In article <[log in to unmask]>, Julian
Bradley <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Ahmad said that not withstanding Gillick etc. there is a legal requirement for
>the mother's consent.
I dont think so - think re ocp or invasive contraception.
>
>My own feeling was that whatever doctors in general do my colleague was on
>pretty safe ground legally. The mother's implied consent was clear if it was
>needed.
Yes - but I am not sure the mothers opinion enters into it if the child
is considered able to make an informed decision for herself.
>
>However in considering consent issues I sometimes find it helpful to think
>about who has the capacity to refuse treatment. If the girl had refused I
>would have thought that the Children's act makes it clear he could not have
>gone ahead.
Absolutely.
>
>If the mother refuses but the girl understands the issues and wishes to go
>ahead I think that he would probably have been OK to proceed.
Yes
>
>I've had a couple of mailings from individual colleagues along these lines but
>as it does seem a difficult area any alternative views would be welcome.
Sorry, but I agree ;-)
>
Cheers :)
PS - I would watch that mother - I am not sure I would want her on my
list.
--
Jelly Bean
'When you get fed up surfing....
.....go find some waves'
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|