The Consent to Treatment Act (which came into force on April 3, 1995) sets out conditions under which Health Practitioners (HPs) are permitted to administer treatment to patients. (The term Health Practitioner includes: school doctors, nurses and psychologists; public health nurses, and doctors and nurses on staff at birth-control centres and abortion clinics.)
Although one of the main purposes of the Act is to codify legal understanding of the term “informed consent,” it removes from parents their constitutional right and legal duty to direct the medical care of their children.
Under the Act, the HP becomes the sole judge of a child’s ability to understand and consent to a course of treatment. Thus, if a school nurse, for example, is satisfied that a 14-year-old is mature, she can refer the child for an abortion or arrange for a prescription for birth-control pills, without any consultation with or notification to the child’s parents.
Parental rights are also undermined by companion legislation, the Substitute Decisions Act (which also came into force on April 3, 1995). Section 2 of the Substitute Decisions Act states that a 16-year-old is to be presumed capable of making his or her own treatment decisions.
Under the Consent to Treatment Act, consent does not need to be expressed verbally; it can be implied as, for example, in a child’s silent acquiescence to the HP’s decision to schedule an abortion or prescribe birth-control pills.
If, in the view of the HP, the 16-year-old is not capable of giving informed consent to the proposed treatment, a substitute may consent. HPs are required to obtain consent from the person who is highest on a list of potential decision makers. While the parents would seem the first choice, the Consent to Treatment Act places them well down on the list. Taking precedence are those directly appointed by the child. This could include a 16-year-old boyfriend or classmate, or a pro-abortion activist.
Not only does the Consent to Treatment Act leave parents legally helpless to prevent a stranger from supplying a potentially damaging form of treatment to their child; it also severely limits their ability to seek a legal remedy for their child after the damage is done. The Consent to Treatment Act absolves HPs of legal liability for mistakes made in judging the child’s capacity, as long as they can show that they acted “on reasonable grounds and in good faith.”
