falpere Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share Posted June 4, 2010 Why? The law is very clear, if the child is able to understand the consequences of taking the drug, they are able to consent to having the drug. Doesn't the law also say something about no sex untill sixteen years of age or something? Which law is very clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falpere Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share Posted June 4, 2010 This issue was tried in a court of law, and the judgement was that as long as the child was mature enough to give an informed consent, it was legal. Well. That's ok then!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Doesn't the law also say something about no sex untill sixteen years of age or something? Which law is very clear? The age of consent laws are not very clear. Apparently although it is technically illegal for two fifteen year olds to have sex, the Home Office has stated 'the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation.' I did post that a few pages back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falpere Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share Posted June 4, 2010 The "if"is obviously up to the judgemnet of the GP perscribing, they are legally accountable for that decision. I think that your examples are two completely separate issues. They are, but they both illustrate the fact that a child is not always mature enough to make such decisions, even though they may appear to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evei Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Good to know that this can be given to a child without the parents knowledge! All contraception has side effects, the combined pill has as many if not more side effects. Personally having an implant for period pains I think is a bit too much when there is other things that can be tried. However if it is for period pains and contraception it might be the best option. As a 30 year old with no children I have felt slightly pressured by doctors constantly mentioning the implant and also the hormone coil, dispite me telling them that I'm not interested, they mention it ever time I go I guess it's cost effective as you doing have to go again for 3 years. I know in the past the family planning clinics would set up a meeting with a health care worker before underage girls saw the doctor. They would go through all the reasons why they wanted it and the relationship they were in and then if they thought it was a good enough reason go through all the side effects and the different options. I guess it was a way of trying to give children the opportunity to ask for help if they needed it and working out if the child was at risk or it was a mature personal choice they had made for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falpere Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share Posted June 4, 2010 The age of consent laws are not very clear. Apparently although it is technically illegal for two fifteen year olds to have sex, the Home Office has stated 'the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation.' I did post that a few pages back. Yeah I saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Doesn't the law also say something about no sex untill sixteen years of age or something? Which law is very clear? The law is known as Gillick competence. Gillick competence is a term used in medical law to decide whether a child is able to consent to medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge. This matter was litigated because an activist, Mrs. Victoria Gillick ran an active campaign against the policy. Mrs Gillick sought a declaration that prescribing contraception was illegal because the doctor would commit an offence of encouraging sex with a minor, and that it would be treatment without consent as consent vested in the parent. The judgement was: As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed." Lord Scarman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 They are, but they both illustrate the fact that a child is not always mature enough to make such decisions, even though they may appear to be. You are right, and if the GP didn't Judge the child to be mature enough they wouldn't prescribe the contraception, or any medical treratment without the parents consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carly83 Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 This is a public forum in which people are free to respond to threads with THEIR opinions, why is it that you have such a problem with MY opinion as this is all it is, everyone is entitled to their say and no we are not all going to agree and feel the same way about issues but there is absolutely no need to insult me because I happen to have a different view on things from you!!!! here we go again see post 227 as i really can be bothered repeating my self:suspect: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falpere Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share Posted June 4, 2010 You are right, and if the GP didn't Judge the child to be mature enough they wouldn't prescribe the contraception, or any medical treratment without the parents consent. Its a big ask of the poor GP's don't you think? I don't envy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.