Thai Teens To Be Allowed To Test For HIV/AIDS Without Need For Parents' Consent

[webfact]

Teens to Be Allowed to Test for HIV/AIDS Without Need for Parents' Consent

BANGKOK: -- The Medical Council is preparing to issue a regulation to allow teens aged 15 and above to seek HIV/AIDS testing without the need for their parents' consent. The regulation may be extended to sexually transmitted diseases.

Adviser to the Medical Council Prof. Dr. Somsak Lohleka said HIV/AIDS testing are allowed in those under 18 years of age only with their parents' consent. However, with teens engaging in sexual activities earlier than before and them being in the risk group for the spread of HIV/AIDS, this regulation must be amended to allow teens to test for HIV/AIDS.

The council has not reached a conclusion as to what age the limit for HIV/AIDS testing without parents' consent will be lowered to but it will most likely be 15 years. Moreover, the council may decide to allow sexually transmitted disease testing without parents' consent as well.

The Medical Council is to meet again on March 19 to discuss the issue.

The Medical Council will also ask for free healthcare scheme coverage for these tests for teens so they don't have to pay and for the tests to be available at all medical institutions and not just the Anonymous Clinic. Moreover, the frequency of tests will not be limited.

-- Tan Network 2012-02-16

[Reasonableman]

How was school today, sweetheart? Oh, school was fine, thanks. By the way I got tested for HIV-AIDS/herpes/gonorrhea/syphilis and it looks like I'm infected.... That's nice, dear...

There's a fine line between the freedom to be tested without parental consent, and being forced to be tested without parental consent, for example, at school, without parents' knowledge or consent. The intent may be admirable, but individual rights, and the rights of parents to raise and protect their children, and to be informed, must be protected. Why is there a need to remove the requirement of parental consent?

Edited February 16, 2012 by Reasonableman

[soundman]

Some sensible legislation for sure.

How many teens suffer in silence and/or infect others because they are more scared of confronting over-bearing parents rather than the consequences of not getting STD's treated?

[kerryk]

How was school today, sweetheart? Oh, school was fine, thanks. By the way I got tested for HIV-AIDS/herpes/gonorrhea/syphilis and it looks like I'm infected.... That's nice, dear...

There's a fine line between the freedom to be tested without parental consent, and being forced to be tested without parental consent, for example, at school, without parents' knowledge or consent. The intent may be admirable, but individual rights, and the rights of parents to raise and protect their children, and to be informed, must be protected. Why is there a need to remove the requirement of parental consent?

To answer your question. To stop transmission of STD's. Which in my opinion is a greater good than parental rights. Having children I would rather they be protected. But that's just me.

[Reasonableman]

How was school today, sweetheart? Oh, school was fine, thanks. By the way I got tested for HIV-AIDS/herpes/gonorrhea/syphilis and it looks like I'm infected.... That's nice, dear...

There's a fine line between the freedom to be tested without parental consent, and being forced to be tested without parental consent, for example, at school, without parents' knowledge or consent. The intent may be admirable, but individual rights, and the rights of parents to raise and protect their children, and to be informed, must be protected. Why is there a need to remove the requirement of parental consent?

To answer your question. To stop transmission of STD's. Which in my opinion is a greater good than parental rights. Having children I would rather they be protected. But that's just me.

Protected yes, forced no.

[Reasonableman]

How was school today, sweetheart? Oh, school was fine, thanks. By the way I got tested for HIV-AIDS/herpes/gonorrhea/syphilis and it looks like I'm infected.... That's nice, dear...

There's a fine line between the freedom to be tested without parental consent, and being forced to be tested without parental consent, for example, at school, without parents' knowledge or consent. The intent may be admirable, but individual rights, and the rights of parents to raise and protect their children, and to be informed, must be protected. Why is there a need to remove the requirement of parental consent?

To answer your question. To stop transmission of STD's. Which in my opinion is a greater good than parental rights. Having children I would rather they be protected. But that's just me.

Indeed, and you would therefore consent. My concern is the conduct of medical procedures without youngsters' fully understanding the consent they give. I am also concerned about duress and the potential for stigmatization. There are ethical questions involved here, and I am raising them so that they can be considered and discussed.

[tombkk]

How was school today, sweetheart? Oh, school was fine, thanks. By the way I got tested for HIV-AIDS/herpes/gonorrhea/syphilis and it looks like I'm infected.... That's nice, dear...

There's a fine line between the freedom to be tested without parental consent, and being forced to be tested without parental consent, for example, at school, without parents' knowledge or consent. The intent may be admirable, but individual rights, and the rights of parents to raise and protect their children, and to be informed, must be protected. Why is there a need to remove the requirement of parental consent?

To answer your question. To stop transmission of STD's. Which in my opinion is a greater good than parental rights. Having children I would rather they be protected. But that's just me.

Protected yes, forced no.

I read the article twice and could not find anything that could be understood as forced testing. I think it is a very good step that the teenagers can go to the clinics and get tested without needing to ask their parents for consent. That's all this article is about, IMHO.

[tragickingdom]

The problem with this is that good intentions will soon tun into bullying by authorities. We are not too far a way from the moment that the police is simply sending people to hospitals for an AIDS test, just because they can.

[Reasonableman]

How was school today, sweetheart? Oh, school was fine, thanks. By the way I got tested for HIV-AIDS/herpes/gonorrhea/syphilis and it looks like I'm infected.... That's nice, dear...

There's a fine line between the freedom to be tested without parental consent, and being forced to be tested without parental consent, for example, at school, without parents' knowledge or consent. The intent may be admirable, but individual rights, and the rights of parents to raise and protect their children, and to be informed, must be protected. Why is there a need to remove the requirement of parental consent?

To answer your question. To stop transmission of STD's. Which in my opinion is a greater good than parental rights. Having children I would rather they be protected. But that's just me.

Protected yes, forced no.

I read the article twice and could not find anything that could be understood as forced testing. I think it is a very good step that the teenagers can go to the clinics and get tested without needing to ask their parents for consent. That's all this article is about, IMHO.

Please see above re ethical/legal considerations and the limitations to informed consent by a "minor". What is your stance if schools suddenly require mass screening for STDs, without telling the parents, and without obtaining ethical, informed consent? Are you OK with that? It is a slippery slope from there to taking blood samples and genetic DNA. There need to be safeguards built into the system.

[kerryk]

So send everyone to the hospital for an STD test. Who cares. Stop STD's. Worth the price.

[JohnAllan]

I don't know what autonomy the medical council enjoys with regard to these sort of decisions. But if it were to affect my son and I found out about it, you may be sure I would be testing the theory through the courts.

And BTW, what is the minimum age of consent in Thailand again?

[mamypoko]

Balance checkbook, show up on time, begin to take charge of health....etc. could not agree more with the new reg.

[catmac]

A sane and intelligent step forward for a change.

I see absolutely nothing in the proposal that even hints of coersion or force being used, that argument is a prety standard red-herring used by oponents to any change. E.g. I remember when lowering the age of consent for gay men to 16 was being debated in the U.K. the same nonsense about teenagers being forced into gay sex against their will was trotted out by those oposed to it.

For JohnAllan, the age of consent for Thai teenagers is 15, the age which the Council is suggesting for this proposal, so no need for the gasps of mock horror.

Edited February 16, 2012 by catmac

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Why is there a need to remove the requirement of parental consent?

Because most parents would freak out if their darlings were honest about what they get up to. How about in a traditional Muslim household, you think the kids are going to want to tell Daddy?

The important thing is for testing and treatment to be available to all - anything that stands in the way of that is secondary.

In countries where abortion is freely available, the same right applies.

If parents want to know what's going on with their kids, they have to take responsibility for cultivating the kind of relationship that allows for honesty, trying to "enforce" heavy-handed rules once they get past 12 or so will just drive them underground. . .

[Reasonableman]

I guess there must be more families out there where communication and understanding are problematic than I realized. That's too bad. Anyway, thank goodness we have freedom to express and share our various opinions, whether we agree or not..

[kerryk]

I don't know if my parents approved me taking the polio vaccine. But polio was wiped out. I would feel the same way about wiping out AIDS.

[Reasonableman]

I don't know if my parents approved me taking the polio vaccine. But polio was wiped out. I would feel the same way about wiping out AIDS.

You may have to wait a little longer for an AIDS vaccine, it is not quite there yet.

[jshorts]

I guess there must be more families out there where communication and understanding are problematic than I realized. That's too bad. Anyway, thank goodness we have freedom to express and share our various opinions, whether we agree or not..

Around the world (not only in Thailand) teenagers do not discuss sex with their parents. Did your family have an open discussion about all the "ins and outs" about the "birds and the bees" when you were growing up?

[tombkk]

The problem with this is that good intentions will soon tun into bullying by authorities. We are not too far a way from the moment that the police is simply sending people to hospitals for an AIDS test, just because they can.

I don't see that, why would you think so?

[tombkk]

Protected yes, forced no.

I read the article twice and could not find anything that could be understood as forced testing. I think it is a very good step that the teenagers can go to the clinics and get tested without needing to ask their parents for consent. That's all this article is about, IMHO.

Please see above re ethical/legal considerations and the limitations to informed consent by a "minor". What is your stance if schools suddenly require mass screening for STDs, without telling the parents, and without obtaining ethical, informed consent? Are you OK with that? It is a slippery slope from there to taking blood samples and genetic DNA. There need to be safeguards built into the system.

I would certainly be against such a school requirement. Luckily, this has nothing to do with the fact that teenagers will not need parents' approval.

You are saying that giving the teenagers some freedom will enslave them. I don't follow that logic at all.

[Reasonableman]

I am saying that vulnerable groups need safeguards against potential abuse, and that normal ethical practices should be adhered to.I have no idea how enslavement comes into that.

Protected yes, forced no.

I read the article twice and could not find anything that could be understood as forced testing. I think it is a very good step that the teenagers can go to the clinics and get tested without needing to ask their parents for consent. That's all this article is about, IMHO.

Please see above re ethical/legal considerations and the limitations to informed consent by a "minor". What is your stance if schools suddenly require mass screening for STDs, without telling the parents, and without obtaining ethical, informed consent? Are you OK with that? It is a slippery slope from there to taking blood samples and genetic DNA. There need to be safeguards built into the system.

I would certainly be against such a school requirement. Luckily, this has nothing to do with the fact that teenagers will not need parents' approval.

You are saying that giving the teenagers some freedom will enslave them. I don't follow that logic at all.

[jsflynn603]

How was school today, sweetheart? Oh, school was fine, thanks. By the way I got tested for HIV-AIDS/herpes/gonorrhea/syphilis and it looks like I'm infected.... That's nice, dear...

There's a fine line between the freedom to be tested without parental consent, and being forced to be tested without parental consent, for example, at school, without parents' knowledge or consent. The intent may be admirable, but individual rights, and the rights of parents to raise and protect their children, and to be informed, must be protected. Why is there a need to remove the requirement of parental consent?

The title is "Teens to be allowed" I don't see "Teens to be forced...

Now for the answer of why to remove the requirement of parentat consent:

Let's look at a muslim family. Will a potentially infected teen ask permission from father? Don't you have a clue as to what can occur within Buslim society to a fornicator? If not, try looking it up...

Most 15-18 year old teens will not get tested if they suspect infection IF they must get parental approval. Many will, if they suspect and if it is free, easy and private. They will not deal with parents who, like the proverbial Austrailan Ostrich who sticks its head in the sand, rather than deal with a dangerous reality.

So a single hormonally driven gay male who is infected ignores the infection and spreads it to his next partner; and if his tendancy is "fast-lane" goes on to infect many others.

A lesson from history is instructive. The year ~1970. The place Haiti. The person, a single flight steward, name unknown. Haiti then was a popular tourist hub, many flights went from Haiti to the US mainland. At that time male flight stewards were often gay, and many were "fast-lane."

"Fast-lane" means that it is not uncommon for a male to have 15 or even 20 sexual contacts every day. This seems inconceivable to me, but it is, in fact, the truth. At every airport, at ever college, at every shopping mall in the US there are "locations," where gays can meet other gays.

So sometime around 1977, a single fast-lane gay flight steward, infected and infectious, traveled to perhaps New York, or Dallas, or Miami, and in one day infected perhaps half a dozen others, many flight stewards. From there the infection spread using airport hot-spots as loci of infection. The results: 1/2 million dead, plus about 1/2 million infected, waiting to die.

See: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Now let's jump from HIV to simple, and common chalymidia. A heterosexual male becomes infected, notices some odd discharge. Let's look at two paths: 1st Path: Access to testing: Result: Infection discovered, male and partner treated. End of story.

2nd Path: Male unable to become tested. Male goes asymptomatic and worry goes away, but the infection does not. Male has new sexual partner, let's say in this case, a female: Female never shows any symptoms but becomes infected (common). Female and male then become asymptomatic transmitter of disease. Long term result for the male: probably nothing. Long term result for the female: Probably PID (Pelvic Inflammitory Disease) often resulting in sterilitiy.

Nobody, nowhere, will ever stop teens from having sex. Teens will engage in risky sex because as the noted child psychologist explained: Teens believe that their mind controls the world--they believe they are immune.

It's a wonderful move, epidiologically and I'm pleased to hear it and certainly hope that "other" STD/STI's are included. I just hope they make it easy. Before relations with the woman who is now my fiancee, we both got tested at Ram hospital in Chiang Mai. It was neither smooth, nor easy, nor efficient. To be effective, STI testing must be as is done at Planned Parenthood in America, easy, private, streamlined, and supportive. That is how you save lives.

Bottom line: It will save lives even if it "offends" the sensibility of the million of parents who believe "my child would never do that," (often in the face of: "my child would never do what I did when I was that age)."

Edited February 16, 2012 by jsflynn603

[MAJIC]

Can't see anything to make a fuss about here,

Thailand is reputed to be among the Worlds leading Countries in AIDs control,so a very sensible addition to the battle IMO.

[tombkk]

"Fast-lane" means that it is not uncommon for a male to have 15 or even 20 sexual contacts every day. This seems inconceivable to me, but it is, in fact, the truth. At every airport, at ever college, at every shopping mall in the US there are "locations," where gays can meet other gays.

What? That's fantastic! Why-oh-why did nature only apply gays with this "not uncommon" ability?

And I always thought that men are men: You are now revealing the superiority of gays!

Seriously though, I'd like to see some references to websites or (preferrably) academic journals to back up your claim.

[Ijustwannateach]

The moment any school tries to coerce or trick mass FORCED testing in students, you can bet that school's going to be under very intense examination from just about everyone. It's not going to be a scenario that will happen (if for no other reason than I doubt they would pay for it).

The legislation is a good step towards protecting those who would otherwise never get tested because they would fear informing their parents to ask for consent. That fear, along with some countries requiring reporting of results to the government, are probably the two worst enemies of public health regarding HIV infection levels and treatment.

[endure]

A lesson from history is instructive. The year ~1970. The place Haiti. The person, a single flight steward, name unknown. Haiti then was a popular tourist hub, many flights went from Haiti to the US mainland. At that time male flight stewards were often gay, and many were "fast-lane."

"Fast-lane" means that it is not uncommon for a male to have 15 or even 20 sexual contacts every day. This seems inconceivable to me, but it is, in fact, the truth. At every airport, at ever college, at every shopping mall in the US there are "locations," where gays can meet other gays.

So sometime around 1977, a single fast-lane gay flight steward, infected and infectious, traveled to perhaps New York, or Dallas, or Miami, and in one day infected perhaps half a dozen others, many flight stewards. From there the infection spread using airport hot-spots as loci of infection. The results: 1/2 million dead, plus about 1/2 million infected, waiting to die.

Any evidence for the flight steward bit?

Edited February 19, 2012 by endure

[Ijustwannateach]

Gosh, I'm sure that sexually compulsive are ALWAYS gay men- not. STD's are a concern of the ENTIRE sexual spectrum, not only gays, not only straights, and not only sexual compulsives.

I think that Jsflynn is more interested on those gay folks who somehow manage to have 15-20 contacts a day than I am- I certainly never met any of them; I suppose they are too busy continually having sex to have social lives, or even eat or sleep.