I understand the reasoning behind all this

Post #221,296 by bionerd 8/28/05 10:26:52 AM Reply	I understand the reasoning behind all this but it can also send the wrong messages to kids. It tells the kids they've done something so terrible that it requires protection from their parents. There is an underlying assumption that parents are going to go ballistic. It places more stigma on the behavior, making the kids more ashamed and more afraid to approach their parents. And it also sends the message to parents that their kids are deviants and require protection from an outside source. This policy of confidentiality contributes to the problem that it is supposed to be addressing. It's a sticky wicket.
Post #221,303 by imqwerky 8/28/05 12:29:40 PM Reply	I agree But I think the doctors should approach the parent and say "Now, don't freak out, but..." and offer some tips to the parent(s) for handling the situation. That way, there is some "training" involved that will encourage communication with the child and not turn it into some kind of finger-pointing. I think most parents would take a loving, concerned approach. It's the redneck, uneducated parents that would start with the name-calling and blame-throwing. Unless I am just totally naive. :-/ Peace, Amy " I tend to believe the great voices of peace throughout history {were} right, and this voice from this little hamlet here in Texas is absolutely wrong. The world is watching what you do here. It is important that you be calm, that you be peaceful, but you be firm. My grandmother {used to} say, \ufffdFight them \ufffdtil hell freezes over, and when hell freezes over, fight them on the ice.\ufffd Dallas Reverend Peter Johnson, former staff member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Post #221,312 by boxley 8/28/05 3:00:49 PM Reply	try punch throwing, not blame throwing not confined to rednecks, hell most rednecks were scoring off their cousins younger than 16. It would be the uptight religeous nuts like this [link\|http://www.rickross.com/groups/house.html\|http://www.rickross....groups/house.html] that you need to be afraid of. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #221,446 by jb4 8/29/05 2:20:23 PM Reply	Puh-LEEZE, Amy...Who you crappin'?!? But I think the doctors should approach the parent and say "Now, don't freak out, but..." read: "I'm about to tell you something you won't want to hear, and it's all but guaranteed to piss you off. Oh, and its about your daughter, whom you still think is as pure as the driven snow, but as it turns out is actually somewhere between basic promiscuous and a total slut. But don't take it personally, and just sit there calmly while I proceed to skewer evey last pretense about your daughter's, and your, moral standards." Yeah, comma, right! jb4 shrub●bish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #221,497 by imqwerky 8/29/05 6:17:50 PM Reply	Now wait a gosh darn minute, boyo! The days of "Ol' Doc So-and-so" are gone. Doctors nowadays give the facts straight up, with little or no value judgement attached. I don't know what kind of backwater town you live in, but here in the Mighty Metroplex, doctors just give you the straight scoop. And they don't editorialize whilst they are doin' it. Hence, my comment. I know I am more likely to have a doctor that says,"Now, don't get your shorts in a wad, but..." , than a doctor who hurls epithets at my kid for their promiscuity. If I did have a doc like the latter, my words to him/her would be like The Donald's..."You're Fired!" As a matter of fact, I have fired a doctor because of her inconsideration with regards to a child of mine. My daughter was having a series of UTI's. She has always had a phobia of doctors and this one had the gall to suggest my daughter had been molested...IN FRONT OF MY 8 YO DAUGHTER! It was totally unprofessional and only served to heighten my daughter's phobia. The appropriate action would have been for her to usher me into her private office and discuss the matter. Nevermind the fact that my daughter has never been molested, the issue was from my daughter's improper hygiene technique...which was rememdied by instruction on the proper way to wipe. When told of this heinous action, other doctors shudder with disbelief at the callousness of the situation, which leads me to believe that the bad ones are in the minority. We just happened to have one of the bad ones...cancelled out by the myriad good ones. So,the argument becomes "What type of relationship do you have with your doctor?" rather than "You're Whistlin' Dixie at Yankee Stadium if you think your doctor won't editorialize." Believe it or not, there are plenty of doctors who don't even want to go there for fear of a slander/defamation of character lawsuit. How 'bout them apples? Take a piece o' one, Amy " I tend to believe the great voices of peace throughout history {were} right, and this voice from this little hamlet here in Texas is absolutely wrong. The world is watching what you do here. It is important that you be calm, that you be peaceful, but you be firm. My grandmother {used to} say, \ufffdFight them \ufffdtil hell freezes over, and when hell freezes over, fight them on the ice.\ufffd Dallas Reverend Peter Johnson, former staff member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Post #221,586 by mmoffitt 8/30/05 10:52:12 AM Reply	Get to the source of the problem.. There are fewer and fewer generalists out there chiefly because that ain't where the money is and money is the real motivator for physicians. Back in the 70's a lot of people hated the way they were treated by physicians at Kaiser because Kaiser physicians didn't have time to get to know their patients or their families. Now days, with the overwhelming majority of clinicians more concerned with private wealth than public health, most physicians operate like Kaiser physicians: churn, baby, churn, gotta see enough patients today to pay for my kids private schools, my country club memberships, my multi-million dollar home, my chalet, my beach house, etc. ad nauseum. That's why we have this predicament with kids. If the physican actually had time to get to know his wealth generators (read patients) and their families, the physician could use his own judgement about whether or not anything should be said to the parents. But time is money and practicing medicine is almost exclusively about the acquisition of wealth for the clinician. The days when your physician actually knew or cared about your family (except for how much money they could make from you) are gone forever. Patients are "consumers of healthcare" in the modern paradigm, and physicians are merely hawkers. bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Post #221,650 by jb4 8/30/05 2:29:52 PM Reply	There's that literary device again... If the physican actually had time to get to know his wealth generators (read patients) and their families, the physician could use his own judgement about whether or not anything should be said to the parents. I hope that now you know how to interpret this sentence, Amy. ;-) jb4 shrub●bish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #221,697 by Ashton 8/30/05 6:35:36 PM Reply	But he'd spell it 'judgment'.. Oh! those Idiom-thingies
Post #221,649 by jb4 8/30/05 2:26:51 PM Reply	Apparently, there is a literary style in use here... ...with which you are unfamiliar. Sorry bout that. Let me try to explain without using that [link\|#literarydevice\|literary device]. When someone in a position of authority, who has (or potentially has) information that can be unpleasant to listen to, prefaces his/her statement with something along the lines of, "Don't freak out, but...", you are immediately keyed to expect the worst. It has been my experience (on both ends of such a statement — which is why I don't preface my remarks so) that once so conditioned, the purported listener actually stops actively listening, and starts racing ahead filling in the spaces between the words with mind noise twinged with the coloring of the aforementioned worst. So when the doctor in your scenario starts out with, "Don't freak out, but...",what is really happening is that the doctor is conditioning the recipient of the bad news about his daughter to freak out, with negative effects to both the immediate problem at hand (the curing of the disease) and the long term relationship with the daughter ("You promiscuous slut...your grounded until you're 30!"). My response, girlo, is to your simpleminded, almost pollyannaish approach to something that needs anything except a simpleminded, pollyannish approach. Clear? The "literary device" I was referring to is the use of the word "read:" (with the colon), followed by a translation of the target phrase into what the phrase is supposed to mean to someone when they read it. I'm sorry if you were unaware of the device; I hope this explanation makes my previous post more clear. jb4 shrub●bish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #221,654 by imqwerky 8/30/05 2:52:42 PM Reply	Bite me, asshole (new thread) Created as new thread #221653 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=221653\|Bite me, asshole] " I tend to believe the great voices of peace throughout history {were} right, and this voice from this little hamlet here in Texas is absolutely wrong. The world is watching what you do here. It is important that you be calm, that you be peaceful, but you be firm. My grandmother {used to} say, \ufffdFight them \ufffdtil hell freezes over, and when hell freezes over, fight them on the ice.\ufffd Dallas Reverend Peter Johnson, former staff member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Post #221,320 by Ashton 8/28/05 6:07:47 PM Reply	Well said. Maybe the clearest summation I've seen (and I've read a few.. until wearied with the blatherscape that so often surrounds, renders unuseable, much legislation dealing with social-dumbth :( In a society which virtually-Runs on the daily euphemism (I gotta tinkle) and via its Puritan roots: one utterly FUCKED re anything whatsoever to do with bodily functions -- there shall be no surcease from (kinda like the Windows-OS?) add-on patchwork -- all in well-meaning efforts to somehow address the Situation. Good Luck to those in the middle of a Situation; may they run into a Laura or Critter & Co. and not some Righteous-based popinjay drunk with too much admin power, first. I do not think that the sort of conversations as occur here, happen very often for and with - the least-ept, who shall continue with: Humiliation first, Blame second.. and assuredly Trauma, too bloody-often also of the blunt- sort. (Wish I were smart enough to conceive a way-around dogged, traditional farmily-dumbth - as might be effectively applied, in brief-enough time span? But I'm not.) Ashton
Post #221,434 by bionerd 8/29/05 1:57:37 PM Reply	Just for the record we do say "tinkle" in my house, although my son has begun to say "void" and gets a big kick out of saying "I voided 50 cc's". Makes him feel very clinical, I suppose.
Post #221,354 by ben_tilly 8/29/05 7:19:49 AM Reply	It can but... I've known people that this policy benefited. A lot. I think that, on balance, it is a good thing. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #221,362 by drewk 8/29/05 9:02:19 AM Reply	Another problem They should make an exception once the parents ask. The justification for not informing parents is that some kids will not report if they think their parents will find out. I can buy that. But once the parents ask, they already know something is up. Parents know what the types of things that could be wrong that they won't be told about. Now the message they're getting is, "Your child has a sexual or drug problem, but we won't tell you exactly what." Assuming the parents we're worried about are the ones who are going to overreact, does this sound like an answer designed to calm them down? Or does it sound like license to speculate their own worst-cast scenario? === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #221,366 by jbrabeck 8/29/05 9:44:14 AM Reply	Thank you for expressing my thoughts My daughter talked to me. She told me, but she wasn't sure what the nurse had told her (daughter has a comprehension/listening problem). I called the clinic and told them what my daughter had said. I even stated the assumed diagnosis. Nurse said she couldn't talk to me, but would gladly call my daughter again. That would have the same effect as repeating something LOUDER to someone who doesn't speak the language. Repeating and louder won't have any effect on comprehension. Once clinic knows that child has talked to parent(s) information should be made available. I fully understand the need for confidentiality prior to child informing parents, but not after. A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
Post #221,423 by tuberculosis 8/29/05 12:15:18 PM 8/21/07 5:43:35 AM Reply	Should provide consult w/ both of you there if minor asks. "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 05:43:35 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #221,520 by ben_tilly 8/29/05 7:43:30 PM Reply	I still don't like it First you're wrong about the message that the parents get. As it stands the message that they get is, We're not at liberty to discuss this topic. They neither get confirmation or denial that sex and drugs came up as issues. They get a big, blank slate. They don't get told, There is a problem, but we won't tell you what. They get told nothing. Review the case in point. The child gave out the clue that there was a potential problem. Nothing that the clinic said gave that away. Now your policy is basically an open invitation for suspicious parents to go on "fishing expeditions" to see if something is up. Which completely defeats the point of having confidentiality here in the first place. Again, consider the case where the parents run a drug operation, or the child is being sexually abused by a parent. Do you really think that the parent should be told what the child said? And before you suggest that the policy be to restrict what is said in that case, be aware that this is a signal to the parent that their kid said something they shouldn't, and further the clinic may not know of the issue, but telling a seemingly innocuous detail to the parent might trigger rage. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #221,523 by drewk 8/29/05 8:08:41 PM Reply	It's the dog that didn't bark If I call the hospital and ask what they treated my minor daughter for, I'll hear one of three types of things: 1. We haven't treated your daughter. 2. We set a broken arm. 3. We can't tell you. If I don't hear 1 or 2, I know it must be 3. And I know what the possible reasons are. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #221,524 by ben_tilly 8/29/05 8:13:42 PM Reply	Point. But... all that the kid has to do is go in for 2 reasons. Then you'll hear all about the one that the kid wants you to hear about. This works very well if the topic comes up during, say, a routine physical. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #221,534 by boxley 8/29/05 9:37:15 PM Reply	then you ask who signed the consent to treat forms unless its a planned parenthood clinic or a county std clinic, then you know what they are being treated for. Also if your insurance is dinged you have every right to see the records submitted for payment, then request the insurance not pay the claim until you have a diagnosis. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #221,580 by mmoffitt 8/30/05 10:34:57 AM Reply	Or, given the predilection physicians show for ... electronic records and internet transfer of such, just hack it ;0) bcnu, Mikem It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell

Welcome to IWETHEY!