This paper attempts to explore the health laws surrounding minor consent and refusal in Canada. Throughout this paper, particular attention will be given to a case AC vs. Manitoba [2009] within the Supreme Court of Canada and Van Mol vs. Ashmore [1999], within the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Many legalities and ethical issues surround this topic and concerns arise when particular decisions are made on behalf of the minor. Canadian federal legislation considers anyone under the age of sixteen a minor. The age of a minor is not the only considering factor to medical consent, but rather capacity to make informed decisions. Presumption of a minor’s capacity is determined on case-to-case basis, where the medical practitioner(s) consider
…show more content…
For instance, in British Columbia, the Infants Act states that a minor is anyone who is under the age of nineteen. In accordance with Section 17 of the Infants Act, a minor is able to provide an informed consent for a medical procedure that is in the best interest of the minor, as long as a medical practitioner has considered the minor capable and has exercised due diligence in explaining the proposed medical treatment. In the case of refusal of a medical treatment that is in the best interest of the minor, the medical practitioner has the right to override the decision in collaboration with the director and perform appropriate treatment interventions to preserve and sustain life. Comparing this to the province of Quebec, which has established anyone under the age of fourteen, regardless of their capability or capacity requires medical consent from a parent, guardian or the courts for any proposed medical treatment. Nevertheless, if the medical treatment is of great risk or can propose potential harm to the minor who is fourteen years or older, then parental consent is necessary. In contrast, the Consent of Minors Act in New Brunswick, states minors sixteen years or older have the exact same right to refuse and consent to a medical treatment as an adult. Since each province has various perspectives on minor consent and refusal, …show more content…
Ashmore case. In this case, an intelligent sixteen year had undergone an invasive surgical procedure, and during the surgery, difficulties were encountered, which rendered Van Mol a paraplegic. Ashmore, the surgeon was sued by Van Mol on the grounds that he was negligent in performing the medical procedure and did not exercise due diligence in explaining the proposed medical treatment nor alternative options. The British Columbia Court of Appeal did rule in Van Mol’s favor and found the surgeon negligent of not obtaining consent and for not explaining the alternative options for the procedure. According to the Infants Act, obtaining consent from a sixteen-year-old is just as valuable as obtaining consent from an adult, given the fact that the physician has determined that the minor is capable. In Section 16 of the Infants Act, a physician must explain to the minor the proposed treatment, the consequences, and reasonably foreseeable risk and benefits, which in this case, the physician did not comply. According to common law, when a minor is sixteen years and under and is considered capable, then they can give consent. If the minor is sixteen years and older, it is presumed that they are capable and their decision should be respected. However, the physician must also make reasonable effort to obtain consent from the minor’s parents or guardians. In the Van Mol vs. Ashmore case, Van Mol who was
For instance, in British Columbia, the Infants Act states that a minor is anyone who is under the age of nineteen. In accordance with Section 17 of the Infants Act, a minor is able to provide an informed consent for a medical procedure that is in the best interest of the minor, as long as a medical practitioner has considered the minor capable and has exercised due diligence in explaining the proposed medical treatment. In the case of refusal of a medical treatment that is in the best interest of the minor, the medical practitioner has the right to override the decision in collaboration with the director and perform appropriate treatment interventions to preserve and sustain life. Comparing this to the province of Quebec, which has established anyone under the age of fourteen, regardless of their capability or capacity requires medical consent from a parent, guardian or the courts for any proposed medical treatment. Nevertheless, if the medical treatment is of great risk or can propose potential harm to the minor who is fourteen years or older, then parental consent is necessary. In contrast, the Consent of Minors Act in New Brunswick, states minors sixteen years or older have the exact same right to refuse and consent to a medical treatment as an adult. Since each province has various perspectives on minor consent and refusal, …show more content…
Ashmore case. In this case, an intelligent sixteen year had undergone an invasive surgical procedure, and during the surgery, difficulties were encountered, which rendered Van Mol a paraplegic. Ashmore, the surgeon was sued by Van Mol on the grounds that he was negligent in performing the medical procedure and did not exercise due diligence in explaining the proposed medical treatment nor alternative options. The British Columbia Court of Appeal did rule in Van Mol’s favor and found the surgeon negligent of not obtaining consent and for not explaining the alternative options for the procedure. According to the Infants Act, obtaining consent from a sixteen-year-old is just as valuable as obtaining consent from an adult, given the fact that the physician has determined that the minor is capable. In Section 16 of the Infants Act, a physician must explain to the minor the proposed treatment, the consequences, and reasonably foreseeable risk and benefits, which in this case, the physician did not comply. According to common law, when a minor is sixteen years and under and is considered capable, then they can give consent. If the minor is sixteen years and older, it is presumed that they are capable and their decision should be respected. However, the physician must also make reasonable effort to obtain consent from the minor’s parents or guardians. In the Van Mol vs. Ashmore case, Van Mol who was