Cookies

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.


Durham Research Online
You are in:

Competence and authority : adolescent treatment refusals for physical and mental health conditions.

Cave, Emma (2013) 'Competence and authority : adolescent treatment refusals for physical and mental health conditions.', Contemporary social science., 8 (2). pp. 92-103.

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between competence and authority in relation to medical treatment refusals. Comparing provisions directed at adults and young people, the author explores the options before the court if a test case (called for by the British Medical Association and the Department of Health) is brought before the court to determine the extent of the minor's autonomy rights to be involved in or make medical treatment decisions of common law. At present, the common law rights of competent adults and minors stand in stark contrast. Adults can refuse life-saving treatment against the advice of doctors, but minors (even if they pass the legal test for competence) cannot do so if a parent or the court provides the necessary consent in the child's ‘best interests’. Since the matter was last tested in court, children's rights – including their autonomy rights – have evolved. In light of this, if a minor can demonstrate his autonomy in relation to the decision should he, like a competent adult, be given the legal authority to decide? Cave asserts that academic arguments against the different levels of competence required to consent to and refuse medical treatment should be distinguished from arguments about the respective authority a decision to consent and refuse may carry. A close examination of the law relating to adults reveals that their decisional authority is context-specific. There are circumstances where adults too are powerless to refuse medical treatment, regardless of their competence. Statutes enacted post-Human Rights Act 1998 which apply to competent minors take a similar approach. Deference to children's autonomy rights does not necessarily require that their competent decisions are respected. In particular, the article considers mental health legislation, examining its aims and how they relate to the restrictions on competent adults and minors and the extent to which these provide examples which might be followed when the common law on adolescent treatment refusals is tested in court.

Item Type:Article
Additional Information:Special Issue: Young People, Social Science Research and the Law.
Keywords:Competence, Children, Minors, Consent, Medical, Treatment.
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
(261Kb)
Status:Peer-reviewed
Publisher Web site:https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2012.751502
Publisher statement:This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences on 07/12/2012, available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/21582041.2012.751502.
Date accepted:06 November 2012
Date deposited:21 May 2014
Date of first online publication:07 December 2012
Date first made open access:No date available

Save or Share this output

Export:
Export
Look up in GoogleScholar