Adolescent autonomy revisited: clinicians need clearer guidance

摘要: In 1996, Brazier and Bridge raised the question 'is adolescent autonomy truly dead buried' following judicial decisions which had seemed to reverse Gillick-inspired trend for greater child in healthcare. Subsequent by courts have reinforced view that those below 18 years England Wales remain children with limited rights refuse treatment compared adults. This is at variance daily experience of working young people who increasingly seek actively involve them making freely informed about their healthcare, accordance principles enunciated UN Convention Rights Child UK Children Acts. We review derivation law this area, light another recent family court judgement enforcing on a 'competent' without his or her consent ask: 'How can Common Law ethical practice caring diverged so far?' Either decide whether recommended treatment, they cannot. Given Ian McEwan's book, Act, has stimulated wider social debate area might be an opportune moment public policy resolution regards healthcare decision people? argue events since Gillick case underlined need comprehensive legal area. While absolute freedom choice are arguably inconsistent protection society agreed owed children, practitioners clarity over circumstances expects autonomous choices adolescents overridden.