Section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969

If the 16/17 year old is able to give valid consent, it is not legally necessary to obtain the consent of a person who has parental responsibility over the young person in addition to the consent of the young person. However, it is good practice to involve the youth`s family in the decision-making process – unless the young person specifically wishes to exclude it – if the young person consents to the disclosure of their information. Adults, defined as people over the age of 18, are generally considered capable of deciding on their own treatment. The Family Law Reform Act 1969 also gives everyone between the ages of 16 and 18 the right to consent to treatment. Recently, a doctor was brought before the GMC disciplinary committee, accused of violating professional conduct in connection with the breach of confidentiality of a 16-year-old patient. The judgment of the G.M.C. On that occasion, which said that the doctor was wrong in what he was doing, but that he was right to do so, was hardly the clear and final decision that most people consider necessary. I think doctors, particularly family doctors, are allowed to exercise their discretion in certain cases where their patients are under the age of 18, and I regret that so much emphasis has been placed on the more sensational and publicized aspect – the pill. While the pill is an important part of the problem, it is secondary to the much more serious medical considerations associated with it.

I have been informed of cases where adolescents as young as 17 or 18 years old may suffer from a serious medical or mental illness, such as: severe depression, thrombosis, peritonitis, septic abortion or V.D., all of which are life-threatening and some of which require medication that may have side effects. Section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 means that young people aged 16 or 17 may consent to their medical treatment and any ancillary procedures associated with that treatment, such as anaesthesia. Therefore, treatment can take place if the competent adolescent gives valid consent. Finally, if it is reactionary to believe that the influence of the family is a great positive force in our society, which must be strengthened and not undermined, and that it will be undermined if, in some cases, parents are not allowed to assume their responsibilities, then I am condemned as a reactionary, because that is all. which I believe. For these two important reasons, medico-legal and social, I seek leave to amend section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act, 1969. Then there is the other type of case, which is not immediately serious, but perhaps like this one, where a doctor who knows that there is a long family history of thrombosis when approached by his 16-year-old patient may be reluctant to prescribe a birth control pill and feel it is his duty to warn his parents. Pay attention to the symptoms. Certainly, parents of minors, for whom they are still legally responsible, should have the right to know the medical situation of their children in circumstances as serious as those I have mentioned.

Certainly, this is precisely the moment when communication within the family is vital in 1517, when parental affection, counsel, sympathy and practical help are urgently needed. But if a doctor violates the confidentiality of his young patients in one of these cases, he runs the risk of being brought before the disciplinary committee of the G.M.C. I can`t believe that an Hon. The honourable Member would be in favour of that. Section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 applies only to the specific treatment of young persons. It does not apply to interventions that are not likely to have a direct benefit to the health of the young person, such as blood donation or non-therapeutic research into the causes of a disorder. However, a youth may be able to accept such an intervention according to the Gillick competency standard. In general, under English law, a minor is a person under the age of 18. However, the Family Law Reform Act, 1969 states: I fully agree with the honourable law.

Madam, family life is very important. It is good, fair, fair and desirable for young people to talk to, talk to and receive advice from their parents. Unfortunately, this does not apply to everyone. The law will damage the fabric of many family relationships, because the confidentiality that the young person wants to preserve will be destroyed and knowing that he does not want his parents will automatically come to him. This could lead to breakdowns in family life. In fact, the article could have already been amended without an unfortunate accident. At report stage of the bill, on July 9, 1969, in column 1407, my hon. member The Friend, member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr.

Eldon Griffiths), tried to change it and to explain to the House very convincingly the general fears and apprehensions that were widespread among school doctors about the problems associated with the medical ethics of minors in boarding schools. He revealed in his speech that, unfortunately, his letter presenting these important points to the Ministry of the Interior in December 1968 had been lost between the ministries for four months, and that when he received a reply, he was abroad and the recommendations of the Latey Commission had been incorporated into the bill. which by that time had completed its adoption elsewhere. This also applies to the whole question of whether these are births out of wedlock. In 1969, 15,000 unmarried live births of girls aged 11-18 were registered. This is a very drastic increase. The same argument is absolutely true. The new attitude towards sexual relations among young people will not be stopped. They will be deterred from seeking advice. We have an increase in the number of abortions, which would also have an impact. 1516 In responding in this debate on the question of prohibiting a 16-year-old patient from discussing her case with her mother, the then Attorney General refrained from participating in a legal response to the problem by saying: “Whether a physician accepted the ban would be a matter of conscience, of what he thought was right and what he thought was appropriate.

—[OFFICIAL REPORT, July 9, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 1421.] This is an interpretation that I accept, but it is obviously not acceptable to either the B.M.A. or the GMC. The hon. member knows that every physician is bound by the code of ethics of the profession to maintain the confidentiality of a patient. Any breach of this obligation, as has occurred, can be prosecuted before the General Medical Council, which, in the case of Dr Brown and his young patient – the fact that she took the pill was communicated to him through the family counselling clinic – but this duty must go hand in hand with the law of the land. Probably the only legal obligation to maintain confidentiality is the right to retain information in connection with a prosecution before the Chancery Division. This was confirmed and explained by the Secretary of State for Social Services in a reply to my honourable person. Friend of the Member for Pontypool (Mr.

Abse). It is well known that children (adolescents under the age of 18) may or may give or refuse consent to medical treatment in certain circumstances. The Family Law Reform Act, 1969 tells us unequivocally that young people can consent to treatment at the age of 16 or 17, but it has been decided in the past that rejection by this group of persons with parental responsibility can be overturned. Although such a view is considered in most quarters to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, in practice uncertainty remains. Under section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, persons aged 16 or 17 are deemed to be able to consent to their own medical treatment and any ancillary procedures associated with that treatment, such as anaesthesia. As with adults, consent is only valid if it is given voluntarily by a knowledgeable youth who is able to consent to the intervention in question. However, unlike adults, the refusal of a competent person between the ages of 16 and 17 may, in certain circumstances, be annulled either by a person exercising parental responsibility or by a court.