2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

The short answer is, they don't.  In the case of our daughter, even though we could not necessarily get any info about her condition from age 15 on, no one saw any disparity in the fact that we were still liable for her medical expenses.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

As regards 15 being the age of medical consent, one needs to realize that the law also means that once a child is 15 health care providers may not release any information - even to the parents - without the child's consent. A situation we faced repeatedly after our daughter left home.  We would get a call whenever she wound up at ER, but they wouldn't tell us a thing once we go there. Very frustrating and, at times, frightening for us as parents.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context