Dr. Tenpenny: Huffington Post article: Who's decision is it, Anyway?

[Guest guest]

Dr.

Sherri TenpennyDr. Sherri Tenpenny is respected as one of

the country's most knowledgeable and outspoken physicians ...

Posted: October 27, 2009 10:53 AM

BIO

Become a Fan

Get Email Alerts

Bloggers'

Index

Whose Decision Is It, Anyway?

Read more at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sherri-tenpenny/whose-decision-is-it-anyw_b_335374.html

There has been much discussion about using schools for an " all

out " vaccination campaign this fall, for both the regular flu shot

and the new H1N1 vaccine.1 According to authorities, students would

ideally be vaccinated before school starts, but the swine flu vaccine

won't be available until mid-October, making schools a logical place to

begin mass vaccination.

According to permission slips issued in some school districts in Maine,

parents must be present when their child is vaccinated if the child is in

grade K through 2. For older students, parents are not required to

attend, but they may do so if they wish. In the fine print of the

permission slips, parents are notified of the date that a second,

seasonal influenza vaccine will be administered to children who have

never received a regular seasonal flu shot before.2 While the Maine

Department of Education is quick to point that this is not a mandatory

program, if the government declares an Influenza Pandemic Emergency, will

those who question the safety and efficacy of both the season flu shot

and the new swine flu shot retain their right to refuse for their kids?

Parental Consent vs. Physicians and the State

Parents have fewer rights over the health and welfare of their

children that they may recognize. This concept reaches back into

antiquity when the rulers in Sparta forcibly removed children from

families so they could be indoctrinated with the willingness and

importance of dying for the State in war. 3 This was also the model for

Plato's idealized Republic. Interestingly, in 1918, the congress of the

Communist Party's education workers in Russia asserted, " We must

remove the children from the crude influence of their families. " 4

When it comes to medical decisions, physicians are charged with ensuring

the medical standard of care, defined as a treatment process that a

clinician should follow for a given circumstance, is carried out on

children, even over the objections of their parents. Doctors not only

have the right to step in. All states have laws making it mandatory to

report perceived medical abuse and neglect to Children's Protective

Services (CPS). Physicians usually make the call when s/he feels the

action--or inaction--of a parent places the child in danger of death or

disability. A common example is a forced transfusion of blood to save the

life of a child whose parents are Jehovah's Witnesses. However, not

vaccinating has come under scrutiny and in some circles is starting to be

viewed as medical neglect. The American Academy of Pediatrics recently

concluded that, " Continued (vaccine) refusal after adequate

discussion should be respected unless the child is put at significant

risk of serious harm (as, for example, might be the case during an

epidemic). Only then should state agencies be involved to override

parental discretion on the basis of medical neglect " .5

Wide support and extensive court precedence exists to back a doctor's

discretion to call in CPS. The rationale for this authority was clearly

written in a 1996 paper that states, " Whether (the guardians) are

sincere, sane, and in every other capacity model parents, their

insistence upon treatment that is scientifically inferior to

conventionally accepted treatment is abusive, even if their intent is

not. " 6 The current system, in its original intent, was set up to

protect obviously abused and neglected children. The system would be a

good one if medical professionals were amenable to common sense.

Unfortunately, common sense isn't very common these days and disagreeing

with your doctor can lead to serious consequences. Because the government

agrees with the premise, " Doctor Knows Best, " parents can be

deemed unfit when they refuse a medical treatment. Children can be

removed from the home by CPS until proof of parental fitness is

determined by a judge. The judge can also be the doctor himself:

Physicians have the right to eject entire families from their practice

when an obstreperous patient refuses - or even questions - routine

vaccinations.

There have been several high-profile standoffs in the last several years

where judges, medical doctors and the State have forced medical

treatments on children against the objections of their parents.

In January, 2005, 13-year-old Wernecke was diagnosed with Hodgkin's

disease. When 's parents, Michele and Wernecke, refused

radiation treatments for their daughter, Texas CPS intervened. was

placed in foster care for four months and her mother was arrested on

charges of interfering with child custody.

In July, 2006, the story of 9-month-old Riley made the news when

he was diagnosed with a kidney problem that required emergency surgery.

His mother disagreed and smuggled her son out of the hospital. Several

days later, he was found and sent back to the hospital; the mother was

charged with second-degree kidnapping and sent to jail. As it turned out,

the surgery was not emergently needed after all.

Also in 2006, the story of Abraham Cherrix resulted in a change in the

law in Virginia. After enduring three months of ineffective treatments

for Hodgkin's lymphoma, Abraham rejected his doctor's recommendation for

a second round of chemotherapy. He chose to use more natural, nontoxic

methods that included alternative medicine. A judge ordered him back to

chemotherapy, starting a debate on whether the government should get

involved in family medical decisions. A compromise was reached in

Accomack County Circuit Court: Abraham was not required to have

chemotherapy if his family consented to treatment with a radiation

oncologist who used both conventional and alternative methods. As a

result of this high-profile case, Gov. M. Kaine signed a bill

dubbed " Abraham's Law, " giving parents and children more leeway

in refusing medical treatment. 9

These stories should raise the eyebrows of every parent, leading them to

ask the question, " Who really owns your child? " and more to the

point, " Who owns your child's body? " At what age a child

" officially " become the age of majority in the U.S and have the

right to decide what goes in his body?

Children Making Adult Decisions

The answer varies widely among the states and in some locales, the

very young have the right to make very big decisions. For example, a

youth can legally get married with parental consent in Georgia,

Mississippi, Michigan, and North Carolina when 15 years of age. In Texas,

14-year-olds can wed with judicial consent, and amazingly, New Hampshire

and Pennsylvania will even allow 13-year-old girls to marry with parental

consent and court permission.

However, most states seem to delineate 16 years of age as the transition

to adulthood. Nearly every state will allow 16 year old to marry with

parental consent. At 16, a teen can hold a full-time job, travel alone

outside the country, hold a driver's permit, and have full responsibility

for someone's children as a baby sitter. In many states, 16-year-old can

even be tried as an adult for murder.

When it comes to consent to medical care, the focal point of the debate

over a minors' access to confidential services and the right to determine

his or her own care originated in 1970 with the passage of the Title X

family planning program. Since its inception, services supported by Title

X have been available to anyone who needs them without regard to age.

With the passage of time, the ability for minors to legally and fully

consent to a range of sensitive health care services--including sexual

and reproductive health care, mental health services and alcohol and drug

abuse treatment--has expanded dramatically. The trend was based on the

presumption that while parental involvement in minors' health care

decisions is desirable, many minors will not participate in medical

services if forced to involve their parents. In most cases, state consent

laws apply to all minors age 12 and older. These examples are

eye-popping:

In 25 states and the District of Columbia, all minors (12 and older) can

receive contraceptive services without parental participation.

In 28 states and the District of Columbia, all minor parents have the

right to place their child for adoption. Of these, only 4 states (LA, MI,

MN, RI) require parental consent.

In three states (CT, ME, MD) and the District of Columbia explicitly

allow minors, 12 years of age and older, to consent to an abortion

without involvement or notification of a parent. Only 22 states require

parental consent and only 11 require a parent to be notified prior to an

abortion.12

Of the 35 states with specific statutes, 30 states allow a minor to

obtain authorization for an abortion from a judge without informing her

parents. This option, given to protect a minor's constitutional right to

privacy, has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.13

All this latitude has been given to minors to ensure they have rights for

consenting to treatment. But- and this is key - they have little or no

rights when it comes to refusing medical treatment forced upon them by

doctors and the government, even when their parents support their right

to refuse.

So, where is the line between the right to refuse a medication or a

vaccine and the right of the state to forcibly intervene, even in the

event of a declared national emergency? Who gets to make the decision?

Will it be parents and smart teens, or persons in white lab coats and

black robes? For me, I will fight to maintain the line between me and

" them " at the level of my skin.

Notes:

1

" Vaccination Program That Targets Children First May Lessen Spread

of Swine Flu This Fall, " WebMD News. September 10, 2009

2

" Schools in Maine Participating With Flu

Vaccinations. "

3 " The Free

Market and Education: A Review, " by Ken Schoolland.

1996.

4 Ibid. Ken Schoolland.

www.fff.org/aboutus/press/schooland.asp

5 Salmon DA, Omer SB.

" Individual freedoms versus collective responsibility: immunization

decision-making in the face of occasionally competing

values. "

6 Rosen, J Emergency Med. 1996;14:241-243.

7 " State-sponsored

medical terrorism: Texas authorities arrest parents, kidnap their teenage

daughter, and force her through chemotherapy against her

will "

8 " Baby undergoes surgery despite mom's worries. " by M.

Otto. The News Tribune. July 2nd, 2006.

9 " Assembly Gives 14-Year-Olds A Say on Key Medical Care, "

Washington Post. February 24, 2007.

10 Wikipedia:

Marriageable age

11 Minors

and the Right to Consent to Health Care The Guttmacher Report on

Public Policy. August, 2009.

12 An

Overview of Minors' Consent Laws

13 Ibid. Minors' Consent Laws.

Read more at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sherri-tenpenny/whose-decision-is-it-anyw_b_335374.html

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm or

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start October 28 & 29

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccineclass.htm or

http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm