Medical practitioners' competence and confidentiality decisions with a minor: An anorexia nervosa case study.
Minors (i.e., those under 18 years of age) hold a tenuous legal position in medical settings. While recent legal authority in numerous jurisdictions affords competent minors the right to consent to medical treatment, the guidelines for assessing competence are often vague or non-existent. In addition, these changes have not adequately addressed the issue of confidentiality, and it is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) owe a duty of confidentiality to competent minors. As medical practitioners are the first point of contact in medical settings, the present study explored GPs' competence and confidentiality determinations regarding a 16-year-old female patient who presented with symptoms of an eating disorder. Questionnaires and hypothetical scenarios were sent to a sample of 1000 GPs, of which 305 responded. Results indicated that 62% of respondents would have found the patient competent, while 82% would have maintained her confidentiality. However, analysis of the rationales provided for these decisions revealed a wide discrepancy in GPs' understanding and implementation of current legal principles. This research highlights the necessity of providing GPs with clear guidelines regarding competence and confidentiality determinations when dealing with minors.
Bartholomew
Terence
T
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. terryb@deakin.edu.au
Carvalho
Tatiana
T
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000856:Anorexia Nervosa / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000523:psychology*; D002648:Child; D002983:Clinical Competence; D003219:Confidentiality; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D006282:Health Personnel; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D033242:Minors; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires