Guidelines urged on whether children have right to refuse medical treatment

Clear guidelines need to be set out on whether children under the age of 18 have the right to refuse consent to medical treatment, the Government-appointed rapporteur on children’s rights has said.

Geoffrey Shannon made his comments in a new Child Law Audit, put together by the Children’s Rights Alliance and the Law Centre for Children and Young People, which is being published today.

In his chapter on health and healthcare, Dr Shannon writes: “A crucial issue relating to the participation of children in healthcare decisions is that of the right to consent to medical treatment. Law and practice in Ireland does not at present provide clear guidelines on consent for professionals, and it has been reported that this results in inconsistent professional practice.

“It is also of concern that the existing mechanism through which children may consent to medical treatment is the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, which provides a medical professional with a defence when facing prosecution for assault. This is a criminal statute unsuitable for the vindication of children’s healthcare rights.”

Dr Shannon said that new legislation needed to be drafted. He added: “Clear guidelines should be set out to address the matter of whether children under the age of 18 years have the right to refuse to consent to medical treatment.”

The report also suggests families with children need to be prioritised for housing, with barrister Kevin Baneham recommending “there should be a specific statutory duty to place the interests of such children at the centre of decision-making” over the placing of children in temporary homeless accommodation.

“Temporary homeless accommodation raises obvious child protection issues,” he said. “This report recommends that we apply a gold standard in realising the best interests of children facing homelessness.”

In another section, barrister Sarah Jane Judge deals with the format of the Garda Diversion Programme (GDP) as changed under the Criminal Justice Act 2006.

“The scope of the programme was extended to 10- and 11-year-old children without stating whether this applies to children charged with serious crimes only,” said Ms Judge.

“If this is applicable to all crimes, the 2006 Act effectively ignores the age of criminal responsibility. Furthermore, the child’s acceptance of responsibility, admission and involvement in the GDP can now be introduced as evidence in subsequent criminal proceedings. This is counter intuitive to the ethos of the GDP as a diversionary mechanism from the criminal justice process and vitiates the importance of diversionary programmes outlined in the Convention of the Rights of the Child.”