|
|
|
|
|
|
by DanBC
3953 days ago
|
|
|
That's the American experience. It's less the case in any country that has signed up to the convention on the rights of the child. In the case of children we protect them because they lack capacity. When they develop capacity we reduce the constraints. Have a look at English guidelines for medical competance: "Gillick competance". This is used to decide whether someone under the age of 16 can consent to medical treatment without their parents knowledge or permission. (The perhaps odd age of 16 is used because that's the age of consent for sex and the name Gillick Competance comes from a case where a mother did not want girls under the age of 16 to be prescribed the contraceptive pill. (16 is the age of sexual consent in England.) http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-sy... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence For examples of what this means with real life examples: 14 year old refuses chemotherapy for a highly treatable brain tumor: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0643x61 14 year old with type 1 diabetes is non-compliant with treatment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0499j2f Can a 9 year old be given treatment her parents don't agree with? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t3z65 |
|
|