Sorry to say

You're looking at it from the US perspective.
The doctors don't "bill the government", they are part of the government health system. I believe that NZ is similar to Aus (& to Europe) in this, there is a whole team of professional people available to advise and assist prior and after the procedure. No monetary incentive for a salaried doctor, just more work.

Only a US citizen would think there was a monetary incentive for the doctors.

A 15 year old is entitled to her privacy. What if the family are such that will evict her to the street?

PeterZ wrote:So the doctors perform the abortion and don't inform the parents. Who is responsible if complications happen? Are the doctors free from liability? Does the doctor bill the government for the procedure? How are alternatives to abortion presented? Who the F**k guides this minor pregnant child through such difficult circumstances? The doctor with a monetary incentive to perform the abortion?bb

Not informing parents is a stupid policy for the vast majority of people.

The doctors are paid by the govt (socialist healthcare yay ), and the doctors/medical team are responsible, but i believe due to most being early term abortions, its just pharmaceutical abortion as opposed to surgical, so its just a really bad period for the girls/ ladies.
As for liability, we have the ACC which is insurtance for all accidents, injuries and medical problems not of degenerative condition, so any accident in the procedure is covered by the acc for any costs. The doctors have no incentive for cash for aborting, as its your local doctor you speak to first, who refers you to two consulting specialists, who if they determine you can get an abortion, then give you a certificate of applicability to give to the actual abortion clinic. the doctors get paid the same for an abortion talk as they do for diagnosing athletes foot. In addition, counseling must bea available and offered to you.


Not informing the parents is a viable strategy under this, when the doctors believe informing the parents might cause the child more harm, and given the systems safeguards, I'd trust them.

PeterZ wrote:So the doctors perform the abortion and don't inform the parents. Who is responsible if complications happen? Are the doctors free from liability? Does the doctor bill the government for the procedure? How are alternatives to abortion presented? Who the F**k guides this minor pregnant child through such difficult circumstances? The doctor with a monetary incentive to perform the abortion?

Not informing parents is a stupid policy for the vast majority of people.

PeterZ wrote:Someone has to stand in loco parentis to make decisions like whether to abort or not.

Why?

That´s just pure stupid. Just because the law does not consider someone adult does not make them unable to make their own decisions.

Forcing ANYONE to override the wish of the patient, parents OR government is abuse of power.

I assume that a child can find a way to get as safe a legal abortion as is possible regardless of what the parents wish. My point is that those parents should be notified about the pregnancy so that they can act to meet their legal liability regarding all the consequences pertaining pregnancy of their minor child. Not only meet the legal liability but also meet the moral demand to take care of his/her child. Anyone that asserts as a general rule, someone other than a parent is best suited to help the child through such a traumatic decision is moron of epic proportions.

Back at you. Just because they´re parents does not mean it´s a good idea to tell them by default. Respect the patient in question or you´re as guilty of abuse as your dreaded government bogeymen.

On the average, Is a 13 year old girl capable of making an informed decision about an abortion?


No...then you have answered your stupid question. Well here in the good old US, a child is not allowed to make a life and death decision regarding and unborn child. It's obvious that you do not have a family of your own because their some much more that goes into raising a family than you seem to understand and comprehend but when the time comes you will.

Problem is, that 13 yr old girl, who I agree is not usually capable, might not have parents. Or the parents might be abusers who put her in that situation.

Much as it's Nanny stating, the laws do have to be robust enough to not only cope, but cope clearly and intuitively, with situations where the parents should really not be informed or consulted, and where they should be.

Ultimately, the putative 13 yr old is not really old enough to say if her parents should or shouldn't be.
Hence the social worker.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

No need to be like that. I've raised kids to successful adulthood plus had many life experiences.
A 13 year old has rights, especially including what happens to her body, so should be part of the discussion. In a perfect world, caring parents should support her and all come to a mutual decision that causes least harm. This is not always possible unfortunately, and that's where the system should supply professional people like social workers to advise.
Two provocative points I'd raise though.
The genetic father of the potential child does have a stake, and should if possible be included in the discussion.
The second is that the parents of the 13 yr old should be excluded if they have ideologies that would harm the 13 year old (real world examples of different scenarios include JWs who don't allow blood transfusions, a strict Muslim who interfered with lifeguards so his adult sister would drown rather than be touched by an unrelated man).

smr wrote:On the average, Is a 13 year old girl capable of making an informed decision about an abortion?


No...then you have answered your stupid question. Well here in the good old US, a child is not allowed to make a life and death decision regarding and unborn child. It's obvious that you do not have a family of your own because their some much more that goes into raising a family than you seem to understand and comprehend but when the time comes you will.

The Associated Press found last year that the administration had set a record for censoring or denying access to information requested under FOIA, and that the backlog of unanswered requests across the government had risen by 55 percent, to more than 200,000.

It would be nice to be able to borrow Roger from the Empire of Man - of course, that is a fantasy, not reality
"The most transparent administration in history"

There are always some people in a society who are more ready than others to bully, steal, and make jackasses of themselves.

As 18th-century political philosopher William Godwin observed, if a government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to keep those people from doing harm to their neighbors. But over time, these bullies will infest government and its related industries.

Then instead of keeping these pests under control, government gives them authority… funding even a kind of ersatz respectability. Their predations, illusions and vanities become public policy.

Have the psychopaths have taken over the asylum

Tenshinai wrote:
snip

Forcing ANYONE to override the wish of the patient, parents OR government is abuse of power.

snip

I wonder what it would be like to organize this way:

Families take care of all the problems they can;
Township equivalents (neighbors) help when families can't;
Counties are called in ONLY when townships are overwhelmed;
States are called in ONLY when the problem is too big for the counties;
Federal is reserved for ONLY things that are too large for states.

At each level, as much freedom of method as possible is encouraged, but a one page summary reports on the problem and results of the chosen solution go to the nearest neighbors at the same level, and copies are stored one level up, FYI for others with similar problems.

Handling problems at the lowest possible level is called subsidiarity (IIRC).

The difficulty, of course, is those people who focus on being in control instead of solving the problem. The Lie, steal, kill, and destroy brigade doesn't want to solve problems if they can help it

DDHvi wrote:I wonder what it would be like to organize this way:

Families take care of all the problems they can;
Township equivalents (neighbors) help when families can't;
Counties are called in ONLY when townships are overwhelmed;
States are called in ONLY when the problem is too big for the counties;
Federal is reserved for ONLY things that are too large for states.

At each level, as much freedom of method as possible is encouraged, but a one page summary reports on the problem and results of the chosen solution go to the nearest neighbors at the same level, and copies are stored one level up, FYI for others with similar problems.

Handling problems at the lowest possible level is called subsidiarity (IIRC).

The difficulty, of course, is those people who focus on being in control instead of solving the problem. The Lie, steal, kill, and destroy brigade doesn't want to solve problems if they can help it

Sounds fine in theory, collapses in practice.

Let's just take one level...

"Families take care of all the problems they can;
Township equivalents (neighbors) help when families can't;"

And look, there's the neighbor everyone in the township knows is abusing their kid.



That is clearly not a case of the family can't handle the issue. The family is entirely capable of handling it. But everyone knows they won't. So then what do you do?

You either allow the abuse because it's "none of anyone else's business" and condemn the kid to their fate.... which is a horrible outcome, or you step in and impose the will of the community on the family and you've already abandoned your "the wider level only steps in when the more local can't handle it" principle.

If she is 13, then she is too young to carry a baby to term.
I thought everyone knew that!

As for "paternal imput" any man who would get a child on a
13-year-old girl (or even "go through the motions") is
morally unfit to have a part in the discusion.

In the case of women who are old enough to bear children,
the man had his input when he "provided his seed."
If the woman wants further imput from him,
then she will know where to find him (if he is worthy; one
proof of his worth is that he will be there for her!),
and she will know how to ask him.

NOTE that decent fathers need not worry because it is so very
natural for a woman to advise and consult her baby's father -
- unless she has excellent cause to deem him "indecent."

Howard "Map-addict" Wilkins, Pointy-Headed Liberal

smr wrote:On the average, Is a 13 year old girl capable of making an informed decision about an abortion?
{snip - htm}