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

The campaign to keep Britain in Europe must be based on hope, not fear

Together we can show the world a generous, outward-facing Britain we can all be proud of.

Today the Liberal Democrats launched our national campaign to keep Britain in Europe. With the polls showing the outcome of this referendum is on a knife-edge, our party is determined to play a decisive role in this once in a generation fight. This will not be an easy campaign. But it is one we will relish as the UK's most outward-looking and internationalist party. Together in Europe the UK has delivered peace, created the world’s largest free trade area and given the British people the opportunity to live, work and travel freely across the continent. Now is the time to build on these achievements, not throw them all away.

Already we are hearing fear-mongering from both sides in this heated debate. On the one hand, Ukip and the feuding Leave campaigns have shamelessly seized on the events in Cologne at New Year to claim that British women will be at risk if the UK stays in Europe. On the other, David Cameron claims that the refugees he derides as a "bunch of migrants" in Calais will all descend on the other side of the Channel the minute Britain leaves the EU. The British public deserve better than this. Rather than constant mud-slinging and politicising of the world's biggest humanitarian crisis since the Second World War, we need a frank and honest debate about what is really at stake. Most importantly this should be a positive campaign, one that is fought on hope and not on fear. As we have a seen in Scotland, a referendum won through scare tactics alone risks winning the battle but losing the war.

The voice of business and civil society, from scientists and the police to environmental charities, have a crucial role to play in explaining how being in the EU benefits the British economy and enhances people's everyday lives. All those who believe in Britain's EU membership must not be afraid to speak out and make the positive case why being in Europe makes us more prosperous, stable and secure. Because at its heart this debate is not just about facts and figures, it is about what kind of country we want to be.

The Leave campaigns cannot agree what they believe in. Some want the UK to be an offshore, deregulated tax haven, others advocate a protectionist, mean-hearted country that shuts it doors to the world. As with so many populist movements, from Putin to Trump, they are defined not by what they are for but what they are against. Their failure to come up with a credible vision for our country's future is not patriotic, it is irresponsible.

This leaves the field open to put forward a united vision of Britain's place in Europe and the world. Liberal Democrats are clear what we believe in: an open, inclusive and tolerant nation that stands tall in the world and doesn't hide from it. We are not uncritical of the EU's institutions. Indeed as Liberals, we fiercely believe that power must be devolved to the lowest possible level, empowering communities and individuals wherever possible to make decisions for themselves. But we recognise that staying in Europe is the best way to find the solutions to the problems that don't stop at borders, rather than leaving them to our children and grandchildren. We believe Britain must put itself at the heart of our continent's future and shape a more effective and more accountable Europe, focused on responding to major global challenges we face.

Together in Europe we can build a strong and prosperous future, from pioneering research into life-saving new medicines to tackling climate change and fighting international crime. Together we can provide hope for the desperate and spread the peace we now take for granted to the rest of the world. And together we can show the world a generous, outward-facing Britain we can all be proud of. So if you agree then join the Liberal Democrat campaign today, to remain in together, and to stand up for the type of Britain you think we should be.