Legal aspects of consent 8: children under the age of 16 years.
Case Scenario: Mrs Gillick questioned the lawfulness of the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) circular HN[80]46 which was a revised version of part of a comprehensive memorandum of guidance on family planning services issued to health authorities in May 1974 under cover of circular HSC(IS)32. The circular stated that in certain circumstances a doctor could lawfully prescribe contraception for a girl under 16 without the consent of the parents. Mrs Gillick wrote to the acting administrator formally forbidding any medical staff employed by the Norfolk Area Health Authority (AHA) to give 'any contraceptive or abortion advice or treatment whatever to my daughters whilst they are under 16 years without my consent.' The administrator replied that the treatment prescribed by a doctor is a matter for the doctor's clinical judgement, taking into account all the factors of the case. Mrs Gillick, who had five daughters, brought an action against the AHA and the DHSS seeking a declaration that the notice gave advice which was unlawful and wrong and which did or might adversely affect the welfare of her children, her right as a parent and her ability to discharge properly her duties as a parent. She sought a declaration that no doctor or other professional person employed by the health authority might give any contraceptive or abortion advice or treatment to any of her children below the age of 16 without her previous knowledge and consent.


METHODS
Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA and the DHSS [1985].
Dimond
B
B
University of Glamorgan, UK.
D000293:Adolescent; D000367:Age Factors; D002648:Child; D002651:Child Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005193:Family Planning Services / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D010290:Parents; D006113:United Kingdom