Okay. It has become clear that by focusing on the issue of contraception, my message was lost. It has also become clear that my argument was not as cohesive and well-structured as I wanted it to be. For this post, I have decided to deactivate the “idiot box” to devote a surprising 70% of my attention to this issue.
First of all, I am extremely thankful that Liam dislikes ‘journalist’ who presented this issue in the first place. It was nice that the beginnings of our global conflict could start with a mutual hatred for a third-party. So, thank you Liam.
Now, to the meat of the post.
The Inspiration for the Post in the First Place
Due to the ill-conceived portrayal of the issue the first time around, it became clear to my readers that the issue I was debating was whether contraception was appropriate in a middle school or not. This is incorrect. The actual impetus for this post was not the issue of contraception. It had actually cascaded from a multitude of things. It began with the immunization clinics here in Stratford, and the control that parents can exert over the health care decisions of their students. It was amplified by the concerned parent phoning the university to request any information we could provide concerning the marks, attendance in classes, and library activities of their offspring. There was a light touch of it from the ongoing debate from violent video games. However, the spark that detonated the powderkeg was the contraception issue. In reality, I was frustrated over the rights, priviledges, and expected duties of a parent.
Make no mistake, I did have some issues with the proposed contraception plan but it was not on the basis of providing the contraception itself. Fortunately, this ties into the overarching issue of parental roles. The more I think about the entire topic, the more I fear it is too difficult for me to express into words. It feels like trying to focus on the individual motions of every single person in North America in a single moment. My ears begin to bleed and I feel like screaming. I will try my best not to gush all over the kind readers.
Some Clarification
Let me clarify my position upfront:
I support contraception.
I am a tragic amalgamation of pro-choice and pro-life. For the most part, I accept the necessity for an abortion to occur in most situations (although I cannot say I jump and shout “Yippee” every time an abortion takes place). On the other hand, if I was to be placed in a situation where a joint production of Jordan and Jordan’s ladyfriend was in-development but was unlikely to be green-lit, my state of disappointment and grief would surely be palpable. Sadly, the final choice in that matter does not nor will it ever fall to the male. But that is outside of the current issue.
My grievance is - and always has been - the murky legal, moral and ethical grounds that legislating parenting can get us entagled with.
Definitions
Before we even return to this tirade, I want to define some terms. For my purposes, a family will not consider of the typical father-mother-offspring configuration. I understand fully that this breed of family is one of thousands of different combinations. Families will be defined as consisting of two levels: parent - dependent. Parents will be used to refer to whatever authority figures exist in the familial bond. Dependents could consist of biological or adopted children, nieces and nephews. Typically, it will be considered as a dependent human below the age of majority who is of able mind and body (because all future arguments would be inapplicable to truly dependent dependents). Let us begin.
Eroding Social Bonds
We exist in a society that has made it increasingly difficult for families to exist on the same social level that they once did. Pressures on the time, money and presence of individuals are increasing constantly. Families rarely engage in communal meals or quality time. Parents expect obedience, assistance and respect from their dependents; dependents expect affection, nurturing care, and support (monetary or otherwise). The family still exists as such. However, the difficulty with which these relationships are forged is increasing rapidly. Dependents have less and less dependency on their parents while parents have less and less time for their dependents.
Without a reliance on one another, there is less and less of a need to communicate. There is no need to open up to eachother. To relate. To engage eachother socially. When they are young, this likely appears to be a non-issue. They will have fun with their friends. They will learn and develop in school and forge lasting relationships with cohorts. It only becomes an issue when dependents reach their teenage years. Everything from menarche (or spermarche) through to the age where they can vote is likely an increasingly difficult struggle. An uphill battle.
As if it were not bad enough that familial social bonds were eroding simply based on the stresses of modern life, they are also being torn apart based on constant legislation of parental action. This may not be a problem, but it is certainly an almost insurmountable obstacle. All of a sudden, a parent finds it difficult to raise their dependents in accordance with their belief system or according to their ideals. Should they even be able to? And if they cannot, why are parents tied to a dependent for twenty years if the government continues to impose rules to further seperate parent and dependent? Eventually, the parent-dependent bond is going to be nothing more than a steady flow of funds to support a child until they have gained independency.
Is that right? Is that what we should strive towards?
In Issues Regarding Health…
The power (or lack thereof) that a parent possesses concerning the medical well-being of their dependents seems to fluctuate wildly depending on the situation. For example, it is standard practice in the Ministry of Health that consent for vaccinations must be given by the parents of all dependents below the age of fifteen. Any and all dependents above this age are able to give consent independently. This seems entirely logical. Parents of dependents less than the age of fifteen are parents of dependents who are ill-informed, so the parents should be made to consent. Furthermore, they are the parents of dependents who are not taxpayers. I can only assume that there is a legal reason for this. Perhaps government services can only be accepted or declined by those who have paid for them. Difficult to say. But there must be some justification.
As a result of this parental control, if consent is given on behalf of a dependent then they must be vaccinated. The dependent cannot hand in a consent form from a parent who wants them to get the vaccine and then say that they do not want it. If the form has been signed, the child gets vaccinated. Otherwise, the parent will be notified and will be asked for clarification. Doctor-patient confidentiality is waived because the decision rests in the hands of the parent. Seems perfectly reasonable.
That is until you find out that a dependent can consent or deny any medical procedure from the age of seven onwards, as long as they have the effects explained to them by a physician. So, hang on one second. A dependent can choose whether they will get a lumbar puncture when they are seven but they have to be fifteen or older before they can make a decision about vaccination. What is with this inconsistency?
Then you continue around the circle to the horror stories of parents who refuse treatment on behalf of their dependents for procedures that conflict with various religious beliefs or other opinions (read: crippling psychosis). In this situation, the parent has complete control despite the fact that it is a surgical procedure that could save the life of a dependent. What the hell is going on here?
Ultimately, I have to wonder how they rationalize that a seven year old can make a decision regarding necessary surgical treatments, but they cannot be allowed to make a decision regarding an elective vaccination.
…Specifically Regarding the Contraception in Portland…
It is due to the above ambiguity of choice that the contraception in Portland issue - while not inherently bad - seems like an idea plagued with potential flaws. How does contraception fit into the “grand design”? Must a parent approve of the prescribing of medication (as in most other circumstances)? Or does a dependent dealing with an adult issue mean that the decision can be made by the dependent as if they were an adult? Is birth control grouped with a life-saving procedure or an elective treatment? It is confusing. But what worried me more was the following:
How well are these young girls educated regarding the pill? I am assuming that the majority are sexually inexperienced. Are they aware of what the pill does and does not do? I know how tempermental the government can be about “how issues are explained”. Will they tell the girl that the pill does not protect against STIs and that they should ensure that the boy wears a condom? Or would this be viewed by the taxpayers/voters as a means of coersion or persuasion to engage in sexual activity? If they abstain from the “condom advice”, will girls be fully aware of what they should and should not do? Or will they foolishly believe that the pill makes them safe? How well are they being educated?
How exactly do they dispense the birth control pill in these school clinics? Do they account for any allergies that might make taking the pill harmful? Do the doctors/nurses/random health workers at this clinic have access to the medical information of these children? Do they know what medication they are on? Is it standard procedure at the clinic to make these young women undergo a physical and a blood test (which I believe is/was standard practice to get a prescription for the pill). If so, are these physicals conducted on school property? By whom? Who works in these clinics anyway?
These are the kinds of things that would run through my mind if I was a parent of a fifteen year old girl at this school. Don’t get me wrong. I would want my daughter to be safe. But just because I need a kidney transplant does not mean I will get the procedure done by a blind surgeon. That is to say, just because they might need protection, doesn’t mean I would let them go to some potentially ill-trained health worker. The pill cannot just be handed out to people. A procedure must be followed.
What is the Role of a Parent These Days?
I feel that the brief aside that was just concluded may have also dampened the effect of my post. I’ll have to live with it though. I feel I have explained my reasoning for being terrified by the Portland incident.
Let us continue:
The reason that the Portland issue irks me is not because of the issues it deals with, but because of the larger issues it represents. In modern society, being a parent must be growing increasingly frustrating. The government and other social institutions are pulling on you from all directions with the proper way to raise your child and the due process that must be undergone to be a good parent. And I don’t understand it. It seems like parents have been assigned control of trivial matters (like the violent video game debacle), yet they have control over the well-being of their dependents ripped from them in others.
Does the government have the right to circumvent parental authority on certain matters regarding the education and health care of dependents? If they do, how far does that power extend to? Can the government tell you how to raise your children? Can the government prevent you from intervening if your child elects to have a blood transfusion if it is against your beliefs?
I know that situations in which a parent refuses this treatment for their child usually ends in tragedy, but - if we look at it from another point of view - how can other parents dictate how your child is raised? Could I tell Liam what he can and cannot do when raising his child? To what extent? How do we justify any of this?
Because of all the restrictions, sanctions, and laws imposed upon parents, I formed my original post and this follow-up. Traditionally, parents care for their dependents. They only seek to do what is best for them. So, how are we deciding when their judgments can be superseded? How can we decide what is best for children communally?
It seems that parents are not even parents anymore. They are an extension of the government, enforcing the various rules and regulations that have been dictated to them to raise children in a way that is approved by the masses. And while in some situations, that may appear to be the best for the child…is any of it really right?
Concluding Note: I had to wrap this up much earlier than I thought. I have a PSYCH midterm approaching, and I really don’t have the energy to delve into everything I wanted to. The issue is so multi-layered and confusing that I am beginning to lose myself in it. I just cannot imagine being a parent and being told that I must do this for my child because my method is incorrect, especially if the justification is inconsistent.