How did the 1989 Children Act affect Medical Ethics? By Alexandra Morgan, Year 12 North London Collegiate
T
he Children Act 1989 was instrumental in ensuring the safety of children living in the UK, introducing measures such as the regulation of care for children and ensuring that
court cases involving children are conducted without any potentially detrimental delays. However, the Children Act poses multiple new dilemmas when we consider medical ethics involving children, and the most pertinent question stemming from that being how far legal courts should respect a child or their guardian’s wishes for them to refuse medical treatment. At first the answer may appear to be obvious – a court should ensure that a child receives potential life-saving treatment, even if this treatment was previously refused by them or their parents. The argument forms when we begin to consider both the moral and religious implications, why this ethical dilemma is still so prominent in our societies today. In the UK, a child aged 16 or over is able to consent to their own treatment, whereas those under the age of 16 will require the consent of their parents if they are to have medical treatment, unless the child is considered to be ‘Gillick competent’ (i.e. prove that they have a full awareness of the treatment and provide sound reasons for why they are consenting/refusing it). However, even though children do have these basic rights when it comes to medical treatment, it can be overrun in courts on the basis of the Children
13
