Parent with care refusing to share medical info.

elsien

Child is unwell - worrying ongoing symptoms , not standard childhood illness. Has been to GP with PWC who is refusing to give any info to the parent with shared parental responsibility. Aside from being worried sick, and wanting to know if there is a diagnosis or further tests needed other parent has child to stay very regularly so needs to know what's going on in case things get worse.
Will/should the GP share information with the second parent if requested if PWC continues to not respond to any questions?
(And before any comments about working together for the child, yes of course that would be farbetter but can't happen if PWC won't engage. )

WantToBeSE

How awful!

Is the non-resident parent on the childs birth certificate, and is the child under 14? If so they have parental rights and is able to ask the GP about the medical details.

Also, does the child WANT the non-resident parent to know?

I mention the age of 14 because at our GPs surgery they wont tell any parent (even the resident parent) any test results etc without written consent from a child aged 14+. Not sure if that is normal, as i thought it was 16.

Good luck, and i hope the non-resident parent gets the information.

elsien

Yes and yes to both questions. Thank you.

FBaby

Yes, they should be able to get the info from the GP, but they might have to be prepared to face resistance, just because the practice might wonder why they are asking them and therefore take a defensive and protective approach.

I would therefore write to the Practice Manager and explain the situation and ask their advice about how to take the matter forward.

mellymoo74

Might also be worth asking the child to let the practice know they are happy for it to be shared Elsien

I speak to GP on OHS behalf (as you know), because he has made it clear that's what he wants

onomatopoeia99

WantToBeSE wrote: »

I mention the age of 14 because at our GPs surgery they wont tell any parent (even the resident parent) any test results etc without written consent from a child aged 14+. Not sure if that is normal, as i thought it was 16.

If the child is so minded, and the treating physician believes they are competent to make the decision (not based on some age written in statute, by the health authority or some government minister, but in their judgement) then the child gets to choose about treatment and about whether or not the parents / guardians are informed. The 14th birthday is not a magic age in this regard with any legal standing.

The relevant case law is Gillick vs Wisbech & West Norfolk AHA, finally decided in the Law Lords just over 30 years ago. Some of you may remember that nice roman catholic lady, Mrs Victoria Gillick that didn't want her teenage daughters to have access to information on contraception and fought the health authority through the courts, finally losing in the appellate committee of the House of Lords. That decision forms the basis of how under 16s are treated in the health care system when they don't want their parents / guardians informed.

If you put "Gillick competent" into your search engine of choice, you'll find loads of information regarding children and medical treatment.

AnnieO1234

Provided the child's birth was registered after December 2003, or the parents were married at birth of child, then the other parent has parental responsibility. However are there any reasons relating to the residency status which may mean that PR has been removed?

Speak to practice manager.

Xxx

pigpen

ring the relevant people and ask for appointments to be copied to you. Request the medical records and see what has already been done and plan of action.

Unless there is a court order stating the parent cannot go to appointments there is no reason they shouldnt both go.

securityguy

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

The relevant case law is Gillick vs Wisbech & West Norfolk AHA,.

You need to read that in conjunction with the equally fabulously named case "The Queen On The Application Of Sue Axon v The Secretary Of State For Health (The Family Planning Association: intervening) [2006] EWCA 37 (Admin)". Isn't it great that her Maj is involved?

Gillick holds that a parent can't stop their child from receiving treatment if the child understands the consequences ("Gillick Competence", sometimes called "Fraser Competence" as he wrote the guidelines). Axon holds that as well as treating the child over the head of the parents, the doctor owes a duty of confidence to the child.

The full case is well worth reading.

In this case, however, Gillick competence is a double-edged sword. If one parent convinces the child that the other parent shouldn't know, then the child can tell the doctor this, and assuming they are Gillick competent, that's the end of it: the child is perfectly entitled to state which parent they want informed (or neither), and the doctor has limited scope to do anything else.