I have a friend ............

verysillyguy06

ccarpet wrote: »

You don't seem to understand the law, not me.

See above.....:)

verysillyguy06

ccarpet wrote: »

I don't think you get it very sill guy, a 13 year old can consent to an abortion or any medical treatment without the knowledge of a parent.

That's a no then.... never mind ...keep trying

fashionlover10

raven83 wrote: »

It is all very well saying the child has a right to confidentiality but if it was your child wouldn't you want to know? I went through this myself and carried the burden for many years, if I had told my parents then, they could of supported me emotionally, instead I went off the rails, turned to drink and drugs at 16 because I couldn't cope with how I felt and the self loathing I felt inside. 13 is still a child and the mind is still not mature enough of that of say a 16/17 year old.

I couldn't agree more with this. I was a bit older and should have been more emotionally able to deal with my situation but I wasn't unaffected by it in any way whatsoever.
I went off the rails, started drinking, taking drugs and generally screwing up my life. So much so that I was thrown out of my mums house just 4 months later which started the downward spiral of our relationship.
Had I of had someone there to persuade me into telling my mum I wholeheartedly believe we wouldn't now be in a situation where we're trying to put back together the shards of our relationship.

verysillyguy06

ccarpet wrote: »

You keep trying
if you are under 16 years of age, you can have an abortion without telling your parents, as long as two doctors believe it is in your best interests and you fully understand what is involved. However, the doctors will encourage you to involve your parents or another adult in your decision-making process. If you have an abortion, you have the right for it to remain confidential, regardless of your age.
NHS

Yes, but they will have assessed her if she is legally competent...come on, it is really not that difficult now. There is no Law that gives blank cheque to under 16 !


Children under the age of 16[7]
Children in this age group are not deemed to be automatically legally competent to give consent.
The courts have determined that such children can be legally competent if they have 'sufficient understanding and maturity to enable them to understand fully what is proposed'.
This concept - now known as 'Gillick competency' - initially arose in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority in 1986.[8] The term 'Fraser competency' is also used in this respect (Lord Fraser was the judge who ruled on the case).
Some authorities refer to Fraser competency when talking about contraception and Gillick competency when talking about wider areas of consent.[9] In many cases the two terms are used interchangeably.
Much will depend on the relationship of the clinician with the child and the family and also on what intervention is being proposed.

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Consent-to-Treatment-in-Children.htm

poet123

Person_one wrote: »

Not really.

Childhood to adulthood is a gradual shift, not an overnight thing.

Bodily autonomy and the right to make your own medical decisions comes before the right to opt out of compulsory education.

13 year olds can turn down heart transplants or chemo, or consent to donate an organ, but their parents could still technically be prosecuted for leaving them at home alone.

Reading the Gillick competency that is not correct, specifically;

Refusal of treatment

Clearly, there will be occasions where a child or young person wishes to refuse a treatment or intervention offered by doctors. If the child is under 16 and not competent the parents can consent to treatment on his behalf despite the child's refusal, although it is advisable if possible to try to persuade the child to agree. Refusal by a competent child however is much more difficult.



It had reasonably been assumed that Gillick provided the competent child under 16 with the right to refuse treatment as well as accept it. However, this view was firmly rejected by subsequent judgements of the Court of Appeal which allow parental consent to override the refusal not only of competent children under 16 but of 16 and 17 year olds as well.

In Re R ([1992] Fam. 11), a 15-year-old girl with psychiatric problems was under the care of the local authority. Her condition fluctuated but in lucid intervals she refused treatment with certain antipsychotic medication. The local authority, unhappy to consent to treatment that she had refused, sought a court ruling. The Court of Appeal ruled that she was not Gillick competent because her fluctuating condition rendered her unable to fully understand the proposed treatment and that the local authority, having parental responsibility, could have consented on her behalf.

However, the court went on to say that even if she had been Gillick competent, she would still have no power to veto treatment. In situations where parents agreed to treatment but a Gillick competent child refused, although taking into account the views of the child, the doctor could act on the basis of the parents' consent alone (For conclusions drawn by one of the judges in this case see Box 5).

verysillyguy06

ccarpet wrote: »

I don't think you understand that under 16s can consent to medical treatment without their parents consent. I've done it, most people have it would be assumed.

I'm sorry that you refuse to acknowledge the law and wish to opress young Women.

You can say that they are not legally competent but you really know little if you peddle that one.

You really are not that clever now, even in your own post you stated two doctors have to agree....it really pays to read one's own post

poet123

Seems clear it is not an automatic right but subject to assessment

It is important to note that the child's ability to understand and consent to a treatment will depend substantially on what treatment is proposed.

The judges in Gillick made clear that competence in children was ‘situation dependent’ in other words it had to be objectively assessed in each particular case and the fact that a child was competent to consent to one treatment by no means guaranteed competence for another.

rachbc

Any child of any age that is considered to be competent according to the Frasier Guidelines to make such as decision can consent any medical procedure - including abortion. Not all 13 years will be competent but many will be, and indeed some younger than 13 will be. We don't have enough info to say the person here is or is not 'Gillick competent'.

The aunt isn't bound by the same confidentiality as a professional will be BUT imo should not tell the mum - she an support/ encourage the young woman to tell her mum but she shouldn't take that decision for her.

raven83

I love the way all the people on here that say that the girls privacy should be respected, yet if those same people were in the same position and found out that their daughter and sister had kept such a secret, would be on here having a rant!!!

It is a grey area and an area where in my IMO were every case is different, and I think the aunty will need to make the decision whether to tell the mum or to keep it quiet.

poet123

rachbc wrote: »

Any child of any age that is considered to be competent according to the Frasier Guidelines to make such as decision can consent to or refuse any medical procedure - including abortion. Not all 13 years will be competent but many will be, and indeed some younger than 13 will be. We don't have enough info to say the person here is or is not 'Gillick competent'.

The aunt isn't bound by the same confidentiality as a professional will be BUT imo should not tell the mum - she an support/ encourage the young woman to tell her mum but she shouldn't take that decision for her.

That is incorrect, the refusal of treatment even for those aged 17 can be overidden by parents or the courts.