The age of consent...?

[jampot]

legally any child who is deemed mentally "aware " or "compitent" enought .of any age. can give or withhold consent for their own treatment . but it usually end up being the desision of parents, doctors or even courts if a child is seen to be at risk of serious health probs or death when witholdng consent .
i agree with fee.fairy on why arnt boys being offerd the jab if its them passing around HPV and why are all women not offerd it irespective of age after all there re still some virgins and condom users out there (one would hope!!)

[Graye]

I'm not sure everyone is getting the point Rosie is trying to make. I don't think her issue is anything to do with the age that this is being offered at. I think she is wondering at what point she stops being able to have the absolute say in what her underage daughter can or cannot agree to.

Personally I have no idea but it's a very interesting point and something I would feel I needed to know if I was the parent of a young teenager today. I suppose there will be a website out there somewhere gving the information? I seem to remember cases where parents refused their permission for things such as blood transfusions for their teenage children so there must be some definitive laws on it.

[MKG]

Yes - I've been wondering about that too - but the net is no help at all when it comes to the absolute legal position. Ignoring the moral argument about whether or not an intelligent 12-year-old should be able to make decisions about his/her own health (although I question whether any 12-year-old could make themselves fully aware of all the ramifications and, in any case, it would be impossible to define just what the level of intelligence should be to enable personal decision-making), just what is the situation if a child (definitely a child in legal terms) agrees to a surgical procedure but said child's mother (as in legal guardian) informs all involved parties that such agreement is opposed?

I, as a complete legal dimwit, would have thought that decisions as to the welfare of a minor lay in the hands of the legal guardian. If not, what is legal guardianship and the definition of legal minority all about? Call me paranoid if you like, but this smacks of the state issuing an edict with no legal foundation whatsoever - not an unprecedented situation.

In the UK, a 16-year-old is of age to marry, but not without parental consent. In the UK, anyone under the age of 18 cannot enter a legally-binding contract unless it can be proved that they understood what they were doing (and how can that be done?). As Graye has pointed out, there are legal precedents for the withholding of parental consent to life-saving surgical procedures.

I just can't see it - this is, I think, the nanny state turning into a bully state. Watch this space - someone will eventually issue a legal challenge.

Mike

[the.fee.fairy]

The legal age for marriage always amuses me - at 16 you can marry, you can join the army and you can have sex. However, you cannot have a glass of champagne to celebrate marrying, nor can you watch a p0rn film with your wife/husband...

[Graye]

And they can't join the library either....

[Annpan]

In the UK, a 16-year-old is of age to marry, but not without parental consent.

In Scotland you can marry at 16 without consent. Scots Law differs greatly in some respects from the rest of the UK. Also, from what I understand there is no lower age limit in Scotland for a child to be left home alone (the child must be capable and not at risk)
A child can get tried as an adult in Scotland from age 10 (I think)

If a child commits a crime, at what point is it no longer the parents who are criminally responsible? (either through coercion or neglect) Surely that is the same point at which the child should have the right to make there own decisions.

In most families the child will go along with whatever the parents say, but there does have to be a way for young adults to make their own choices when they have the mental capacity to do so and especially if they disagree with their parents.

As for seeing the doctor in private -
A 13 year old should be able to ask a doctor for birth control advice without having to ask his or her mum... perhaps they are more likely to be responsible and use it. (not condoning under-age sex, but there are worse things)

Likewise they should be able to speak to a doctor about how their bodies are developing and things they might be worried about....how embarrassing do you think it would be for a 14 year old boy to explain to his mum that he gets unwanted elections*.


We can't make all the choices for our children until they wake up on their 18th birthday, they have to have a say and legally their opinion should be protected.

And they can't join the library either....

??? again, in Scotland you can join at any age..... seriously? children can't join a library?



*spam avoidance measure, we all know what I am saying...

[Millymollymandy]

I assume that when I joined a library as a kid it was my mum who dealt with the paperwork. The only time I joined a library as an adult I had to show utility bills in order to join, to prove my address, so I'd have thought that a 16 year old would have trouble providing that sort of paperwork in their own name.

[Rosendula]

My 15.5 year old needed a replacement library card a few weeks ago and needed my signature for it.

[Annpan]

Here you need to prove your address but a child can join and I don't think you need any signature... I joined when I was 13 and didn't need anyone there but me and a letter from the bank :)


Of course that was a while back....

[Rosendula]

(Although Dr Vernon Coleman reckons that to his knowledge, three girls have died after receiving the jab at the time of his writing. I would give a link to his website, but every time I go on it I get a virus!)

And another one. 10/10 Vernon Coleman.
So sad for the family of the girl who died recently. How awful for the other girls who were given it. They must be terrified.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... r-jab.html

[MKG]

Just read your link, Rosey. I couldn't help but think that £80 per dose might go some way to explaining the pressure to get this program on track. But then I'm an old cynic.

Mike

[HennyPenny]

Hi there, will just stick my oar in... not sure if anyone has heard of Gillick Competance? This came out of a legal challenge by a parent over contraception for under 16s. It was highly publised at the time is probably why your letter says they don't need your permission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

[MKG]

Yes - but it still leaves us with a minefield. Gillick competence depends completely upon a judgement of character made by a doctor, and the Fraser guidelines give that same doctor five similar judgements to make. It's all very well stating that the Gillick competence test is legally binding - the problem is that the doctor's ability to make the required judgement is challengeable. It hasn't happened yet - but it will. If the doctor's competence to make the judgement was successfully challenged, then we're back to square one - Gillick competence would be invalidated.

What makes doctors competent to make an assessment of the understanding of a minor? Well - nothing, really. There's nothing substantial to make the doctor's opinion more valid than the local butcher's. You would have thought a psychologist would have to be involved somewhere, and there would have to be a battery of other references (school etc.) to be sure. But no - it's all down to the doctor.

It's a very fuzzy area, and I wonder what the situation would be if any other tragic death occurred, but this time when the Gillick competence test had been applied. If that happened to my daughter, I would be on permanent war footing immediately and the courts wouldn't hear the end of it.

Mike

[HennyPenny]

I quite agree, especially when the decision is being made by a doctor who may not know the child at all!

[red]

I quite agree, especially when the decision is being made by a doctor who may not know the child at all!

it seems the girl has a pre existing 'serious underlying health issue' according to the beeb what isn't clear is whether this health issue was known prior to death or not... or whther the vax was involved at all.

but it does make me inclined to feel that the people making the decision whether to vaccinate perhaps ought to include those who know her best - ie.. herself, parents, and family gp. this is the problem with vaccinations at school.. the whole thing is done by doctors who do not have the medical records to hand, let alone look at them.. just a queue .....

poor family..