Consent II Flashcards
Effective ‘consent’ has to:
(1) be given by the correct person,
(2) it has to be voluntary in a sense that it is not given under undue influence or duress, and also
(3) it needs to be informed – it has got to be following correct levels of information.
For children
no matter who consents or wants something, the actual treatment itself is determined by the doctor. The doctors always treat in the patient’s best interests. That’s the same for adults.
Children Act 1989 Section 2(7)
Either parent is able to give that consent, and that applies to most cases. So doctors can approach a parent – mother or father – to get consent for medical treatments.
Re J [2000] (children)
But what the courts have done is that they have said for some important decisions, which are undefined – so the courts have not spelled out exactly what this means… for some important decisions, both parents must consent.
Was about circumcision
Re C [2003] (children)
The courts have done is that they have said for some important decisions, which are undefined – so the courts have not spelled out exactly what this means… for some important decisions, both parents must consent.
Was actually a vaccination program
Children Act 1989, Section 1
Now, when the court is asked to decide it does so in accordance with the principles under the Children Act 1989, Section 1. That directs the court to consider the welfare of the child. So it is the welfare of the child that is paramount
NHS Trust v SR [2012]
The little boy was Neon Roberts. He was three or four years old and he had a brain tumor and his mother was into natural health and treating things through diet. His mother refused conventional treatment for her son’s brain tumor. So, Neon Roberts’ mother refused to consent for conventional brain tumor treatment. She thought dealing with diet would solve the problem and cure her son. The doctors disagreed and wanted him to have the conventional treatment, so they went to court and the court sided with the doctors and sanctioned his brain tumor treatment. So the child did receive conventional treatment following the court’s sanction.
Re King [2014]
This is the case of Asher King, the little boy from Southhampton whose parents wanted him to have protein bean treatment for a brain tumor. This case is slightly different because the protein bean treatment was not available at that point on the NHS. So the parents in King wanted a treatment which the doctors effectively were not able to give because there was no money for it. If you remember, it was in the news because they took him from the hospital and went to Spain with the son; eventually he ended up in Prague where he did receive his treatment. Eventually, the court was asked to determine the outcome of Asher King, and in this case the court sided with the parents – it felt that the appropriate treatment, which they therefore sanctioned, was the protein bean treatment.
Glass v UK [2004]
The facts are not important – decides that if the parent objects to treatment for children then a court order is essential, and failure to get one breaches the parents Article 8 rights. So the Glass case is a European point in this connection – if the parent object to treatment, then a court order is essential. Without that, treating the child would breach the parents Article 8 rights – right to respect for their private and family life.
Court’s authorization of use of force
as long as the use of force is to do something which is therapeutically necessary, or clinically necessary, then the use of force will not be inhuman and degrading – so there will be no breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.
Family Law Reform Act 1969 Section 8(1)
Consent to medical treatment of a 16 or 17-year-old shall be as effective as if they were an adult.
Firstly, this section refers specifically to consent – i.e., a positive. So it is the ability to consent in the positive sense.
As we will see a bit later on, courts have consistently said that this does not mean children can refuse treatment. So they are not given equal rights as adults.
It also only applies to diagnosis and treatment. So there are certain things to which this doesn’t apply – namely organ donation, and also non-therapeutic research.
Gillick v West Norfolk AHA [1986]
The second way in which a child can give consent in their own right and be competent is by common law. It is the infamous case of Gillick v West Norfolk AHA [1986] – the lady in the picture is Victoria Gillick and she was a campaigner; she was the sort of antiabortionists and anti-contraception campaigner. What she objected to was a Department of Health circular sent to GPs and sent out to doctors which told doctors that they were able to give contraceptive advice and products to people under 16 without parental knowledge or consent. So that is what she objected to. It was a Department of Health circular advising doctors that they were legally able to give contraceptive advice and products to under 16’s without parental knowledge or consent.
Gillick’s argument was how can that be… Bear in mind the date, which was 1986,… The only specific law was the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which referred to 16 and 17-year-olds. So she said how can it be lawful for under 16’s to consent to something when the statute doesn’t cover them? That was her argument. How could it be lawful for someone under 16 to make their own decisions when they are not covered by the only law on this matter?
Now, the case did go to the House of Lords and what the House of Lords said was that just because under 16’s were not covered by the Family Law Reform Act did not mean they couldn’t be competent.
Effectively, even though not covered by the Act, they effectively said you could still find under 16s to be competent at common law.
The test which comes out of the case is known as the Gillick Test. So this sets outside of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, and it provides another way where children, obviously under 16s in this case, can be found competent to take medical decisions.
Gillick Test
Does the child have sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to fully understand what is proposed?
The relevant factors to this decision are:
Firstly, does the child understand the relevant medical issues?
Is there an understanding of the relevant medical issues?
These would include (A) their current state of health, (B) proposed treatment and side effects, (C) together with the consequences of not treating. So that is the first thing that the courts will consider when assessing a child that is not caught by the Family Law Reform Act 1969 – so perhaps someone who is 14 or 15.
Secondly, the courts have to ask whether the views expressed are the child’s own, not merely those of other people. So, because you are dealing with someone who is perhaps a little bit vulnerable, the courts are very mindful to the influence of others, such as parents, carers, friends, etc. So, are the views those of the child themselves, or are they merely trotting off something they have heard from other people?
Bearing in mind that we looked at the test for incapacity of adults last week, immediately you will start to realize that the factors of Gillick competency are actually quite a lot more onerous than capacity considered for adults, because the next factor is:
The child must understand the moral and family issues involved. So, not only do they need an understanding of the health issues, but also the impact on their family, and this could be for religious issues as well – the moral and family issues – both of treating, and of not treating.
The final factor, which seems to underpin the need for the courts to be absolutely sure, which is added by a later case – Re R – the courts need to ask: is the child’s competence reasonably secure as opposed to fluctuating? So, if a child is changing their mind all the time, then that might indicate fluctuating competence. And Re R, almost to underline the need to be absolutely sure, said that this was a relevant factor: is the child’s competence reasonably secure, and not fluctuating?
Re S [1994]
Effectively, in this case the court said the more serious the consequences then the greater the capacity needed will be. So, the more serious the consequences, then the greater the capacity needed will be.
Now, on the facts, this case was about blood transfusions. The patient who was 15 was refusing blood transfusions. Actually, quite a few of the cases are about blood transfusions involving Jehovah witnesses. And what the court in Re S said was that she needed to understand not only that she would die without the transfusions, but she would also need to understand the manner and pain of such death.
Re E [1993]
It involved a 15-year-old Jehovah witness boy who had leukemia. He wanted again refuse blood transfusions, but the court found that although he knew he could die without, he didn’t understand the future pain, fear and stress that both he and his family would be in. So, although he understood that he would die without the transfusions, he didn’t understand the future pain, suffering, and distress for him and his family. So he was not Gillick competent.
That case is notable because when he turned 18 he refused the blood transfusions and he did die. And as one of the commentators notes, literally all that had happened was a day had moved on – on day one he was 17 and 364 days, and the next day he was 18. Nothing changed apart from his age. His wishes hadn’t changed. Had he matured literally by passing through one extra night? Who knows. But under 18 the competency level was set at such a threshold that he was not competent. But at 18, as the case is from last week show, you have an absolute right to decide what you want, whether it is good for you or not.
