by pbr 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hi all
I have been told by a reliable source that minors under the age of 16 cannot refuse life or death treatment within the uk, and that this has been the law since the mid/late 90's.
However I have been under the impression that if a minor can give a judge the impression that he/she fully understands the implications, then refusel of life saving treatment could indeed be granted to a minor.
can anyone shed some light on this? perferably with documented proof of the law.
thanks in advance
pbr
I don't have documented proof at hand, however with a bit of research it would be there. Years ago and i'm pretty sure it's still the same parents decisions on blood transfusions could be overiden by two doctors agreeing with each other.
This was the case when my son was born 11 years ago, it was a possibility he needed a blood transfusion. He didn't need one in the end, but i had just left the org and my wife was still in. I spoke to the doctors at the time and said that although we were down as JW's i would sign for him to have the transfusion if they felt he needed it. They said they they would give him one anyway if needed, that it only takes 2 of them to agree to overide the parents decision.
It is widely known in this country that this is the case.
Paul
In the uk chidren under 16 are under the care and control of thier parents, so therefore the parents have the final say.
That being said the closer that a minor is to 16 the more persuasive would her testimony be before a judge, i do not believe however that this would overide the wishes of the parents.
I would like to adduce documentary evidence but it is late here,. if it is important please pm me and i will do what i can later.
Regards David
Thanks for the replies guys.
I was thinking along the lines ....if minor and parents were jw's and the minor needed blood could the court still override the minor? could the minor request a refusel and that refusel be granted under the age of 16? or is it cut and dryed that a minor under the age of 16 would not have a viable say?
The answer to this question has a possibility to spill over and effect my work and I need to know where the law definately stands in this arear. I also have concerns that the information I have been told has another layer to it that needs to be explored more fully because A If minors have the right of apeal and are sometimes granted refusel on the grounds that they fully understand what the consequense might be, then this needs to be understood for training purposes. and B. what is being taught at the moment is not current and correct and therefore that brings into question other arears maybe?
thanks guys info is very much appreciated.
pbr
Whilst not being specifically written into statute the courts do rely upon a legal doctrine of competence or Gillick Competence. This is taken from a House of Lords ruling in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402 (HL);
The issue before the court was whether or not a minor could consent to treatment and whether or not being competent to make such a decision in the legal sense, his wishes could circumvent those of his parents. There have been numerous cases since that have dealt specifically with the issue of blood transfusions and medical treatment however they are always considered in light of the above ruling.
To quote Lord Scarman in this case he ruled: "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."
Gary
thanks Gary
I was told that the Gillick law could only be used for minor decitions such as contraception etc... as in the original case. However I was informed that where life and death decitions were to be made then a minor could NOT refuse life saving treatment, that the courts would ALWAYS over rule in the interests of the child.
I think this is misleading as I think that a judge WOULD listen to a minor and even grant a refusel if said child could demonstate that they understood fully the possible consequences i.e death......does that sound about right to you?
This is a scarey thought as it gives people a false sense of security, that the courts will definately intervene and prevent a child from dying. apart from the case last year of the 14 year old living with his aunt (scott ? can't remember his full name) there doesn't seem to be any cases I can find in the uk. when I brought this case up at a recent seminare I was told that it wouldn't happen in the uk and if it did it might have been before the 1990's I can't help but wonder if this information is wrong.but I can't say any more without some documented evidence to back up what at present is just my theory....any thoughts?
thanks again everyone thats posted
pbr
