Issues Arising from the Scenario
As mentioned earlier, respect for autonomy, as one of the Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics, will be used in May’s case. From the term itself, this principle involves to respect the decision-making capacities of an autonomous person, enabling him to make choices based on reasoned informations. Varelius (2012) believed that autonomy is so important because there are certain cases where patients should be allowed to make their own choices that would serve their wellbeing. However, there are several issues involved in this regard, especially in the case of May.
1. On the Part of the Child
Although the Law Lords ruled that they may be given a contraceptive advice without parental consent, such ruling emphasized that parental rights should not be infringed. This is somehow contradicting because even if the Children Act 1989 provided that the best interest of the child is what should be upheld, regardless of what parents would feel about it, one cannot deny the parents have the right to know because what is at stake here is the welfare of their children. Furthermore, even if the girl under 16 is offered with enough information and options to help her make up her mind, there is no assurance that she is making the right decision considering her young age.
2. …show more content…
On the Part of the Practitioner
The Law Lords ruled that practitioners who give contraceptive advice must be in good faith, and that Fraser Guidelines and Gillick Competency are taken into consideration in determining the maturity of the child to make decisions on her own (NSPCC 2017). This is very crucial because doctors might commit a criminal offence in aiding and abetting unlawful intercourse with girls under 16 (FPA 2014).
3. On the Part of the
As mentioned earlier, respect for autonomy, as one of the Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics, will be used in May’s case. From the term itself, this principle involves to respect the decision-making capacities of an autonomous person, enabling him to make choices based on reasoned informations. Varelius (2012) believed that autonomy is so important because there are certain cases where patients should be allowed to make their own choices that would serve their wellbeing. However, there are several issues involved in this regard, especially in the case of May.
1. On the Part of the Child
Although the Law Lords ruled that they may be given a contraceptive advice without parental consent, such ruling emphasized that parental rights should not be infringed. This is somehow contradicting because even if the Children Act 1989 provided that the best interest of the child is what should be upheld, regardless of what parents would feel about it, one cannot deny the parents have the right to know because what is at stake here is the welfare of their children. Furthermore, even if the girl under 16 is offered with enough information and options to help her make up her mind, there is no assurance that she is making the right decision considering her young age.
2. …show more content…
On the Part of the Practitioner
The Law Lords ruled that practitioners who give contraceptive advice must be in good faith, and that Fraser Guidelines and Gillick Competency are taken into consideration in determining the maturity of the child to make decisions on her own (NSPCC 2017). This is very crucial because doctors might commit a criminal offence in aiding and abetting unlawful intercourse with girls under 16 (FPA 2014).
3. On the Part of the