Up until 1985, a lot of the laws surrounding children and young adults were drafted and enforced with the assumption that a parent or parents always knew what was best for their child.

This was the case until a mother of ten children began a campaign to establish a legal precedent surrounding contraception and contraceptive advice that ultimately established a new medical precedent that allowed children under 16 to consent to their own treatment, albeit in very specific circumstances.

The campaign and subsequent legal case began in the mid-1980s and was based around a Ministry of Health circular that advised doctors on how best to discuss and prescribe contraception to people under the age of 16.

Mrs Victora Gillick, a Roman Catholic opposed to contraception in general, began to run a campaign against this policy, taking legal action against West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority to get a declaration that prescribing contraception to someone under 16 was illegal.

Her rationale was twofold; she believed that the doctor was committing the crime of encouraging sex with a minor, and she believed that since consent for children under 16 needed to be granted by the parents at that time, it would be considered treatment without consent, which was a breach of medical ethics as well as the law.

She believed this would be a clear victory that would safeguard a parent’s right to decide what is best for their child, but the decision went the opposite direction, noting that a minor could consent to treatment in some circumstances with the parent having no power to veto that decision.

This led to two sets of guidelines delivered by both Lord Scarman and Lord Fraser in their judgements.

Lord Scarman’s test was simpler and stated that a child under sixteen can consent to medical treatment without the parent’s permission if and when they understand fully the proposed treatment path, its risks and its implications.

The other judgement became known as the Fraser guidelines, which was specific to contraception and required a young person to:

• Understand the medical professional’s advice.
• Be unconvinced to let their parents know.
• Be likely to start or continue having sex whether they have contraceptive treatment or not.
• Be likely to suffer medical or physical harm unless they receive contraceptive treatment.
• Require contraceptive treatment or advice as part of their best interest, whether their parents consent or not.

Both judgements have been used in a range of different types of treatments, from abortion to vaccination to consenting to the use of blood transfusions.

For more information and advice from solicitors in Surrey, get in touch today.