New recommendations for ages at which teenagers can consent to medical treatment

Piste

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1222/children.html

The Association of General Practitioners has said that 14 and 15 year olds should not be allowed to give consent to health care, following a proposal by the Law Reform Commission.

The Commission has suggested that 14 and 15 year olds may be able to consent and refuse medical treatment subject to certain conditions, such as understanding the nature of the treatment.

However, a GPA spokesperson said that children who have an idea of what is in store medically are the exception, rather than the rule.
Advertisement

In relation to 16 and 17-year-olds being allowed to consent to and refuse medical treatment - including contraception and surgery - as suggested by the Law Reform Commission, the spokesperson said the GPA accepted that at the age of 16 teenagers can understand medical treatment.

A paper from the Law Reform Commission dealing with legal issues regarding medical treatment for children will be launched this evening by Minister of State for Children Barry Andrews.

The Commission says there is a need to clarify the information on medical treatment for teenagers.

It is also recommending that teenagers who want to refuse life-saving treatment be allowed to make an application to the High Court.

Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Law Reform Commission President Judge Catherine McGuinness said those who believed that older teenagers were not sexually active or capable of making informed decisions about medical treatment were, perhaps, a little out of touch.

You asked for more threads, so here's something relevant to us bright young things (well not me, I'm 18 so I'm an adult now \o/)

I was surprised that GPs objected to the recommendations that 14 and 15 year olds should be allowed to consent to medical procedures. I would have thought 14 or 15 was old enough, but I guess GPs have more experience with sick 14 and 15 year olds than I do. I think it's a good idea anyway, it must be frustrating knowing that your parents can decide what happens to your body.

o1s1n

Hopefully this now means no more (Or at least less anyway) children dying because of religious parents making medical decisions based on 'god given' rules relating to their faith! Definite step in the right direction.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Craguls

My initial reaction to this was while personally I believe it to be a fantastic thing in my unrealistic, idealogical world where the streets are paved with gold and rainbows etc, I still warrants serious debate especially considering how large a chapter it opens on the privacy of children from their parents debate.

It kinda got me thinking back to a an interview by Otto Frank I saw in Amsterdam during the summer, one line in particular kinda stuck out to me. (Paraphrasing it was a long time ago)
"When I read Anna's diary I was initially harrowed, shocked even by her angst and melancholy. She was always so cheerful, so level headed, polite, gentle. To think that she kept these feelings, that sorrow, inside herself, buried deep as if in some chasm made me realise that children too keep secrets from us all. In short no parent really knows their children."

Jay P

I don't know what to think... On one hand, it's good that under eighteens have more freedom in this regard. But on the other, I don't think they're old enough to make those kinds of decisions on their own, though I know that being 18 doesn't automagically make you any more mature than a seventeen year old.

To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with the way things are at the moment, so I don't see any need for change.

Fad

I read whatever was on the front page of the times (Some headline about teens and contraception) and tbh, I dont think it really changes much, from what I can tell 16 year old could already refuse life sustaining med treatment, so does it really change much? Also it mentioned some form of test to judge the capacity to consent (That said, I was kinda supposed to be working as I read it, so I might have picked up on things wrong).

hitlersson666

hey fellow boardsies just to let u know i was at one of the consultation days for this in the oco office and tbh this really does not change anything. its all the same really

Shacklebolt

o1s1n wrote: »

Hopefully this now means no more (Or at least less anyway) children dying because of religious parents making medical decisions based on 'god given' rules relating to their faith! Definite step in the right direction.

I still find it disgusting that there are people who refuse to allow their children to recieve blood transfusions. However good their intentions are, these people are twisted. But s far as I'm aware a doctor can ignore their wishes if the childs life is in danger.

D4RK ONION

I missed this thread, thanks for the bump.

o1s1n wrote: »

Hopefully this now means no more (Or at least less anyway) children dying because of religious parents making medical decisions based on 'god given' rules relating to their faith! Definite step in the right direction.

Amen to that brother. I think this is certainly has more pluses than drawbacks.

Ginja Ninja

On the one hand it is good in the "Jehovah's witness" Scenario.But no one should be forced to stay alive.Think of the parents,if an operation could keep a child alive for a few more months but still terminallly ill.I think the child has the right to refuse surgery and simply pass away.I'm a big fan of the right to die.

Get's a big +1 from me[I'm 18 in a month,so makes very little difference]