You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Enigmatic_Continuum ago

I'm torn on this. Most children aren't going to tell if they're being sexually abused, especially if it's a parent or guardian, so asking for permission to chick for VD wouldn't go over well, and the child is kept in danger. Then, the catch 22 where the Dr.s are paid to reveal info to higher ups who are interested in children who are being abused, and their abusers. Just like in Cathy O'Brien's case where the gov't intercepted her father's bestiality video he was sending through the mail, and the gov't basicly hired him and took control over Cathy.

We need to keep an eye on this statute and Connecticut in general because we know that it's a hot bed for satanic acivities. http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/whats-the-most-satanic-city-in-america/index.html

scarlettm512 ago

But are they just going to be doing random checks? If not, then if they have a reason to be suspicious about possible sexual abuse, don't they already have the right to take the child into protective custody and interview and examine the child to determine if abuse is happening?

This law seems (to me anyway) to be more about allowing children 12 and up to be treated as adults when it comes to sexually transmitted diseases. This allows them to be treated and for the treatment to be kept secret. This law actually is great for sexual predators (maybe not actual pedophiles since under the age of 12, they do have to report it). If they are abusing a 13 or 14 year old child and give them a veneral disease, they can now take them to the doctor secretly and have them treated and the physicians -- by law -- cannot tell the parents about it. Most parents would want to know who the partner was that gave them the disease and now, kids won't be pressured to divulge any information if they are being abused by a teacher or coach or priest, etc.

I don't see this as a good thing at all. Parents have a right and a need to know if their children are sexually active -- especially if they have contracted a veneral disease. It might be fine to say that a minor can be treated even without parental permission, but I still think that parental notification is warranted. In the event that a parent is suspected, they should be able to open an investigation into the parent without divulging the STD info until the investigation is complete -- but parents should still be told. If they are innocent of molestation, they need to know what is going on with their child and if they are guilty, they need to be criminally charged.

Enigmatic_Continuum ago

I'm not disagreeing with you. This is a double-edged sword. Like I said, if the parents or guardians are the abusers, they won't give consent anyway.

pizzagate_crusader2 ago

I get that. It just seems that all the laws done "for the benefit of the child" also create the opportunity for a child to be exploited.

Enigmatic_Continuum ago

I agree, which is why they purposefully do these catch 22 types of activities. They just hoping people won't keep eagle eyes on them, so we have to remain vigilant.

eucalyptus_spearmint ago

This is exactly right.