Should people under 18 be allowed to purchase all (not some, but all) prescription medications, assuming they have a prescription from their doctor, without permission from their guardian?
Um, I had to get medications all my life. And if they have a pre-existing condition like mine, uh yeah... Seizure meds can be expensive, so the guardian might have to help pay unless the 18 year old has insurance...that shit can get expensive :(
I appreciate that you specified ALL medications.
No, not at all. Minors have a guardian for a reason.
I'm leaning towards "yes" on this one.
I think the age should be 16.
I would hope parents are aware
The age filters are great-
Id just like to apologize for accusing you of things you didn't actually say/do.
Thank you. I get lumped in with them a lot and while I agree with them on some things, I'm not nearly as extreme on others. I really did tell both of them they were out of line, I just didn't do it in that poll because I didn't think it would help.
Yes I understand that.
I have to remind myself not to hold you accountable for the things that they do; I've always liked you apart from them.
Sometimes I fail at that though, so again, I am sorry.
Thanks Hayley, I really appreciate it.
Nope. Teenagers need to get used to the fact that until they're 18, they need parental permission for just about everything. It's for their protection.
Sure, what if Mom was sick and had the kid pick it up. I used to buy beer for Pop!
No. They shouldn't be able to buy any prescription without their parents' permission.
Yes, but you already knew my thoughts on the subject.
For all meds? Not just bc?
a dr shouldn't see anyone under 18 without a guardian
For real? That's crap.
They shouldn't be allowed to go alone? When I was a teenager I got sick, thought I had the flu and went to the doctor, it was next door to my school and my parents were at work.
everytime my minor kids went me or my wife had to be there before the dr would see them.
makes ot hard for a minor to get a prescription without their parents knowledge
I agree, grant. With my kids' pediatrician I don't need to be in the room as they get older, but I'll get a record of what happened and I get to approve meds and treatments.
If a doctor writes a prescription, that should be the end of it. Why would parents/guardians know better than a doctor?
Doctors aren't infallible. For example, my doctor wanted to give me gardasil the year it came out. My mom said no, and now look at all the issues with it. She also said no to the pill, which it turned out later makes me fertile. Another good call.
That's not the issue, the question is if a girl should be allowed to get birth control without the parents involved.
Is this for an illness? Whats the big secret?
Tom, the question is any prescription in general. Not just birth control.
Tom, I'm not sure get what you're saying. This question is about all prescription medication, not just birth control.
Doctors don't personally know the child. Doctors know what they're told. If my kid wants pills for a sleep disorder they've never been diagnosed with who is the doctor to call my kid a liar, or assume complete honesty?
I know your opinions. If we exclude birth control, why would you ever have the parents decide if a boy or girl should be able to get prescription medication. The doctor prescribed it.
Because the parent is ultimately responsible for making sure the child takes it responsibly, because the parent is a more accurate source of info about the child's history, drug allergies, and other meds they're on to avoid dangerous drug interaction
Also, because the parent has a right to know in the event the child has some sort of reaction or allergy. If I walk in the room and my child is having seizures, I would want to know that they just started a med with that possible side effect.
Because some drugs have significant side effects that can alter behavior or judgment, or may impair his ability to drive a car, or may require certain dietary precautions.
There are a million reasons.
The bottom line for me is that kids have to learn, through experience and their parents teaching them, how to safely manage prescription meds. If I am stripped of that opportunity, then it puts my child at risk.
I've asked my pediatrician about this and he has told me he wouldn't ever give my kids a prescription without informing me first- even a simple antibiotic- because kids just don't take the risks seriously and that's what parents are for.
Obviously, as kids get older, I would give them more responsibility over managing this stuff themselves, but I would still be there and aware of what they're doing to make sure they don't run into problems and develop good habits.
Also because if they can't fill a Rx without my consent, It helps to eliminate the possibility that they may go to a doctor I don't approve of, or who doesn't know them, or who will prescribe them medications I feel are unsafe or unwarranted.
Well what do you know... Milkdud just made me change my mind about something.
Don't let it go to your head.
I understand the want/need for the parent to be informed, but I still believe the dr should be the final authority. It's not like a 12 year old is going to schedule an appointment, find transportation, and then somehow deceive the dr into faulty...
Tom-I've got another example. My bothers rather allergic to penicillin. Hed have been given more than one script containing it had my mom not vetoed it in favor of another medication for whatever the issue was. Without her input, he'd be hospitalized
Diagnoses. You are right that parents should take responsibility for teaching responsible medicine use and whatever other philosophies come with it, but mandating parental permission is inefficient and unnecessary in most instances.
Drug allergies should already be on file with the family physician- the only person a child is able to see anyway, without much parental assistance. Sure, Drs are not infallible, but they are the best person to make these decisions.
Elucidate- doctors make recommendations based on their assessment of the information available, but require the patient to make the final decision about the proper course of action. The final decision is always up to the patient or guardian.
When a doctor gives you a prescription for something, that isn't a guarantee that the medication is safe, effective, or even appropriate for your condition or your particular needs. Any doctor will tell you this. It's malpractice 101.
This is why the final decision is always left to the patient- to weigh the risks, benefits, and other factors the doctor can't always be aware of, regardless of how complete they think the medical history is.
Right. I'm just not convinced that parents always know best. For example, we recently had an outbreak in California due to the anti-vaccination movement. Lay individuals should not override the medical advice of experts. Although, ideally, it is
A collaborative process with informed and supportive parents, this is not always the reality.
Some doctors absolutely do not always know whats best. Even at my age doctors have given me meds that have made me more sick than the reason I came in for.
Addicts will do anything to get their fix, include but not limited to bumming rides from older friends. It's not far fetched to think a twelve year old is capable of getting to a doctor without parents even knowing.
Foxy - how is 12 year old getting to doctor and when? By car? During school hours? School contacts parents when they don't show up. And I don't know any 12 year olds who have money for a dr appt and medication.
Elucidate- everything you're saying would work just as well if applied to a forced medical intervention policy on anyone.
Cookie- determined kids can do a lot of things. I worked with a 13 year old girl once who had a 28 year old boyfriend. He drove her to appts, found a dr who would prescribe heavy duty pain meds and birth control, and paid for them out of pocket.
I see what you mean, but from the youth's perspective, it's either the parent or the doctor 's choice anyway. I'd like it better if 16 were the age of allowed medical autonomy.
How old are you, btw?
I can see that happening. Thats why it should never be legal for doctors to do this.
The twelve year old's eighteen year old boyfriend of course. She gets money from the neighbor for pulling weeds. I thought she was a good kid going through a rebellious phase. Or I'm an inattentive single parent working too much to notice.
Man, my hypothetical drug addict teen is a brat
Yes, in the case their parent isn't there, not because they're hiding that they're on the medication.
Well first of all unless they are paying cash for medication it would go through parents insurance. I don't believe so to answer your question. But I would like to know why any kid 18 years and younger needs a permission ship/signed document from
Parents/guardian for all medical procedures except abortions.
Because I know, not the doctor, that my kids is a compulsive and convincing liar/con artist. She's also addicted to pain killers for her "fibromyalgia". He just prescribes.
Interesting combination of the two questions.
Trepid hickory asked this about birth control, so I wanted to see how consistent people would be
I see a difference in them Milk. If there's no parental permission for the pill, the kids hiding it. If there's no signed slip on, say, seizure medication, it's much much more likely the parent knows.
Are you saying we should make an exception for BC because kids will be deceptive about it?
Unless you're saying doctors should be more lenient on medically necessary medication rather than elective meds like birth control (when used for birth control and not some other condition).
I'm more curious about the opposite case. So far a few want to allow kids to buy guns, but not medication. That's just absurd in my opinion.
No, I'm saying I think that's worse because it's so much less likely the parent knows about it.