父母的同意和法院的介入足以为孩子建立同意。如果父母同意医疗,法院应当受理,同意根据儿童法案1989章节2(7)”,不止一个人有父母的责任,孩子每个人可能单独行动,没有其他责任(或其他人)在会议;但应当采取中没有这部分,影响手术的实施需要不止一个人的同意在影响孩子”[4]这意味着父母的同意就足以建立同意要求和救援医生从他/她的责任。在Re J的情况下，已经确定，如果没有父母双方的同意，这种同意将被视为无效的[5]，这意味着，如果父母代表他的同意，孩子的同意是无效的。法院参与发生在医生需要孩子的最佳利益行事的父母拒绝同意医疗,在这种情况下,孩子或其他成人宣言将有权寻求法院为了使治疗合法[6]。法院的推理的声明是法院寻求孩子的最佳利益,这将是非法拒绝治疗,医生认为这是孩子的最佳利益,这是建立在再保险C[7]决定此案,法官下令母亲的法官提供最好的治疗方法。在有关儿童的案件中，它确定，当涉及到儿童的利益时，法院总是考虑他们的最佳利益，而不是儿童的决定。这表明，不管孩子是否同意接受治疗，法院都会执行一项命令，为孩子提供建议的治疗，医生不会因为没有得到孩子的同意而承担责任。这损害了儿童作为成年人拒绝接受治疗的权利，因为法院既不考虑儿童是否同意接受治疗，也不考虑父母是否根据儿童的最大利益做出决定。即使Gillick的权限可以适用，它也不应该是有约束力的，因为法院会考虑孩子的最大利益，而不是孩子的同意。
英国law assignment代写 儿童法案
The parent’s consent and the courts involvement are enough to establish consent for a child. If parents consented to a medical treatment, the court shall accept that consent according to children act 1989 section 2 (7) “Where more than one person has parental responsibility for a child each of them may act alone and without the other (or others) in meeting that responsibility; but nothing in this Part shall be taken to affect the operation of any enactment which requires the consent of more than one person in a matter affecting the child”[4] which means that the parents’ consent will be enough to establish the consent requirement and relief the doctor from his/her liability. In the case of Re J it had been established that without both parent’s consent on the matter the consent shall be deemed ineffective[5], which implicates that children’s consent is rendered useless if the parent’s consented on his behalf. The courts involvement occurs where the doctor needs to act on the best interest of the child but one of the parents have refused to consent on the medical treatment, in that case the child or another adult will have the power to seek a declaration to the court in order to make the treatment lawful[6]. The court’s reasoning for the declaration is the court seeks the best interest of the child where it would be unlawful to refuse a treatment where the doctor believes it’s the best interest of the child, this was established in the case of Re C[7] the decision on the case was that the judge ordered the mother’s to provide the best treatment of the judge. the case of Re C it established that when it comes to the interest of the child the courts will always look at their best interest rather than the child’s decision. This establishes that doesn’t matter whether the child agrees to the medical treatment of not the courts will always enforce an order to provide a recommended treatment for the child and the doctors will not be held liable for the lack of consent. This has undermined the children’s rights to refuse a treatment as an adult, on the basis that the courts don’t look at whether the child consents on the treatment, nor parents they decide based on the best interest of the child. Even if the Gillick’s competence can be applied then it should not be binding, because the courts will look at the best interest of the child rather than the consent of the child.
本段内容来自网络 并不是我们的写手作品 请勿直接剽窃，查重100%，造成后果与本站无关。如需定制论文请记得联系我们。