6 ms·

It appears the reasoning is: Minors can't legally give consent, therefore asking them to is likely illegal. If we follow that premise, then advertising or givi

It appears the reasoning is: Minors can't legally give consent, therefore asking them to is likely illegal. If we follow that premise, then advertising or giving alcohol to minors should be illegal too.. and it is! Like it or not, it sounds like sensible legal reasoning.

khuey 5y ago
The difference is that things that are good for you are good for you and things that are bad for you are bad for you.
- ericls 5y ago
  Human beings can’t definitively define good or bad without human defined boundary conditions. Be VERY careful with these two words in their general meaning.
woodruffw 5y ago
Minors can't give consent, so their parents grant consent on their behalf. The salient difference between vaccines (or any medical treatment) and making your child drink alcohol is that one is good for them and the other is abuse. There's an overwhelmingly large body of law dedicated to this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  Yes, exactly. Then they should focus outreach to those parents.. which is what's happening.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    I'm sorry, but what? The article mentions receiving postcards and other information at the minor's home, which is presumably their guardian's home. Is the state of Tennessee not allowed to address children by their name when informing a household that a minor is due for a vaccine?
    - caseysoftware 5y ago
      They address that pretty clearly: > Postcards will still be sent to adults, but teens will be excluded from the mailing list so the postcards are not “potentially interpreted as solicitation to minors,” the report states. I'm not sure about what the state of Tennessee is allowed to do but our pediatrician addresses reminders, calls, etc to the parents, not the children. Because again, kids can't consent but I can and do on their behalf.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        The fact that they address it doesn't change the fact that it's a ridiculous distinction to make. The idea that you can even "solicit" a child to receive vaccines (as if they're an addictive pharmaceutical rather than a baseline preventative measure in the developed world) is farcical. Making the state's medical infrastructure contort itself to avoid referring to children in the second person reeks of politics over public health.
        caseysoftware 5y ago
        "solicit" has a few definitions. In this case, I think it's used as in "advertising" or "pitching" versus "encouraging illegal behavior" so I think they're using it neutrally vs nefarious.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        Which begs the question: if it's strictly neutral, why is it a problem to tell minors that they're due for a vaccine? They're still held to the same standard of consent as before, so why the extra indirection? Even "advertising" and "pitching" are misleading framings. Vaccines are public health policy, notifying people of their eligibility falls squarely within the state's basic obligation to notify its citizens.
        caseysoftware 5y ago
        It's not "indirection" because most kids can't consent. The ones who can - according to the Mature Minor Doctrine - must also have evaluation+approval from a healthcare provider. Adults can usually tell the difference between can, should, and must but many kids implicitly trust adults, especially those who seem important - see: Milgram experiment for an adult example - so an official postcard may be taken as a demand instead of an opportunity. Similarly, the police shouldn't talk to your kids without your consent either. It protects everyone.
- wil421 5y ago
  In Tennessee minors don’t need consent between 14-17 and if the doctor feels they are mature enough to make the decision per Mature Minor Doctrine[1]. [1]https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/Mature_Minor_Doctrine.pdf https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/Mature_Mi...
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Which, in this case, is fantastic. But the larger observation stands: handwringing over consent is ridiculous in this context.
joshthecynic 5y ago
No, this is an incredibly stupid argument.
tshaddox 5y ago
Are they still doing compulsive education for minors?
torpfactory 5y ago
In Tennessee a physician may give a vaccine without parental consent. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/Mature_Minor_Doctrine.pdf https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/Mature_Mi...
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  Thanks for the link! That is informative. Then it would seem to come down to this section: "Tennessee county health departments follow Tennessee law and provide medical treatment and vaccinations to patients as young as 14 without parental consent if the individual provider determines that the patient meets the definition of a “mature minor” in accordance with Tennessee law." and what normally constitutes a healthcare professional making that evaluation. If it normally takes that kid's family doctor/PA who has a long standing relationship, access to medical history, etc, then changing from that standard is challenging. Stepping outside of precedents is hard and risky.
  - em-bee 5y ago
    isn't the point here that a 14year old may be old enough to make that decision on their own? whether a 14 year old is actually able to make that decision is another discussion, but the issue isn't about government forcing their will, but allowing minors to decide on their own.
harimau777 5y ago
In many states, parents are allowed to give their children alcohol.
lazyasciiart 5y ago
They did not end advertising to minors. They also ended using school facilities for vaccination events, and at least some kinds of advertising aimed at parents. This decision is crazy and unjustifiable.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Minors can't legally give consent, therefore asking them to is likely illegal. Minors can legally give consent to lots of things; the precise scope varies among jurisdictions. Notably, in Tennessee (see citation in toepfactory’s sibling comment), for most medical procedures including vaccinations, minors 14 and up presumptively have the capacity to consent and parental consent is not required. > Like it or not, it sounds like sensible legal reasoning. You’ve created a superficially attractive chain of reasoning beginning with false premises.
HeyZuess 5y ago
> If we follow that premise, then advertising or giving alcohol to minors should be illegal too.. and it is! Alcohol and Tobacco etc are generally regulated substances. They cannot be obtained even by Adults in all circumstances, for example legislation may prohibit the sale of alcohol at certain venues or require a license to do so. The premise on advertising has less to do with consent I would say, but rather the health and social implications of such substances. While the issue at hand with the vaccines maybe one of consent, it is a different situation. This also seems to step farther than this, in its intent to restrict the use of school property to host vaccination drives. This serves no public good as far as I can imagine, it has nothing to do with consent either. While the concept of consent should be obtained by parents in many situations, the idea that this is solicitation is a long bow and goes in general against the public good.
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  I think using school property makes sense. After all, many schools have polling locations for elections. It's an easy, distributed place with highly predictable usage to host those sorts of things. That said, vaccinations - like any prescription meds - are regulated far beyond alcohol and tobacco to the point where you need approval from specific people to buy them. Making exceptions for parental consent is extremely risky now and into the future. While some make sense - like in an immediate emergency (ie. car accident, broken bones, etc) - this doesn't meet those criteria.

khuey 5y ago

The difference is that things that are good for you are good for you and things that are bad for you are bad for you.

ericls 5y ago
Human beings can’t definitively define good or bad without human defined boundary conditions. Be VERY careful with these two words in their general meaning.

woodruffw 5y ago

Minors can't give consent, so their parents grant consent on their behalf. The salient difference between vaccines (or any medical treatment) and making your child drink alcohol is that one is good for them and the other is abuse. There's an overwhelmingly large body of law dedicated to this.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
caseysoftware 5y ago
Yes, exactly. Then they should focus outreach to those parents.. which is what's happening.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  I'm sorry, but what? The article mentions receiving postcards and other information at the minor's home, which is presumably their guardian's home. Is the state of Tennessee not allowed to address children by their name when informing a household that a minor is due for a vaccine?
  - caseysoftware 5y ago
    They address that pretty clearly: > Postcards will still be sent to adults, but teens will be excluded from the mailing list so the postcards are not “potentially interpreted as solicitation to minors,” the report states. I'm not sure about what the state of Tennessee is allowed to do but our pediatrician addresses reminders, calls, etc to the parents, not the children. Because again, kids can't consent but I can and do on their behalf.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      The fact that they address it doesn't change the fact that it's a ridiculous distinction to make. The idea that you can even "solicit" a child to receive vaccines (as if they're an addictive pharmaceutical rather than a baseline preventative measure in the developed world) is farcical. Making the state's medical infrastructure contort itself to avoid referring to children in the second person reeks of politics over public health.
      - caseysoftware 5y ago
        "solicit" has a few definitions. In this case, I think it's used as in "advertising" or "pitching" versus "encouraging illegal behavior" so I think they're using it neutrally vs nefarious.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        Which begs the question: if it's strictly neutral, why is it a problem to tell minors that they're due for a vaccine? They're still held to the same standard of consent as before, so why the extra indirection? Even "advertising" and "pitching" are misleading framings. Vaccines are public health policy, notifying people of their eligibility falls squarely within the state's basic obligation to notify its citizens.
        caseysoftware 5y ago
        It's not "indirection" because most kids can't consent. The ones who can - according to the Mature Minor Doctrine - must also have evaluation+approval from a healthcare provider. Adults can usually tell the difference between can, should, and must but many kids implicitly trust adults, especially those who seem important - see: Milgram experiment for an adult example - so an official postcard may be taken as a demand instead of an opportunity. Similarly, the police shouldn't talk to your kids without your consent either. It protects everyone.
wil421 5y ago
In Tennessee minors don’t need consent between 14-17 and if the doctor feels they are mature enough to make the decision per Mature Minor Doctrine[1]. [1]https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/Mature_Minor_Doctrine.pdf https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/Mature_Mi...
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Which, in this case, is fantastic. But the larger observation stands: handwringing over consent is ridiculous in this context.

joshthecynic 5y ago

No, this is an incredibly stupid argument.

tshaddox 5y ago

Are they still doing compulsive education for minors?

torpfactory 5y ago

In Tennessee a physician may give a vaccine without parental consent. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/Mature_Minor_Doctrine.pdf https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/Mature_Mi...

caseysoftware 5y ago
Thanks for the link! That is informative. Then it would seem to come down to this section: "Tennessee county health departments follow Tennessee law and provide medical treatment and vaccinations to patients as young as 14 without parental consent if the individual provider determines that the patient meets the definition of a “mature minor” in accordance with Tennessee law." and what normally constitutes a healthcare professional making that evaluation. If it normally takes that kid's family doctor/PA who has a long standing relationship, access to medical history, etc, then changing from that standard is challenging. Stepping outside of precedents is hard and risky.
- em-bee 5y ago
  isn't the point here that a 14year old may be old enough to make that decision on their own? whether a 14 year old is actually able to make that decision is another discussion, but the issue isn't about government forcing their will, but allowing minors to decide on their own.

harimau777 5y ago

In many states, parents are allowed to give their children alcohol.

lazyasciiart 5y ago

They did not end advertising to minors. They also ended using school facilities for vaccination events, and at least some kinds of advertising aimed at parents. This decision is crazy and unjustifiable.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Minors can't legally give consent, therefore asking them to is likely illegal. Minors can legally give consent to lots of things; the precise scope varies among jurisdictions. Notably, in Tennessee (see citation in toepfactory’s sibling comment), for most medical procedures including vaccinations, minors 14 and up presumptively have the capacity to consent and parental consent is not required. > Like it or not, it sounds like sensible legal reasoning. You’ve created a superficially attractive chain of reasoning beginning with false premises.

HeyZuess 5y ago

> If we follow that premise, then advertising or giving alcohol to minors should be illegal too.. and it is! Alcohol and Tobacco etc are generally regulated substances. They cannot be obtained even by Adults in all circumstances, for example legislation may prohibit the sale of alcohol at certain venues or require a license to do so. The premise on advertising has less to do with consent I would say, but rather the health and social implications of such substances. While the issue at hand with the vaccines maybe one of consent, it is a different situation. This also seems to step farther than this, in its intent to restrict the use of school property to host vaccination drives. This serves no public good as far as I can imagine, it has nothing to do with consent either. While the concept of consent should be obtained by parents in many situations, the idea that this is solicitation is a long bow and goes in general against the public good.

caseysoftware 5y ago
I think using school property makes sense. After all, many schools have polling locations for elections. It's an easy, distributed place with highly predictable usage to host those sorts of things. That said, vaccinations - like any prescription meds - are regulated far beyond alcohol and tobacco to the point where you need approval from specific people to buy them. Making exceptions for parental consent is extremely risky now and into the future. While some make sense - like in an immediate emergency (ie. car accident, broken bones, etc) - this doesn't meet those criteria.