Sue Axon's 'notification' judicial review thrown out.

There's a thread here from the time where this test case was launched, in case you want to catch up on previous discussion.

The Independant and BBC News are reporting that Sue Axon's test case, reviewing the guidelines on parental notification for under-16's seeking sexual health advice or treatment, has been rejected.

The case was brought because, in Mrs Axon's belief, the current guidelines on parental notification infringed her parental rights under the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and she was seeking to have the guidelines changed so that any under 16 seeking advice or treatment for any sexual health matter would have their parents notified.

This was banded about the media as a pro-life campaign focusing solely on abortion, but had these guidelines been passed, an under-16 requesting information on contraception, sexual health, reproductive issues or sexually transmitted infections would also have had their parents notified. As it stands, this information will still be available to any under-16 requesting it, without the worry that their parents will be told.

Is this the right decision? Do you believe that this is a human rights infringement, or do the under-16's targetted by this review have the right to confidentiality?

[punkin_drunk]

Im kinda split on this one, i think it should be allowed for them to discuss topics with the doctors or ask for advice without the parents being informed, but when it comes to things like kids being put on the pill or the contraceptive jag, underage pregnancies abortion all that sorta thing i think when it gets to that stage the parents should definately be informed.

[Addy]

I seem to recall that in that thread the general opinion was that this was too far reaching and over generalised to be justified, and thats what I maintain now. Some kids could genuinely be thrown out of house and home, or worse, for getting pregnant/abortions - especially those from strict religious families (Catholic, Muslim etc in particular). I for one am happy that it has been thrown out - only a discretionary service could reasonably be accepted IMHO, and this is far from discretionary.

[nevali]

You can't have a human right which infringes somebody else's human right. That's just silly.

The fact that this has been thrown out is, altogether, excellent news.

There's a significant minority of those with parental responsibility who cannot be trusted to deal with the information that their little girl is thinking about taking precautions in the direction of sexual activity (i.e., being sensible).

There's a wider issue, too. This is very much in my opinion, but I think that adolescents deciding upon whether they should or shouldn't talk to their parents about particular personal issues is part of growing up, and they must, if they are to actually grow up, be permitted to make the wrong decisions. Every parent has to let go at some point, and it's going to be difficult for the majority, because you don't want your child making the same mistakes you did, or your best friend did, or your neighbour did and turning out like them, but using the law to cling to your offspring's childhood? That really is never-never land.

[Addy]

Ultimately you learn the most not from doing the right thing and attempting to repeat them but by doing wrong thing and trying not to repeat it. It would be lovely if all parents could be trusted to react rationally to the news that their daughter wanted an abortion or whatever, but that's not the reality of the world in which we live.

[djtoast]

Cat -> pigeons...

How easy is it to reconcile requiring a parent to be responsible (and liable) for a child's well-being, yet exclude their input and involvement in these most serious matters—potentially the areas surrounding one of the greatest threats to a child's health?

I'm not FOR A MINUTE saying parents must be kept appraised of the advice sought by a 15year-11.5month old girl from her doctor... Just asking how, as soon as you DO remove responsibility, can they be held accountable?

We hand our kids' education over to professionals (usually, although there is legal provision for NOT sending them to school) but this is done with frequent two-way communication between parents and schools; it's when that breaks down that problems arise, often.

And clearly parents entrust offspring to qualified surgeons for proceedures they can't carry out: "here's two asprin" (if you're over twelve, or whatever) is fine, but "your tonsils DO look big, hold on while I get the breadknife" isn't on. Again, though, parental consent is needed for such medical intervention, right?

So what (other than the embarrassing nature of sexual matters) makes this different; a case where we can absolve parents of their duty of care?

I'm not expressing an opinion here, I haven't formed any. Help me to!

[Addy]

I agree. What the proposal would have done though is force all kids to tell their parents when having an abortion, when clearly there are cases in which this would not be sensible. I'm sure we have all seen cases of Muslim families having their kids killed when defying orders for arranged marriages. I am not suggesting this is a common occurance, merely pointing out that it happens - and that some parents will kick out their kids for getting pregant, or even physically abuse them. This happens, and its the social circumstances in which this could happen in which more pregnancies occur. To introduce such sweeping overgeneralisations could put some teenagers at risk. At least that is my view.

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by Nevali

You can't have a human right which infringes somebody else's human right. That's just silly.

That's complete nonsense - eg, your right to freedom of expression versus my right to not be discriminated against. Or, more topically, article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the best interests provision) versus article 12 (the autonomy of the child provision. Conflict of rights happens all the time and is a massive arena of debate. See Dinah Shelton's writings on the topic in particular.

Anyway, on topic, this is the right decision. You have to encourage children to seek out this sort of information and forcing them to tell their parents will prevent this happening.

Originally Posted by addy

What the proposal would have done though is force all kids to tell their parents when having an abortion *snip*

Just to reiterate - I agree with what you've posted, but these guidelines being changed would have meant any under-16 asking for so much as information on condoms would have had their parents notified - it would have been a pretty all-encompassing ruling which wouldn't just have covered abortion.

[Dec]

If children want to talk to their parents about these things, then let them. Otherwise, everyone else can take a back seat in the "protect the children" wagon because it's none of their business.

[Noizy Rab]

in my opinion looking for information is one thing, seeking treatment is something else, i think as soon as someone has the idea in their head to seek information on sexual health that they're mature enough to be given it without the need for their parents to be notified, seeking treatment for doing something stupid and getting pregnant because they haven't either been taught or haven't sought out the right information themselves pretty much deserves the embarrassment

naturally there are cases in which the parents still shouldn't be told like where the parents are for want of a better term "religious extremists" (of any religion) and will chastise their offspring for anything they deem inappropriate

[Addy]

Originally Posted by Vonnie

Just to reiterate - I agree with what you've posted, but these guidelines being changed would have meant any under-16 asking for so much as information on condoms would have had their parents notified - it would have been a pretty all-encompassing ruling which wouldn't just have covered abortion.

Fair enough. In that case I'm ultra happy this has been dumped!

[Strider C.R.U.X.]

*shrug* Doc-Patient confidentially has been around for a long time and rightly so, to suggest that under 16s are to excluded is frankly dumb, and has already been pointed out, will lead to children not getting ANY advicem

The issue of contraception is a bit trickier but my opinion is the same, if we have to choose between privacy and rules im with privacy

[cookie]

Originally Posted by Noizy Rab

in my opinion looking for information is one thing, seeking treatment is something else, i think as soon as someone has the idea in their head to seek information on sexual health that they're mature enough to be given it without the need for their parents to be notified, seeking treatment for doing something stupid and getting pregnant because they haven't either been taught or haven't sought out the right information themselves pretty much deserves the embarrassment

naturally there are cases in which the parents still shouldn't be told like where the parents are for want of a better term "religious extremists" (of any religion) and will chastise their offspring for anything they deem inappropriate

Sorry Rab but I really don't agree with this at all. If a child (and please remember we're talking about children) hasn't been provided with adequate sexual heath education and thus doesn't know where to go for reliable information I really don't think they should be effectively punished by having to suffer the potential embarassment of their parents knowing things of such a personal nature. Nobody deserves that. Teenagers give in to their hormones whether or not they are informed of the potential consequences and it's human nature to make mistakes.

For your point about parents who would strongly disapprove of their offsping messing about behind the bikesheds, how would you realistically prove which child's parents would be most likely to beat their kids/disown them/whatever? If we could actually tell that then perhaps there wouldn't be so many children mistreated in our society. Besides, any child in the position where they have to go seek sexual health advice for something is going to think their parents will kill them anyway!

I'm very glad that this case has been thrown out. Young people should continue to have access to confidential advice and treatment and be allowed to make their own decisions as to whether or not it is appropriate to tell their parents things that they may not want to hear.

[/]rant...

[Zooropa]

I think this getting thrown out is a good thing.