...whether or not you should win is another story. BLUF: the parents aren't going to be serving the jail time, the child is.
EDIT: just out of curiosity, what exactly came across to you as me being childless and living at home? not being confrontational, just curious.
Yeah, I'd say HIPPA is an issue(funny, since I'm posting from work). I think HIPPA may go under the knife itself as a result of this law, but I think it might be strengthened instead of weakened.
|
|
Yeah, I'd say HIPPA is an issue(funny, since I'm posting from work). I think HIPPA may go under the knife itself as a result of this law, but I think it might be strengthened instead of weakened.
Since this entire bill has to do with health insurance rather than a public option, I don't see why it wasn't just pushed through as an amendment to the existing HIPPA laws...HIPPA was basically put in place to help prevent people from losing their insurance, is it really that much of a stretch to extend that as a requirement to buy insurance? I guess some bill-writer needed to justify their job.
Yeah, I'd say HIPPA is an issue(funny, since I'm posting from work). I think HIPPA may go under the knife itself as a result of this law, but I think it might be strengthened instead of weakened.Since this entire bill has to do with health insurance rather than a public option, I don't see why it wasn't just pushed through as an amendment to the existing HIPPA laws...HIPPA was basically put in place to help prevent people from losing their insurance, is it really that much of a stretch to extend that as a requirement to buy insurance? I guess some bill-writer needed to justify their job.
AN interesting point. I'd like to see what a HIPPA-centric version of this bill would look like.
Oops, so much for my impression.
I'll try to avoid abortion for minors as an example so we don't go crashing down that hill, and I'll try to avoid legal hypotheticals.
Let's say a teen minor contracts an STD and their state allows them to be treated without parental knowledge or consent. IIRC there are examples of this IRL.
Now let's say that said teen has a life threatening reaction to that treatment and winds up in the emergency room and ICU.
Those bills are going to hit the parents first. They can try to sue the initial provider, but they may well go bankrupt in the meantime.
As to your murder example some jurisdictions do have criminal penalties for the parents of juvenile offenders, and the parents will almost certainly be wiped out in civil court.
Does that help to explain where I'm coming from?
So just because they are children they do not have HIPPA rights? Those same arguments could be made for a spouse that goes in without the knowledge or "consent" of the other spouse (in states where wealth and debt are automatically shared). The SCOTUS has stated in the past that just because they are children they don't check their rights to free speach at the doors of school, so why should they check their rights to privacy as well? As for the bill, well, is the parent NOT going to treat their child for that STD or for that life-threatening injury? If not, they shouldn't be parents.
As to the murder example, that is a civil judgement, which is much more liberal in what can and can't be brought before the court than in criminal court. IIRC you can try just about anything in civil court...whether or not you should win is another story. BLUF: the parents aren't going to be serving the jail time, the child is.
EDIT: just out of curiosity, what exactly came across to you as me being childless and living at home? not being confrontational, just curious.
Minor children's rights regarding their parents are extremely limited because their responsibility is extremely limited. The black letter law and case law in 50 states is way too complex for me to even begin to address, but the basis is an assumption that the parents are the best choice to make life and legal decisions for their children. In general the courts and government social service organs have numerous powers to supercede that assumption.
The parent would presumably seek treatment for the STD, and the parents would be more likely than a 14 year old, for instance, to remember something like a drug allergy. Parental involvement serves as an enormously important preventative safe guard. Teens are often convinced that they have all the answers. This idea isn't likely to survive contact with the enemy (to paraphrase a military truism).
There are statutes that provide criminal penalties for the actions of minor children, so it's not just a civil issue. That said civil liability is quite capable of financially destroying a family.
I'm not sure what BLUF: means in board speak.
Your position suggested to me that you lack first hand experience with these issues. It wasn't meant to seem condescending, so I hope I didn't come off that way.
The parent would presumably seek treatment for the STD, and the parents would be more likely than a 14 year old, for instance, to remember something like a drug allergy. Parental involvement serves as an enormously important preventative safe guard. Teens are often convinced that they have all the answers. This idea isn't likely to survive contact with the enemy (to paraphrase a military truism).
Good point, but most of the antibiotics used to treat many STDs that can be treated that way nowadays are unique to said STD. There's little chance of the parent knowing of an allergy(unless such a thing has happened before, in which case I'm pretty sure the teenager would speak up and say something).
|
|
Minor children's rights regarding their parents are extremely limited because their responsibility is extremely limited. The black letter law and case law in 50 states is way too complex for me to even begin to address, but the basis is an assumption that the parents are the best choice to make life and legal decisions for their children. In general the courts and government social service organs have numerous powers to supercede that assumption.
My response is two-fold. The SCOTUS has already determined that children have the protection of the first amendment, so why shouldn't they have the protection of HIPPA? Docs can't even discuss a spouse's medical condition if they're conscious, etc. even if it could adversely affect their partner (STD, etc.). In fact, due to litigation, most HCPs are prohibited from discussing any aspect of a patient's care if family is in the room.
The parent would presumably seek treatment for the STD, and the parents would be more likely than a 14 year old, for instance, to remember something like a drug allergy. Parental involvement serves as an enormously important preventative safe guard. Teens are often convinced that they have all the answers. This idea isn't likely to survive contact with the enemy (to paraphrase a military truism).
If the allergy is severe enough, then the patient will be wearing a med-alert bracelet. Any other allergy would be unknown or not pertinent.
There are statutes that provide criminal penalties for the actions of minor children, so it's not just a civil issue. That said civil liability is quite capable of financially destroying a family.
That's just dumb TBH, any family with a smart lawyer could boil that down into a environment vs. biology argument. Not to mention that regardless of how well you parent you can't have your kids under your control 24/7.
I'm not sure what BLUF: means in board speak.
More a military term...Bottom Line Up Front
Your position suggested to me that you lack first hand experience with these issues. It wasn't meant to seem condescending, so I hope I didn't come off that way.
No offense taken, I may not have experience with my kids, but i know how it was growing up with overly oppresive parents who had to know everything...i cut loose as soon as i was, well, cut loose.
The parent would presumably seek treatment for the STD, and the parents would be more likely than a 14 year old, for instance, to remember something like a drug allergy. Parental involvement serves as an enormously important preventative safe guard. Teens are often convinced that they have all the answers. This idea isn't likely to survive contact with the enemy (to paraphrase a military truism).Good point, but most of the antibiotics used to treat many STDs that can be treated that way nowadays are unique to said STD. There's little chance of the parent knowing of an allergy(unless such a thing has happened before, in which case I'm pretty sure the teenager would speak up and say something).
X writes, "If the allergy is severe enough, then the patient will be wearing a med-alert bracelet. Any other allergy would be unknown or not pertinent."
At the risk of going down a rabbit hole of hypothetical scenarios (like I did in the exploding boobs thread) teenagers don't always wear their med-alert bracelet like they are told.
In general terms the parent and not the 14 year old should have the final word on medical decisions unless there is some kind of criminal abuse that the state can prove.
What is the alternative?
|
|
The parent would presumably seek treatment for the STD, and the parents would be more likely than a 14 year old, for instance, to remember something like a drug allergy. Parental involvement serves as an enormously important preventative safe guard. Teens are often convinced that they have all the answers. This idea isn't likely to survive contact with the enemy (to paraphrase a military truism).Good point, but most of the antibiotics used to treat many STDs that can be treated that way nowadays are unique to said STD. There's little chance of the parent knowing of an allergy(unless such a thing has happened before, in which case I'm pretty sure the teenager would speak up and say something).X writes, "If the allergy is severe enough, then the patient will be wearing a med-alert bracelet. Any other allergy would be unknown or not pertinent."
At the risk of going down a rabbit hole of hypothetical scenarios (like I did in the exploding boobs thread) teenagers don't always wear their med-alert bracelet like they are told.
In general terms the parent and not the 14 year old should have the final word on medical decisions unless there is some kind of criminal abuse that the state can prove.
What is the alternative?
These types of allergies are generally found very early in childhood...the bracelet is like a part of them by the time they're teens.
As to the final decision, let's say a teen has a cancer that will kill them, they're in constant pain and they're told there's a treatment that will give them a few more months/years, but it's extremely painful. Teens in constant pain and says no, they don't want to do it because they don't think they can bear it. Parents say yes because they can't bear to lose their child...who should have the say in this case? Certainly not the parents...they aren't the ones enduring the pain and while both decisions are "selfish" it is still the teens body. Children are not property, they are sentient beings who should have a say in decisions that affect their health.
Minor children's rights regarding their parents are extremely limited because their responsibility is extremely limited. The black letter law and case law in 50 states is way too complex for me to even begin to address, but the basis is an assumption that the parents are the best choice to make life and legal decisions for their children. In general the courts and government social service organs have numerous powers to supercede that assumption.My response is two-fold. The SCOTUS has already determined that children have the protection of the first amendment, so why shouldn't they have the protection of HIPPA? Docs can't even discuss a spouse's medical condition if they're conscious, etc. even if it could adversely affect their partner (STD, etc.). In fact, due to litigation, most HCPs are prohibited from discussing any aspect of a patient's care if family is in the room.
I didn't mean to turn this into a parental rights debate.
SCOTUS has upheld the first amendment rights of minors with regard to government coercion, and they have done so in a very limited way. The case law in question still gives public schools broad latitude to control expression on school grounds if it is deemed sufficiently disruptive. We have litigated against this when my daughter was in this school district. These issues still go to court every year.
A school district cannot punish a child for praying before eating or wearing a pentagram, for instance, under the existing SCOTUS case law.
These limitation do not apply to parents. For example, if a 15 year old's parents converted to, say, Judaism and they make him go to synagogue his legal recourse is virtually zero.
I'm not saying this is your position, but should your 6 year old's medical information be withheld from you in the interest of privacy? Of course not, but the line has to be drawn somewhere for legal reasons. 18 is (mostly) the age of majority. Legal consistency seems to suggest that 18 should be the baseline for these issues.
Also because we seem to have diverged into a discussion of parental rights. It might be polite to the OP to start a separate thread.
Shadowborn, you're the OP; shall we drive on or start a new thread or does it matter to you?
What is this medalert bracelet you speak of? Yes, I'm being facetious. I have a life threatening allergy. Bad enough to where I have to carry an epipen. Never once has any health care professional even kinda sorta hinted at the possibility that I might want to wear one of those. Not to mention the long list of 'minor' allergies that will only cause me to break out in hives rather than kill me. I have relatives with severe allergies that they've had since early childhood. Same thing. My son goes to school with several children who have life threatening allergies. I have never once seen any of these children wearing a med alert bracelet, and I've spent a lot of time in the classroom. So, saying that no bracelet = no allergy is ridiculous. Not to mention that many allergies are found out on a trial and error basis. I dunno. Maybe it's a regional thing, but med alert bracelets just aren't used much around here. Or even suggested as a vaguely good idea.
|
|
What is this medalert bracelet you speak of? Yes, I'm being facetious. I have a life threatening allergy. Bad enough to where I have to carry an epipen. Never once has any health care professional even kinda sorta hinted at the possibility that I might want to wear one of those. Not to mention the long list of 'minor' allergies that will only cause me to break out in hives rather than kill me. I have relatives with severe allergies that they've had since early childhood. Same thing. My son goes to school with several children who have life threatening allergies. I have never once seen any of these children wearing a med alert bracelet, and I've spent a lot of time in the classroom. So, saying that no bracelet = no allergy is ridiculous. Not to mention that many allergies are found out on a trial and error basis. I dunno. Maybe it's a regional thing, but med alert bracelets just aren't used much around here. Or even suggested as a vaguely good idea.
I think they're typically used for allergies to medications and conditions like diabetes.
|
|
And on the other hand, I can tell from personal experience growing up in Paterson, New Jersey which has one of the worst eduacation systems in the state, a system so screwed up, the state government which historically is fairly indifferent to public education actually had to step in and take over the local school board, there and in several other towns.And make no bones about it the system was clearly awful, teachers were hired on the basis of cronyism, resources were scarce to nonexistant, and classes were frequently crowded. And I doubt that despite the state takeover, that conditions have improved much, if at all.
Bad as that system was for those children, I can patently tell you that 90 percent of thier parents, including my own, were simply not qualified to homeschool thier kids. That school system bad as it was, was still better than throwing the problem back at thier parents.
It really does come down to this. Do you think that Education needs to be addressed as a societal question on the local, state, or federal level? Or do you think that you'll simply homeschool your kids and what others do or don't do is simply thier problem? Or is your position somewhere in between?
Firstly, I suspect I have both more faith in individuals than you do and less faith in bureaucracy than you, though maybe I am mistaken. I think many people would be surprised by what they are qualified to do. A man should be able to plant seeds, harvest them, sew his clothes, cook his food, read, write, do math, make his own soap, carve his own chairs, build his own house, study his own world; and furthermore he should be able to teach all these things to his children. We are not less intelligent than our forefathers and they could do all these things. Anyone who has an education should be able to pass on that education. If they cannot, it speaks to me of a poor system.
The solution to a broken system is not to continue to perpetuate it. I do neither my own children nor my society any favors by allowing my children to aim lower than is necessary. Indeed, one could argue that through withdrawing my children from a system that will potentially hold them back, I am better serving all. Educated people have, for much of history, arranged for the education of their own children. George Washington, for instance, was homeschooled. It was quite common in his day. We are better off as a country because we had such a great man as our first commander in chief. Would we have been better as a society today if his parents had instead been forced to send him into a school system that would have encouraged mediocrity?
So, in answer to your second to last question, I have a duty both to my children and to the society I live in. My personal opinion is I best serve my society by serving my family first. Until our system becomes a true dictatorship and we lose all personal freedoms, I will continue to meet my own duty as best as I can in the manner I think most appropriate. How others meet their own duties is their problem and I have no power, nor the wish for such, to force them to comply to how I think the world would run best. Which is not to say I don't have an opinion, I do - but each man has a personal responsibility for his own life, all I can do is point out what I think is the best course.
My personal opinion is I best serve my society by serving my family first.
Amen. Be the example you would like to see others be.
|
|
What is this medalert bracelet you speak of? Yes, I'm being facetious. I have a life threatening allergy. Bad enough to where I have to carry an epipen. Never once has any health care professional even kinda sorta hinted at the possibility that I might want to wear one of those. Not to mention the long list of 'minor' allergies that will only cause me to break out in hives rather than kill me. I have relatives with severe allergies that they've had since early childhood. Same thing. My son goes to school with several children who have life threatening allergies. I have never once seen any of these children wearing a med alert bracelet, and I've spent a lot of time in the classroom. So, saying that no bracelet = no allergy is ridiculous. Not to mention that many allergies are found out on a trial and error basis. I dunno. Maybe it's a regional thing, but med alert bracelets just aren't used much around here. Or even suggested as a vaguely good idea.I think they're typically used for allergies to medications and conditions like diabetes.
Nope. Ditto to what everyone else is telling you. They exist, but the vast majority of people who you think should have them do not.
Penicillin would kill my mother, but she does not have one.
Shadowborn, you're the OP; shall we drive on or start a new thread or does it matter to you?
I will take silence as consent in this case. ;)
|
|
I didn't mean to turn this into a parental rights debate.
SCOTUS has upheld the first amendment rights of minors with regard to government coercion, and they have done so in a very limited way. The case law in question still gives public schools broad latitude to control expression on school grounds if it is deemed sufficiently disruptive. We have litigated against this when my daughter was in this school district. These issues still go to court every year.
Out of curiosity (if I'm prying say so) what were you litigating against the schools?
A school district cannot punish a child for praying before eating or wearing a pentagram, for instance, under the existing SCOTUS case law.
As they shouldn't, and I believe that (most) current dress codes are fair if implemented as intended.
These limitation do not apply to parents. For example, if a 15 year old's parents converted to, say, Judaism and they make him go to synagogue his legal recourse is virtually zero.
To bring this back around to medical issues...what if the parents wanted to circumcise said 15 yo? Should he have a say?
I'm not saying this is your position, but should your 6 year old's medical information be withheld from you in the interest of privacy? Of course not, but the line has to be drawn somewhere for legal reasons. 18 is (mostly) the age of majority. Legal consistency seems to suggest that 18 should be the baseline for these issues.
18 is the age of majority unless the state doesn't feel like it. If a person can't vote, they shouldn't be charged as an adult. That being said, if children can be charged as adults they should at least have a say in their medical care. I recall an instance of where a patients medical condition (HIV) was discussed with family members in the room. They didn't know and the hospital got sued because they let it slip. I don't recall the age of the patient, but it shouldn't matter if they were 18 or 15, a 15 yo can get a job and get some form of driving permit, why should their parents have control over their medical decisions?
Also because we seem to have diverged into a discussion of parental rights. It might be polite to the OP to start a separate thread.
Hate it when that happens...but it least it saves us the trouble of starting a whole new thread. And in reality it didn't veer too far from the topic of homeschooling since that has alot to do with parents' rights.
A man should be able to plant seeds, harvest them, sew his clothes, cook his food, read, write, do math, make his own soap, carve his own chairs, build his own house, study his own world; and furthermore he should be able to teach all these things to his children.
Mixed feelings.
I was an expert draftsman, but the computer has rendered that skill obsolete; no reason to pass that on.
I can draw and paint and design buildings, but those skills don't necessarily help a person feed himself. SOME people need to be able to do them, but not ALL people.
I can derive and solve differential equations, but 99.9% of people will never, ever need that ability for anything they do. Again, SOME people need these things; others not.
I can delinate soil and groundwater contamination and can remediate contaminated water, but it only takes one or two people to do that for the community; each man need not be able to. Yet again, SOME people need these things; others not.
Now, I'd agree there are some things that everyone needs to be able to do. Balance one's checkbook, drive a car, find their way around, get by in polite company without being a total boor. I can cook and sew, too -- but my wife never learned, and I don't hold it against her. And I fervently disagree that everyone in the world needs to make their own soap, and that anyone who doesn't isn't a "real man."
Not growing up on a farm (I'm a city kid), I don't know how to harvest a bunch of hectares using a combine or whatever, so by the standards you've outlined I'm a failure as a human. But can you climb a chain-link fence, see through a con man's wiles, spot a potential drive-by before it happens, or blind someone with a car antenna? People needed those skills a lot more, in some of the places I've lived.