1.3.1 Case Laws:
1.3.2 The Gillick competence
Both at common law and statutory provisions, children have the capacity to perform certain acts and take certain decisions even without the consent of their parents or guardians. The critical question is whether the child has reached the age of maturity and has the capacity to make those decision or actions. Ms Gillick brought a court case against both the Council and the Health Authority about contraception, which she argues was unlawful, on the grounds that it is causing or empowering unlawful sex with children under 16 years, and contravenes s 28(1) of the Sexual Offenses Act 1956, or the offense of being an accomplice to unlawful sex with children under 16, as opposed to s 6(1) of that Act. …show more content…
The court case became a landmark ruling for children's rights, as the consequences are much broader, especially where medical consent is required and whether it is parent or child who makes decision about his/her life or welfare. The trial emphasizes that a parent's authority is not absolute and that such authority depends on the child's maturity and ability to make decisions. The court case of Gillick and the passing of the 1989 Children Act , there are now clear opinions that children have rights and autonomy of their own against their parents or guardians.
According to Rachel Bulford (May 10, 1997, p.14221-1422) , there are three main issues following the Gillick’s court ruling. The first is the actual right to a say by a child or children. When do we consider that children are mature enough to decide and not their doctor on treatments with or without consent of their parents? That raises the question is it the doctor who decides the maturity of the child? But then some children would be deemed old enough take decision about their own bodies and others may …show more content…
Nevertheless, we have looked at different views about the moral and legal concepts of children rights but also legal arguments in courts. We also discussed the concepts and a few theories about the nature of children rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Human Rights Act 1998 but above all the 1989 Children Act which came into force in 1991, and how these affects children as opposed to adults. In ‘Interest Theory of Rights’, MacCormick’s rightly argues that “each and every child is a being whose needs and capacities command our respect, so that denial to any child of the wherewithal to meet his or her capacities would be wrong in itself.” The 1989 Children Act therefore was passed to protect against the abuse and molestation of children by adults, of which some the abusers were their own parents or guardians. The 1989 Children Act, the HRA 1998 and the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child are there to provide safeguards and allow children to enjoy human rights, without discrimination. For those matter children’s rights is now legal reality not a
1.3.2 The Gillick competence
Both at common law and statutory provisions, children have the capacity to perform certain acts and take certain decisions even without the consent of their parents or guardians. The critical question is whether the child has reached the age of maturity and has the capacity to make those decision or actions. Ms Gillick brought a court case against both the Council and the Health Authority about contraception, which she argues was unlawful, on the grounds that it is causing or empowering unlawful sex with children under 16 years, and contravenes s 28(1) of the Sexual Offenses Act 1956, or the offense of being an accomplice to unlawful sex with children under 16, as opposed to s 6(1) of that Act. …show more content…
The court case became a landmark ruling for children's rights, as the consequences are much broader, especially where medical consent is required and whether it is parent or child who makes decision about his/her life or welfare. The trial emphasizes that a parent's authority is not absolute and that such authority depends on the child's maturity and ability to make decisions. The court case of Gillick and the passing of the 1989 Children Act , there are now clear opinions that children have rights and autonomy of their own against their parents or guardians.
According to Rachel Bulford (May 10, 1997, p.14221-1422) , there are three main issues following the Gillick’s court ruling. The first is the actual right to a say by a child or children. When do we consider that children are mature enough to decide and not their doctor on treatments with or without consent of their parents? That raises the question is it the doctor who decides the maturity of the child? But then some children would be deemed old enough take decision about their own bodies and others may …show more content…
Nevertheless, we have looked at different views about the moral and legal concepts of children rights but also legal arguments in courts. We also discussed the concepts and a few theories about the nature of children rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Human Rights Act 1998 but above all the 1989 Children Act which came into force in 1991, and how these affects children as opposed to adults. In ‘Interest Theory of Rights’, MacCormick’s rightly argues that “each and every child is a being whose needs and capacities command our respect, so that denial to any child of the wherewithal to meet his or her capacities would be wrong in itself.” The 1989 Children Act therefore was passed to protect against the abuse and molestation of children by adults, of which some the abusers were their own parents or guardians. The 1989 Children Act, the HRA 1998 and the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child are there to provide safeguards and allow children to enjoy human rights, without discrimination. For those matter children’s rights is now legal reality not a