08-16-2016, 12:09 PM
(08-16-2016, 11:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So you really had nothing constructive to add to the conversation? We get a lot of that around here.
Attack the message, not the messenger. Follow your own advice or stop being a hypocrite. Matt pointed out school nurses don't have prescribing privileges. That's constructive despite your passive aggressive insult.
Quote:In the OP the article references a child's clinic where IUDs and implants are provided. After reading that and the measures, I shared my view that I thought the program(s) is a good idea; however, the only sticking point would be parental consent to such devices. When some said they would have no issue with their child being prescribed such things, I followed up with what this could mean (a school medical official facilitating access to these devices).
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. This program doesn't give prescribing privileges to those that aren't qualified to write prescriptions. Calling a school nurse a "school medical official" doesn't make a school nurse qualified to write prescriptions. And IUDs involve a procedure to insert them. Do school nurses do ob/gyn exams and procedures?
Quote:Yet instead of addressing the forest of parental consent for these programs we found a tree that caught our eye.
The forest is access. Parental consent to obtain access is a tree within the forest of access.
Quote:So allow me to rephrase in a "non-ridiculous" manner (I'm sure you and others will let me know if it ridiculous):
Would folks be OK with whomever is authorized to prescribe pills, IUDs, implants, ect... prescribing these to their minor daughter without consent?
This question has already been answered on page 1 before you began another passive aggressive hissy fit.
