Thursday, February 23, 2006

People who comment on this blog-post are REALLY cool! (Privacy Rights of Minors)

The following excerpt was taken from an article published on http://news.FindLaw.com on February 8th, 2006. The article was written by Sherry F. Colb and can be found by clicking on the title of the article found below.

----------

Should Sexually Active Minors Have A Right To Privacy? A Kansas Case Reveals The Dark Side Of Mandatory Reporting.

(Excerpt From Article's Conclusion)

Just to step into that mindset for a moment, imagine that what we are talking about is a pediatrician discovering that a teenager has been raped by a parent. The teenager begs the pediatrician not to reveal the information to anyone, but the pediatrician worries that the abuse will continue unless she steps in. The teenager's privacy interests point in one direction, while his interest in safety and the termination of the abuse points in another. Add to these interests the fact that other teenagers who learn that their doctors, too, will report a rape to the authorities may choose to keep their victimization to themselves.

Looking at the dilemma in this way demonstrates that mandatory reporting statutes -- even when they are applied to seriously abusive circumstances -- can potentially do more harm than good. This reality should play a role in the decision whether to embrace mandatory reporting statutes -- however broad or narrow -- as a way to deal with abuse. In the individual case, it might seem outrageously irresponsible to keep secret an ongoing molestation, but the law must consider its own impact on the run of cases and any chilling effect that mandatory disclosure might have on the very population it is meant to protect.

Mandatory Reporting Statutes, even at their best, thus pit the particular against the general: do we forcibly rescue one person from harm, at the risk of frightening away fifty others from even broaching the subject with a professional?

The question, moreover, is difficult, no matter how significant the alleged abuse. But when, as in the case of teen sex, there is considerable controversy about whether the conduct is even abusive, it seems highly irresponsible to pursue the zero-tolerance approach that the Kansas Attorney General has adopted.

The privacy rights of teenagers and the hope that fewer of them will have sex prematurely both counsel a far more nuanced approach.

----------

We all place a high value and priority upon our privacy. In a situation such as rape, as mentioned above, how should the law determine which is of greater value: protecting the victim from further victimization via mandatory reporting (and thereby hindering the likelihood that others will be willing to see their doctors/health-professionals in fear of having their abuse publicized) or protecting the privacy rights of others (which could ultimatelyl lead to victims being more open/free about seeing their doctors and consulting health professionals since the fear of having their situation publicized is less)?

Even in situations where a minor is sexually active and rape is not a factor, is the law responsible for requiring such relationships to be publicly identified by those health care providers and educators who are aware of it? Isn't this a violation of the privacy rights of minors? Or do the privacy rights of minors take a back-seat to society's general belief that minors are not mature enough to be sexually active? Some might even say that the law is out of line for determining who is sexually active and who is not.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home