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: Stephen Dolphin <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 11 December 1998 12:07
Subject: Age of consent
>Can anybody define "child" for Health Service purposes? At what age is
>parental consent no longer required?
>
>I had a case recently of a 16 year old female and a 17 year old male in an
>RTA who didn't want their parents told.
>
>Stephen Dolphin
>Paramedic
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|