3 ms·
This article is from England, and the context is a person in England who died by suicide, and the English government advancing white papers that talk about onli
by DanBC 8y ago
This article is from England, and the context is a person in England who died by suicide, and the English government advancing white papers that talk about online harm.
In that context, the English rules abuot medical treatment seem useful. Someone the age of 16 or over is assumed to have capacity to make medical decisions by themselves (and there's complex law to regulate if they're thought to lack that capacity). Someone under 15 or under can also have that capacity: the doctor would need to check if the patient is Gillick Competent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence
- geofft 8y agoInteresting! Wikipedia claims: "The House of Lords focused on the issue of consent rather than a notion of 'parental rights' or parental power. In fact, the court held that 'parental rights' did not exist, other than to safeguard the best interests of a minor." I am of the opinion that we should give significant credence to a minor over the age of, say, eight who says "I do not trust my parents to act in my best interests." This may generally involve having a qualified doctor or social worker evaluate the child's best interests instead of making the child decide, but at least a doctor or a social worker, unlike a parent, had qualifications to evaluate the options and has no conflict of interest unlike a parent.