I,ve always felt in my own wisdom that Gillick competence (see below) was a
reasonable rule to allow one to assess a "minors" ability to give consent -
or do others disagree?
The legal ability of a child to give their own consent to medical or other
health procedures was unclear until 1986 when it came under scrutiny in the
Gillick Case.
The Gillick judgement reinforced previous practice arising from The Family
Law Reform Act 1969, in which children of normal development, over age
16,were considered to possess the ability to give consent to medical
procedures.
It was particularly important in clarifying the position of children under
the age of 16 who were also considerd capable of giving valid consent, if
the individual was ," of sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable
him or her to understand fully what is proposed".
If a child below 16 is considered not to have this degree of understanding,
parental consent was envisaged as required.
The Childrens Act recurrently requires the child's consent to treatment and
allows him or her to refuse if s/he is of "sufficient understanding to make
an informed decision"
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Bradley <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>;
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 30 December 1998 15:22
Subject: Consent
>What do people do about consent to treatment for under 16 year olds these
days?
>
>A mature 14 (nearly 15) year old came with her mother for minor op.
>Colleague explained op to both then got 14 year old to sign.
>
>Mother "very offended" and spoke to me when she came next time. No
>"complaint" at present, just expression of unhappiness and asked me
>what other doctors would have done. What would other doctors have
>done, and if appropriate why?
>
>Any views?
>
>Julian
>Dr. J. Bradley, The Stonedean Practice,
>Stony Stratford Health Centre, Milton Keynes MK11 1YA
>Telephone 01908 261155, Fax 01908 265818
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|