Antidepressants fluoxetine photographed in the US. Photo: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

When are we mature enough to make life-or-death decisions about our body?

This 16-to-17 age band can pose the most acute ethical dilemmas, as a case in my area illustrated all too starkly.

It is straightforward to provide medical care to a child of, say, four. You seek consent from a parent and usually they grant it; then, you roll up your sleeves and do what is necessary, insulating yourself the best you can from any howls of protest from the patient. Yet fast-forward ten years to when your patient has reached the foothills of adulthood and things are more complex.

It was only in 1985 that the right of a child under 16 to consent to medical treatment was legally established. Victoria Gillick, a mother of five girls, sought to prohibit doctors from providing contraception without her knowledge to any of her daughters while they were under 16. The case went to the House of Lords, where Lord Fraser ruled that, providing that a child had sufficient maturity and understanding, they could consent to medical treatment irrespective of age.

Doctors now regularly gauge this understanding and maturity – the so-called Fraser competence of a minor – and, where established, involve them in decisions about their care. While doctors are expected to encourage parental involvement, it need not be insisted on if the child does not wish their parents to be informed.

Parents cannot overrule consent given by a Fraser-competent child. Paradoxically, if a competent minor withholds consent for care that is felt to be in their best interests, a parent or a court can override their decision. Such cases are rare but they illustrate an important point: we are prepared to grant autonomy when our children agree with the prevailing orthodoxy but we are reluctant to allow them the freedom to make perverse decisions. This must have its roots in an appreciation that medical procedures are often scary and, no matter how competent our children appear to be, they may still be too influenced by fear to be allowed free rein.

No such protection applies beyond the age of 18. Once we reach adulthood, we can decide whatever we like, even if refusing consent to treatment will result in our death. Perhaps the most difficult challenge comes when dealing with patients who are 16 or 17. These adolescents are legally presumed, by virtue of their age, to have the capacity to consent. Yet, unlike over-18s, they can still have a refusal to consent overridden by someone with parental authority or by a court. This 16-to-17 age band can pose the most acute dilemmas, as a case in my area illustrated all too starkly.

The patient was a youth we’ll call Ross, whose mood had been low for some time, probably as a result of bullying. Eventually, his parents persuaded him to see his GP and accompanied him to the surgery. However, Ross wanted to consult with the doctor by himself and his parents, respecting his nascent autonomy, stayed in the waiting room.

During the consultation, it became clear that Ross was severely depressed and he confessed to the doctor something that no one, not even his parents, knew: he had recently tried to commit suicide. The GP recognised that the attempt had been no mere “cry for help” and made an urgent referral to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).

Contact should have been made the following day but because of a transcription error, the wrong mobile number was given and Ross never received the promised call. Instead, a computer-generated letter giving details of an appointment was sent out, which Ross subsequently opened. He never attended. Before the appointment date, his body was found hanging in his bedroom by his mother.

One focus at the inquest was the GP’s decision not to breach Ross’s confidentiality and inform his parents of the depth of his depression and his suicide risk. Had they been made aware, his parents said, they would have ensured that someone was with him constantly. They were also ignorant of the details of the proposed CAMHS involvement, so they had no idea that an attempt to reach him by a phone had failed. When Ross’s appointment letter was looked at after his death, it was found to be formal and stark – a style that parents would be familiar with but was inappropriate for an emotionally vulnerable youth.

Lessons have been learned about reducing the potential for errors in the urgent referral process and about having more adolescent-friendly stationery and letter content. Many people will also have sympathy for Ross’s parents’ impassioned plea that it should be made mandatory for a 16- or 17-year-old’s parents to be informed in these cases, irrespective of the child’s wish for confidentiality. They believe an adolescent with significant depression is a special case in which only qualified autonomy is appropriate.

Set against this is the reality that mental health issues affect around 15 per cent of children and adolescents and, in many cases (though not in Ross’s), family dysfunction, sometimes even abuse, is the underlying problem – a problem that might only become apparent with time and trust. To force doctors to breach confidentiality in those circumstances could have its own equally disastrous consequences.

This article first appeared in the 13 February 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Can we talk about climate change now?

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Unite stewards urge members to back Owen Smith

In a letter to Unite members, the officials have called for a vote for the longshot candidate.

29 Unite officials have broken ranks and thrown their weight behind Owen Smith’s longshot bid for the Labour leadership in an open letter to their members.

The officials serve as stewards, conveners and negotiators in Britain’s aerospace and shipbuilding industries, and are believed in part to be driven by Jeremy Corbyn’s longstanding opposition to the nuclear deterrent and defence spending more generally.

In the letter to Unite members, who are believed to have been signed up in large numbers to vote in the Labour leadership race, the stewards highlight Smith’s support for extra funding in the NHS and his vision for an industrial strategy.

Corbyn was endorsed by Unite, Labour's largest affliated union and the largest trades union in the country, following votes by Unite's ruling executive committee and policy conference. 

Although few expect the intervention to have a decisive role in the Labour leadership, regarded as a formality for Corbyn, the opposition of Unite workers in these industries may prove significant in Len McCluskey’s bid to be re-elected as general secretary of Unite.

 

The full letter is below:

Britain needs a Labour Government to defend jobs, industry and skills and to promote strong trade unions. As convenors and shop stewards in the manufacturing, defence, aerospace and energy sectors we believe that Owen Smith is the best candidate to lead the Labour Party in opposition and in government.

Owen has made clear his support for the industries we work in. He has spelt out his vision for an industrial strategy which supports great British businesses: investing in infrastructure, research and development, skills and training. He has set out ways to back British industry with new procurement rules to protect jobs and contracts from being outsourced to the lowest bidder. He has demanded a seat at the table during the Brexit negotiations to defend trade union and workers’ rights. Defending manufacturing jobs threatened by Brexit must be at the forefront of the negotiations. He has called for the final deal to be put to the British people via a second referendum or at a general election.

But Owen has also talked about the issues which affect our families and our communities. Investing £60 billion extra over 5 years in the NHS funded through new taxes on the wealthiest. Building 300,000 new homes a year over 5 years, half of which should be social housing. Investing in Sure Start schemes by scrapping the charitable status of private schools. That’s why we are backing Owen.

The Labour Party is at a crossroads. We cannot ignore reality – we need to be radical but we also need to be credible – capable of winning the support of the British people. We need an effective Opposition and we need a Labour Government to put policies into practice that will defend our members’ and their families’ interests. That’s why we are backing Owen.

Steve Hibbert, Convenor Rolls Royce, Derby
Howard Turner, Senior Steward, Walter Frank & Sons Limited
Danny Coleman, Branch Secretary, GE Aviation, Wales
Karl Daly, Deputy Convenor, Rolls Royce, Derby
Nigel Stott, Convenor, BASSA, British Airways
John Brough, Works Convenor, Rolls Royce, Barnoldswick
John Bennett, Site Convenor, Babcock Marine, Devonport, Plymouth
Kevin Langford, Mechanical Convenor, Babcock, Devonport, Plymouth
John McAllister, Convenor, Vector Aerospace Helicopter Services
Garry Andrews, Works Convenor, Rolls Royce, Sunderland
Steve Froggatt, Deputy Convenor, Rolls Royce, Derby
Jim McGivern, Convenor, Rolls Royce, Derby
Alan Bird, Chairman & Senior Rep, Rolls Royce, Derby
Raymond Duguid, Convenor, Babcock, Rosyth
Steve Duke, Senior Staff Rep, Rolls Royce, Barnoldswick
Paul Welsh, Works Convenor, Brush Electrical Machines, Loughborough
Bob Holmes, Manual Convenor, BAE Systems, Warton, Lancs
Simon Hemmings, Staff Convenor, Rolls Royce, Derby
Mick Forbes, Works Convenor, GKN, Birmingham
Ian Bestwick, Chief Negotiator, Rolls Royce Submarines, Derby
Mark Barron, Senior Staff Rep, Pallion, Sunderland
Ian Hodgkison, Chief Negotiator, PCO, Rolls Royce
Joe O’Gorman, Convenor, BAE Systems, Maritime Services, Portsmouth
Azza Samms, Manual Workers Convenor, BAE Systems Submarines, Barrow
Dave Thompson, Staff Convenor, BAE Systems Submarines, Barrow
Tim Griffiths, Convenor, BAE Systems Submarines, Barrow
Paul Blake, Convenor, Princess Yachts, Plymouth
Steve Jones, Convenor, Rolls Royce, Bristol
Colin Gosling, Senior Rep, Siemens Traffic Solutions, Poole

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.