If a minor requested a doctor prescribe her birth control, can she demand the doctor not disclose her request to her parents? Let's say a 16 year old girl manages to speak to her doctor in private during a regular appointment and requests birth control. She is afraid her parents would respond poorly to knowing she is considering sexual intercourse, and so requests the doctor make up some other excuse for prescribing the medicine, such as to regulate or manage her periods. I assume the doctor has the right to decline to make up an excuse for the prescription, and in absence of doctor being willing to justify it a minor may not request the prescription since their parents may guess on the reason for it. Aside from that though I'm more wondering can the doctor inform her parents of her request, and that she is considering sexual activity? Legally does she have a legal right to demand her request be kept private from her legal guardians? Assume the minor is living with her parents and hasn't been emancipated.
united-statestexas In the US, it depends on the consent-to-treat laws of the state. In Washington, under RCW 9.02.100, everybody has a right to reproductive privacy (be it contraceptives or abortions). Under the federal HIPAA privacy rule, the minor requesting contraceptives would therefore be &quot;the individual&quot;, which means that disclosure to others requires consent from the patient. Given the supremacy clause, that's all she wrote for Washington. The majority of states similarly allow 16 year olds to request contraceptives. Texas Family Code §32.003 spells out the conditions where a minor can consent to their own medical treatment, which does not include the situation you describe, therefore parental consent would be required (which clearly implies parental notification). Furthermore, that law also says (d) A licensed physician, dentist, or psychologist may, with or without the consent of a child who is a patient, advise the parents, managing conservator, or guardian of the child of the treatment given to or needed by the child. Therefore in Texas there is no prohibition against informing the parent(s). (Note that in the Texas Family Code, &quot;child&quot; is a synonym for &quot;minor&quot;, so this also applies to teenagers, not just small children.) Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678 is an important ruling regarding the rights of minors to make their own decisions regarding contraception, but it does not go so far as to declare that minors have a constitutional right to give consent to the requisite medical examination.
Does CCPA impact whether or not this is allowed? Probably not. Public schools are divisions of state government and there are limits to how much the federal government can dictate the operations of state and local governments. Limitations on whether public schools can monetize data collected from students (13+) would arise under state law. The state law could certainly expressly authorize the practice (and to some extent does already with profit generating sports teams and yearbooks). State law could likewise prohibit the practice. For the most part, state law is silent and it doesn't happen that much because it isn't very profitable. Is there different guidance for public (government-managed and nonprofit) vs private schools? The legal analysis is very different. I'm not as familiar with this area of law, however, and will leave that question to someone else. As a practical matter, private schools are in a very good position to obtain express consent to do so from parents and students, so that is usually how the issue is resolved, I suspect.
Is it true that men are forced to pay child support for children they didn't consent to having? Yes. This is true in every U.S. jurisdiction, in the U.K., and in every jurisdiction of which I am aware in the E.U., and it is the rule in many other jurisdictions. The duty to pay child support in these jurisdictions flows from the relationship between the father and the child, and is not a contractual concept based upon consent. The primary exceptions to this general rule are cases where a parental relationship is legally terminated (e.g., in connection with the adoption of a child born out of wedlock), and cases in which someone becomes a sperm donor in a statutorily authorized arrangement that generally does not involve sexual intercourse. Historically, roughly speaking in the early 19th century, and earlier in English common law, and most other European and European-colonist jurisdictions, a man only had a duty to support the children of his wife or the children of his deceased former wife if he was a widower. Even further back, in the Roman empire from which the foundations of Roman civil law were derived, a father had a right in his sole and absolute discretion to commit infanticide, killing his infant children, a right which was a major political issue in the Roman empire from sometime in the 100s CE until it collapsed. Some jurisdictions, such as Japan, only established a legal duty to pay child support to a custodial parent in any circumstances in the late 20th century, although those jurisdictions still recognized the legal duty of a father to support a child in his custody. It is also worth noting that women in every country of which I am aware have a duty to support the children to which they give birth, whether or not they consented to impregnation (e.g. even if they were raped), or to giving birth (e.g. even if they wanted an abortion but were denied access to abortion by law or otherwise). This support obligation persists in almost every case, even if the woman's child is in the custody of another parent or guardian, and a woman is much more likely to face criminal prosecution for failure to support her child than an uninvolved father (although criminal prosecutions of men for non-support do happen). So, the claim that this constitutes sex discrimination is ill-founded.
The concept of "controlled substances" has a special meaning, and stems from the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, resulting in Chapter 13 of Title 21. Ordinary presecription drugs are the result of an older act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which is also implemented in Title 21. The basic distinction is the difference between "potential for abuse" vs other stuff, and potential for abuse was the historically first desideratum in restricting pharmaceuticals in the old days. There are 5 "schedules" (lists) regarding controlled substances, ranging from the absolutely forbidden Schedule 1 (weed, 1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole which probably has a shorter street name) down to Schedule V small doses of opium. Pharmaceuticals fall into three categories: over-the-counter, prescription, and controlled. Things like ibuprofen over 200 mg is not a "controlled substance" though does require a prescription, as do anti-cholesterol drugs (since they are thought to pose "some risk"). There are also completely unregulated substances, such as green tea, olive oil, vitamin c, which so far are not subject to federal regulation (since they have not been deemed to pose a risk). OTC substances can be bought without special hoops, though they cannot be marketed without passing through hoops. Prescription and controlled require a prescription from a DEA-authorized physician. Ephedrine and pseudephedrine are a recent zombie class of pharmaceutical which do not require prescription, but are subject to purchase quotas. Controlled substances are subject to much higher levels of scrutiny, to ascertain that the prescription is legitimate and the recipient is the intended recipient; there are also stricter laws about possible justifications for prescribing regular prescription drugs vs. those on one of the 5 schedules. (And the rules are different for the 5 schedules). It is generally unknown whether doctors can prescribe non-prescription pharmaceuticals, in order to shift the cost to insurance. There is no specific statute prohibiting that, but doctors are also subject to contractual restrictions between themselves and the insurance networks they deal with, so they may have agreed to not engage in such conduct. As far as I can tell, it is not actually illegal for a doctor to write a prescription for OTC Tylenol.
The First Amendment generally prohibits the government from taking any actions to limit your speech, the same as adults. There are certain exceptions, particularly if you are enrolled in a public school, which has some latitude to impose speech restrictions to “avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, (1969). While you are a minor, though, your parents have virtually unlimited freedom to limit your freedom of speech. If they want to punish you for buying a hat or saying things they disagree with, they can generally do that. EDIT: The hat you've linked to probably would not fall within the Tinker exception. A similar case arose in Schoenecker v. Koopman, 349 F. Supp. 3d 745 (E.D. Wis. 2018), where a student was removed from class for wearing similar apparel supporting Second Amendment rights. The school made a vague allegation that his shirts were disruptive, but the court found that its concerns about disruptions were largely unreasonable and unsubstantiated. See also N.J. ex rel. Jacob v. Sonnabend, No. 20-C-227, (E.D. Wis. Nov. 6, 2020).
Some interesting reasoning about standing aside (which antivaxxers etc. will love though, because it stipulates that the FDA refusing to collect all side effects statistics [even starting 16 years later] gives standing to sue on the original approval), the Texas' judge estimation of success on the merits is essentially relying on the finding that &quot;Pregnancy is not an illness&quot; (p. 40) and essentially repeated on p. 44 as &quot;Chemical Abortion Drugs do not provide a Meaningful Therapeutic Benefit&quot;, so that in the Judge's estimation drugs for terminating pregnancy can be held to a [much] higher safety standard than the FDA decided by itself. This ultimately phrased as (p. 57): The Court does not second-guess FDA's decision-making lightly. But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns in violation of its statutory duty based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions. It's followed by another finding that there was likely political interference by the Clinton administration with the FDA's decision. This a rather partial summary since the order involves several FDA decisions, the details of which which I'm glossing over here (like the fact that the decision to not collect all side effects stats for mifepristone is rather more recent, being taken in 2016--but nonetheless the judge found that consequently the original 2000 decision was reopened as well, and can the object of the suit too.)
There is nothing illegal about the child asking for nude images, but, depending on jurisdiction and circumstances, there is quite likely to be a serious legal problem with the adult providing such nudes. The exact laws that might be violated would depend a lot on the jurisdiction. The detailed facts would also be significant. But such a situation is fraught with danger, for the adult. Even if there is no ill-intent, such actions could easily be misinterpreted, and might be technically unlawful regardless of intent. Of course, not all nudes are obscene, or even &quot;inappropriate for children&quot;. Which are so classified depends on the laws of the particular jurisdiction.
In the UK, male circumcision is legal, and only requires 2 things: That consent is obtained, if the subject is too young to give informed consent, the parent can give it. The caveat here is that you have to be able to give parental consent. Simply being the biological father is not enough, an unmarried father is not automatically given "parental responsibility" and must be obtained through courts. That the procedure is performed by a "competent person". This is not necessarily a doctor There also needs to be a consent with both parents. One case in the UK involved a Muslim father wanting to circumcise his son. The mother disagreed and the court upheld the refusal of permission to perform the procedure until the child was of age to decide for themselves. For many, this is a matter of faith, such as with Muslim and Jewish communities. In Jewish communities, the circumcision (a ceremony called a "Bris" or b'rit milah) and the circumcision is either performed by the father or his representative, but is almost always performed by somebody trained in the procedure, dictated by the "mohel" and are usually physicians... Either way, written consent is not required, there are no documents to sign, forms to mail in to the government, etc. The only things that need to happen is that parent(s) who have parental responsibility must agree and consent, and that the procedure be performed by a "competent person".