Family law |
---|
Family |
The mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so. [1] It is now generally considered a form of patients rights; formerly, the mature minor rule was largely seen as protecting health care providers from criminal and civil claims by parents of minors at least 15. [2]
Jurisdictions may codify an age of medical consent, accept the judgment of licensed providers regarding an individual minor, or accept a formal court decision following a request that a patient be designated a mature minor, or may rely on some combination. For example, patients at least 16 may be assumed to be mature minors for this purpose, [3] patients aged 13 to 15 may be designated so by licensed providers, and pre-teen patients may be so-designated after evaluation by an agency or court. The mature minor doctrine is sometimes connected with enforcing confidentiality of minor patients from their parents. [4]
In the United States, a typical statute lists: "Who may consent [or withhold consent for] surgical or medical treatment or procedures."
By definition, a "mature minor" has been found to have the capacity for decisional autonomy, or the right to make decisions including whether to undergo risky medical but potentially life-saving medical decisions alone, without parental approval. [7] By contrast, "medical emancipation" formally releases children from some parental involvement requirements but does not necessarily grant that decision making to children themselves. Pursuant to statute, several jurisdictions grant medical emancipation to a minor who has become pregnant or requires sexual-health services, thereby permitting medical treatment without parental consent and, often, confidentiality from parents. A limited guardianship may be appointed to make medical decisions for the medically emancipated minor and the minor may not be permitted to refuse or even choose treatment. [8]
One significant early U.S. case, Smith v. Seibly, 72 Wn.2d 16, 431 P.2d 719 (1967), before the Washington Supreme Court, establishes precedent on the mature minor doctrine. The plaintiff, Albert G. Smith, an 18-year-old married father, was suffering from myasthenia gravis, a progressive disease. Because of this, Smith expressed concern that his wife might become burdened in caring for him, for their existing child and possibly for additional children. On March 9, 1961, while still 18, Smith requested a vasectomy. His doctor required written consent, which Smith provided, and the surgery was performed. Later, after reaching Washington's statutory age of majority, then 21, the doctor was sued by Smith, who now claimed that he had been a minor and thus unable to grant surgical or medical consent. The Court rejected Smith's argument: "Thus, age, intelligence, maturity, training, experience, economic independence or lack thereof, general conduct as an adult and freedom from the control of parents are all factors to be considered in such a case [involving consent to surgery]."
The court further quoted another recently decided case, Grannum v. Berard, 70 Wn.2d 304, 307, 422 P.2d 812 (1967): "The mental capacity necessary to consent to a surgical operation is a question of fact to be determined from the circumstances of each individual case." The court explicitly stated that a minor may grant surgical consent even without formal emancipation.
Especially since the 1970s, older pediatric patients sought to make autonomous decisions regarding their own treatment, and sometimes sued successfully to do so. [9] The decades of accumulated evidence tended to demonstrate that children are capable of participating in medical decision-making in a meaningful way; [10] [11] and legal and medical communities have demonstrated an increasing willingness to formally affirm decisions made by young people, even regarding life and death. [12]
Religious beliefs have repeatedly influenced a patient's decision to choose treatment or not. In a case in 1989 in Illinois, a 17-year-old female Jehovah's Witness was permitted to refuse necessary life saving treatments. [13]
In 1990, the United States Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act; even though key provisions apply only to patients over age 18, [14] the legislation advanced patient involvement in decision-making. The West Virginia Supreme Court, in Belcher v. Charleston Area Medical Center (1992) defined a "mature minor" exception to parental consent, according consideration to seven factors to be weighed regarding such a minor: age, ability, experience, education, exhibited judgment, conduct, and appreciation of relevant risks and consequences. [15] [16]
The 2000s and 2010s experienced a number of outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, such as the 2019–2020 measles outbreaks, which were fueled in part by vaccine hesitancy. This prompted minors to seek vaccinations over objections from their parents. [17] [18] Beginning in the 2020s during the COVID-19 pandemic, minors also began seeking out the COVID-19 vaccine over the objections of their vaccine-hesitant parents. [19] This has led to proposals and bills allowing minor to consent to be administered with any approved vaccine. [20]
The Supreme Court of Canada recognized mature minor doctrine in 2009 in A.C. v. Manitoba [2009] SCC 30; in provinces and territories lacking relevant statutes, common law is presumed to be applied. [21]
Province or Territory | Minimum age | Notes |
---|---|---|
Alberta | None | No statute exists in Alberta dictating an age of consent; absent a statute, common law being the mature minor doctrine endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada applies. [22] |
British Columbia | None | The Infants Act does not set an age at which a child becomes capable of consent to medical procedures. A child is capable of consenting if they understand the nature and consequences of the treatment, the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks, and a medical practitioner determines it is in their best interests. [23] [22] |
Manitoba | None | People under 16 are presumed to be incapable of giving consent unless proven otherwise. Otherwise, the mature minor doctrine still applies. [22] |
New Brunswick | None | A minor may consent if they're capable of understanding the nature and consequences of the treatment and the pracitioner believes its in their interests. [22] |
Newfoundland and Labrador | None | No statute exists in Newfoundland and Labrador dictating an age of consent; absent a statute, common law being the mature minor doctrine endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada applies. [22] |
Northwest Territories | None | No statute exists in Northwest Territories dictating an age of consent; absent a statute, common law being the mature minor doctrine endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada applies. [21] |
Nova Scotia | None | No statute exists in Nova Scotia dictating an age of consent; absent a statute, common law being the mature minor doctrine endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada applies. [22] |
Nunavut | None | No statute exists in Nunavut dictating an age of consent; absent a statute, common law being the mature minor doctrine endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada applies. [22] |
Ontario | None | The Health Care Consent Act allows all persons capable of informed consent to agree to treatment and presumes all people of being capable of giving consent, unless there is reason to believe to the contrary. [24] [22] |
Prince Edward Island | None | Comparable to Ontario, all people are presumed capable of consent. [22] |
Quebec | 14 | Minors of the minimum are able to consent to procedures not required for their health. Parental consent is still required for anything that involves serious risks or may cause serious effects to the child. [22] |
Saskatchewan | None | No statute exists in Saskatchewan dictating an age of consent; absent a statute, common law being the mature minor doctrine endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada applies. [22] |
Yukon | None | Comparable to Ontario, all people are presumed capable of consent. [22] |
Several states permit minors to legally consent to medical treatment without parental consent or over parental objections. [25] In addition, many other states allow minors to consent to medical procedures under a more limited set of circumstances. These include providing limited minor autonomy only in enumerated cases, such as blood donation, substance abuse, sexual and reproductive health (including abortion and sexually transmitted infections), or for emergency medical services. Many states also exempt specific groups of minors from parental consent, such as homeless youth, emancipated minors, minor parents, or married minors. [26] Further complicating matters is the interaction between state tort law, state contract law, and federal law, depending on if the clinic accepts federal funding under Title X or Medicaid. [26]
State | Minimum age | Notes |
---|---|---|
Alabama | 14 | Minors 14 years or older or who have graduated high school can consent to medical procedures. [26] No evaluation of maturity required. [25] Parental consent is required for abortion but can be bypassed. [26] : 18 |
Alaska | None | No evaluation of maturity required. [25] Parental consent is not required for abortion, as this violates the Constitution of Alaska's clause protecting privacy. [26] : 23 |
Arkansas | None | Any minors capable of informed consent. [25] |
California | 12 | CA Family Code 6926 permits minors to consent to immunization against sexually transmitted infections. [17] [27] |
Delaware | None | "Reasonable efforts" must have first been made to secure parental consent. [25] Minors can consent to vaccinations for sexually transmitted infections. [27] |
Idaho | None | Any minors capable of informed consent. [25] |
Illinois | None | Any minors capable of informed consent, but informed refusal of medical treatment can be overruled. [25] |
Kansas | 16 | Minors aged 16 are permitted de jure to consent to medical treatment when no parent is available. Mature minors are permitted to consent to medical treatment, but maturity must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. [25] |
Louisiana | None | Minors are allowed to consent to any medical procedure they deem necessary. [25] |
Maine | None | A mature minor's wishes expressed in a living will must be considered. [25] |
Massachusetts | None | Mature minors meeting are permitted to consent to medical treatment, but only if their "best interests ... will be served by not notifying his or her parents of intended medical treatment." [25] |
Minnesota | None | Minnesota Statutes §144.3441 permits minors to consent to immunization against Hepatitis B. [17] |
Montana | None | Any minors who have completed high school are able to consent to medical treatment. [25] |
Nevada | None | Mature minors meeting are permitted to consent to medical treatment, but only if the healthcare worker believes the minor would risk a "serious health hazard" absent treatment. [25] |
New York | None | NY Public Health Law §2305 permits minors to consent to treatment for and immunization against sexually transmitted infections. [17] [27] [28] |
Oregon | 15 | Minors aged 15 and up have the authority to consent to (but not necessarily refuse) medical treatment. [25] |
Pennsylvania | 18 | Minors aged 18 or who have completed high school can consent to medical treatment. [25] |
South Carolina | 16 | Minors aged 16 and up can consent to any medical treatment other than "operations". [25] |
Tennessee | 7 | Any mature minors capable of informed consent can consent to medical procedures. The courts make the rebuttable presumption that minors aged 7 to 13 are not mature, while minors 14 and up are. [25] |
Washington | None | Mature minors may consent to medical procedures, including immunizations. [29] |
Washington, D.C. | 12 | Minors 12 and older may consent to immunization with CDC-approved vaccines, even over parental objections. The law compels healthcare providers to seek payment directly from insurance companies without notifying parents. [30] |
West Virginia | None | Any minors capable of informed consent can consent to medical procedures. [25] |
In the United States, bodily integrity has long been considered a common law right; the United States Supreme Court, in 1891's Union Pacific Railway Company v. Botsford , found, "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." The Supreme Court in 1990 ( Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health ) allowed that "constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred" in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but the Court refrained from explicitly establishing what would have been a newly enumerated right. Nevertheless, lower courts have increasingly held that competent patients have the right to refuse any treatment for themselves. [31]
In 1989, the Supreme Court of Illinois interpreted the Supreme Court of the United States to have already adopted major aspects of mature minor doctrine, concluding,
In 2016 the case of "In re Z.M." was heard in Maryland regarding a minor's right to refuse chemotherapy. [33]
In Connecticut, Cassandra C. a seventeen-year-old, was ordered by the Connecticut Supreme Court to receive treatment. The court decided that Cassandra was not mature enough to make medical decisions. [34] [13]
In 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in A.C. v. Manitoba [2009] SCC 30 (CanLII) found that children may make life and death decisions about their medical treatment. In the majority opinion, Justice Rosalie Abella wrote:
A "dissenting" [35] opinion by Justice Ian Binnie would have gone further:
Analysts note that the Canadian decision merely requires that younger patients be permitted a hearing , and still allows a judge to "decide whether or not to order a medical procedure on an unwilling minor". [37]
Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics, medical law and media studies, that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient's role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment. In most systems, healthcare providers have a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that a patient's consent is informed. This principle applies more broadly than healthcare intervention, for example to conduct research and to disclose a person's medical information.
Medical ethics is an applied branch of ethics which analyzes the practice of clinical medicine and related scientific research. Medical ethics is based on a set of values that professionals can refer to in the case of any confusion or conflict. These values include the respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Such tenets may allow doctors, care providers, and families to create a treatment plan and work towards the same common goal. These four values are not ranked in order of importance or relevance and they all encompass values pertaining to medical ethics. However, a conflict may arise leading to the need for hierarchy in an ethical system, such that some moral elements overrule others with the purpose of applying the best moral judgement to a difficult medical situation. Medical ethics is particularly relevant in decisions regarding involuntary treatment and involuntary commitment.
Confidentiality involves a set of rules or a promise usually executed through confidentiality agreements that limits the access to or places restrictions on distribution of certain types of information.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving a young adult incompetent. The first "right to die" case ever heard by the Court, Cruzan was argued on December 6, 1989, and decided on June 25, 1990. In a 5–4 decision, the Court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri, finding it was acceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal of life support. A significant outcome of the case was the creation of advance health directives.
Emancipation of minors is a legal mechanism by which a minor before attaining the age of majority is freed from control by their parents or guardians, and the parents or guardians are freed from responsibility for their child. Minors are normally considered legally incompetent to enter into contracts and to handle their own affairs. Emancipation overrides that presumption and allows emancipated children to legally make certain decisions on their own behalf.
Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.
In United States and Canadian law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts. Competence is an attribute that is decision-specific. Depending on various factors which typically revolve around mental function integrity, an individual may or may not be competent to make a particular medical decision, a particular contractual agreement, to execute an effective deed to real property, or to execute a will having certain terms.
H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, according to which a state may require a doctor to inform a teenaged girl's parents before performing an abortion or face criminal penalty.
Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without the consent of the person being treated. Involuntary treatment is permitted by law in some countries when overseen by the judiciary through court orders; other countries defer directly to the medical opinions of doctors.
Many jurisdictions have laws applying to minors and abortion. These parental involvement laws require that one or more parents consent or be informed before their minor daughter may legally have an abortion.
Conscience clauses are legal clauses attached to laws in some parts of the United States and other countries which permit pharmacists, physicians, and/or other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. It can also involve parents withholding consenting for particular treatments for their children.
The Baby Doe Law or Baby Doe Amendment is an amendment to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, passed in 1984, that sets forth specific criteria and guidelines for the treatment of disabled newborns in the United States, regardless of the wishes of the parents.
California Proposition 85, the Parental Notification Initiative, was a proposition on the ballot for California voters in the general election of November 7, 2006. It was similar to the previous year's Proposition 73. It failed by a vote of 46%-54%.
Secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB, commonly known as Marion's Case, is a leading decision of the High Court of Australia, concerning whether a child has the capacity to make decisions for themselves, and when this is not possible, who may make decisions for them regarding major medical procedures. It largely adopts the views in Gillick v West Norfolk Area Health Authority, a decision of the House of Lords in England and Wales.
A vaccination policy is a health policy adopted in order to prevent the spread of infectious disease. These policies are generally put into place by state or local governments, but may also be set by private facilities, such as workplaces or schools. Many policies have been developed and implemented since vaccines were first made widely available.
Child euthanasia is a form of euthanasia that is applied to children who are gravely ill or have significant birth defects. In 2005, the Netherlands became the first country since the end of Nazi Germany to decriminalize euthanasia for infants with hopeless prognosis and intractable pain. Nine years later, Belgium amended its 2002 Euthanasia Act to extend the rights of euthanasia to minors. Like euthanasia, there is world-wide public controversy and ethical debate over the moral, philosophical and religious issues of child euthanasia.
The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy with few exceptions, others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while others allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements.
Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.
Abortion in Massachusetts is legal at all stages of pregnancy, although terminations after the 24th week can only be performed if a physician determines it to be medically necessary. Modern Massachusetts is considered to be one of the most pro-choice states in the country: a Pew Research poll finding that 74% of residents supported the right to an abortion in all or most cases, a higher percentage than any other state. Marches supporting abortion rights took place as part of the #StoptheBans movement in May 2019.
Vaccination policy of the United States is the subset of U.S. federal health policy that deals with immunization against infectious disease. It is decided at various levels of the government, including the individual states. This policy has been developed over the approximately two centuries since the invention of vaccination with the purpose of eradicating disease from the U.S. population, or creating a herd immunity. Policies intended to encourage vaccination impact numerous areas of law, including regulation of vaccine safety, funding of vaccination programs, vaccine mandates, adverse event reporting requirements, and compensation for injuries asserted to be associated with vaccination.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)Mature minor doctrine is a legal principle which... has been consistently applied in cases where the minor is sixteen years or older
§ 41-41-3. Consent for surgical or medical treatment or procedures on unemancipated minors.