• S A Parekh.
• University of Wales, Swansea, UK. shalin12317@rediffmail.com
• Child Care Health Dev. 2007 Jan 1;33(1):78-82.

BackgroundThe law governing consent for children is not very clear. A child can consent to treatment but usually in practice is unable to refuse it. Even if both the child and parents refuse treatment, courts are reluctant to accept this, particularly if it is in the best interest of the child.DiscussionIn order to consent to treatment, a child must be competent enough to do so, and this competence is judged usually by a doctor. Children can even consent to contraceptives and abortion if 'competent' to do so. This concept perfectly lacks moral, ethical and emotional competence, and judgement of competence is carried out usually purely scientifically by pure science-orientated objective professionals like doctors. A broad discussion about the issues of children refusing treatment is conducted from the legal, ethical and philosophical point of view. Life-saving treatment and various other cases are also discussed.ConclusionThere is no right answer to the question. A more holistic approach is needed, and not only doctors but also sociologists, care specialists and even clergymen should be asked to judge competence in a multidisciplinary environment, particularly for contraceptives and abortion. This multidisciplinary working can be extended to other areas in medical law as well particularly in light of changes in medicine. Experience in life should be valued in a decision-making environment for judging competence. The law in relation to child consent is unclear and requires changes in order to clarify what is perceived as the child's best interest.

16 keywords...

hide…