(1)The Children Act 1989 does not as such require parents or persons holding

游客2024-11-06 1

问题 (1)The Children Act 1989 does not as such require parents or persons holding parental responsibility to either involve children in the decision making process or to take their views into account. However the exercise of parental responsibility is limited when children are sufficiently mature and have the capacity to make decisions about their own future. This is as a consequence of the 1985 decision in Gillick vs.
Wisbeach Health Authority in which the House of Lords decided that a child under 16 could consent to medical treatment if he or she could understand what was involved in such treatment and was capable of expressing his or her views and wishes. This has come to be known as "Gillick competence" and while the House of Lords did not identify a specific age at which children were to be deemed to be sufficiently mature to have their views considered, it follows from Gillick that the older the child, the greater the weight that will be attached to their views. This approach is consistent with certain provisions of the UNCRC(the 1989 United Convention of the Rights of the Child)which the UK ratified in 1991—Article 5 which requires that children’s rights be exercised in accordance with their evolving capacities and Article 12 which requires that in all decisions effecting children due weight should be attached to their views.
(2)A child’s parents have an unfettered right to name their child and they are required by law to register the child’s name within 42 days of the child’s birth. Where only one person has parental responsibility that person can change the child’s name without requiring the consent or permission of anyone else. But where for example a father has parental responsibility and does not agree to a change of name then it is considered good practice to ask the court to make a decision. In this situation the court will consider a range of factors but the paramount consideration will be the welfare of the child. Other factors which will be considered by the court include the reasons for the change, any change in the child’s circumstances which occurred since registration such as separation of the parents and where relevant, the views of the child. Where a child becomes the subject of an adoption order, the adoptive parents acquire parental responsibility and have an absolute right to change a child’s name.
(3)With parental consent a child may use a different name from that on their birth certificate. If the child is Gillick competent and has sufficient maturity and understanding they may apply for a specific issue order to do this if their parents do not consent.
(4)A child who is sufficiently mature in accordance with the Gillick principles is entitled to choose his or her own religion. Where a dispute arises either between parents or between parents and the child over the choice of religious upbringing, the paramount of the child’s welfare will prevail in resolving the conflict. If a parent seeks to impose a particular religion on a child it will not be tolerated if it causes harm to the child. Article 9 of the Convention protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
(5)A 16 year old has the right to consent to or refuse to consent to medical, surgical or dental treatment if the child is deemed Gillick competent, including contraceptive advice or treatment. A young person can give consent provided the person providing treatment is of the view that he or she understands the nature and consequences of the treatment.
(6)Children under 18 may also refuse medical treatment but under the wardship jurisdiction a court can order medical treatment, including termination of a pregnancy or sterilization, if it is deemed necessary in me child’s best interests. This power is most commonly used in cases where a young person refuses life saving medical treatment due as a consequence of an eating disorder or mental illness.
(7)The ECHR(The European Court of Human Rights)has decided that compulsory medical treatment for me purposes of preventing death or serious injury does not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.
(8)Once young people reach me age of 16, they are presumed in law to be competent to give consent for memselves for their own surgical, medical or dental treatment, and for any associated procedures, such as investigations, anaesthesia or nursing care. This means mat in many respects they should be treated as adults— for example if a signature on a consent form is necessary, they can sign for themselves. However, it is still good practice to encourage competent children to involve their families in decision making. Where a competent child does ask for meir confidence to be kept, it must be respected unless disclosure can be justified on me grounds of "public interest" e.g. that mere is reasonable cause to suspect mat me child is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm. Efforts should be made to persuade the young person to involve their family, unless it is believed mat it is not in their best interest to do so. If a decision is taken to disclose, me justification should be noted in the child’s records.
(9)Unlike 16 or 17 year olds, children and young people under 16 are not automatically presumed to be legally competent to make decisions about their healthcare. However, the courts have stated that under-16s will be competent to give valid consent to a particular intervention if mey have "sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully what is proposed" i.e. "Gillick Competent". Therefore, there is no specific age when a child becomes competent to consent to treatment; it depends both on the child and on the seriousness and complexity of me treatment being proposed.
(10)"Competence" is not a simple attribute that a child either possesses or does not possess: much will depend on the relationship and trust between doctors, other health professionals and the children and meir family or carer. Children can be helped to develop competence by being involved from an early age in decisions about meir care. If a child under 16 is competent to consent for himself or herself to a particular intervention, it is still good practice to involve me family in decision making unless the child specifically requests that this should not happen and cannot be persuaded otherwise. As with older children, a request for confidentiality must be respected unless me child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm without disclosure. [br] It can NOT be inferred from the passage that_____.

选项 A、no matter what rights me child may have, me consideration goes to his/her welfare
B、compulsory medical treatment is not inhuman and degrading for me sake of his/her life
C、a child with eating disorder will not be given compulsory medical treatment if he/she refuses
D、the House of Lords did not give a specific age when the child is mature enough or not

答案 C

解析选项C说若患有食欲紊乱症的孩子拒绝进行治疗则不得实施强行救治，这与第6段末句内容相反，因此是本题正确答案。

转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3833285.html

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

(1)The Children Act 1989 does not as such require parents or persons holding

Beingabletochoosethesexofchildreninadvanceisnothingnew—paren

Whenparentshavetoworkatdaytimeoroutoftown,kidsareusuallylo