Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

GDPR & Children's medical records

30 replies

Imnobody4 · 18/05/2018 18:40

Hi - am new after lurking for ages. Just received e mail from Voice for Justice about letters recently received giving 13 yr olds authority on parents accessing medical records.

'Letters have recently, and unexpectedly, been falling onto the doormats of what appear at the moment to be selected households – first, a letter to parents, and, second, a letter to children between the ages of 13 and 16. Though differently worded both inform the recipient that after May 25th the legal age for consent to the sharing of information, here defined as medical information,will be 13. Which means that parents, without their child’s permission, would no longer be allowed access to their child’s medical records, including information about current and proposed medical procedures.And children over the age of 13 would be guaranteed complete secrecy, unless they gave permission for their parents to be informed.To put it bluntly, all medical information relating to children over the age of 13 would after May 25th be automatically withheld from parents, unless the child had given his or her explicit consent.'

It means for e.g. child could be prescribed puberty blockers without parent knowing!

OP posts:
Polynerd · 18/05/2018 21:37

Totally confused by this - my teenage daughter cannot even get the optician to tighten a loose glasses leg without me being there (literally!) so how the heck would they be withholding her eye test results?

ChattyLion · 18/05/2018 21:31

I agree this seems worrying. Gillick competence is different though because it’s an individual assessment by a doctor of that particular child’s capacity to understand the risks and benefits of a particular proposed treatment at that time. There isn’t a blanket age under 16 from which there is always a presumption of capacity to consent to treatment. 16 and over is always the age of presumed adult capacity to consent, which is then rebuttable.

Thanks have also heard that for data consent only (not medical treatment) there is a blanket age of 13 for everyone, (without any individualised assessment by a doctor) of a presumption of the young person’s capacity to consent around data use. So under GRPR, 13 will be the age of data consent for the child’s data to be used by ‘information society services’ or suchlike (I think this means social media companies) etc. But I think if 13 were correct in relation to health records privacy kicking in, it would be pretty far reaching and and we would have heard a lot more about it surely?? It couldnt make sense for parents to be consenting for a child’s medical treatment (while they are under 16 years old) then the child turned 13 and stopped the parents having access to their health data. So I don’t think this can be correct. Hopefully a GDPR expert will be along soon.

changeypants · 18/05/2018 20:58

think this is already the case and has been for a while
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

ShovingLeopard · 18/05/2018 18:46

Seems odd, given they are not legally adults and unable to legally consent in other ways. I can see lots of problems with this, including potential issues around hormone blockers. There is a good reason we don't let 13 year olds have sex, marry, vote, go to war etc. They likewise will not always have the capacity to make big medical decisions on their own. Very odd.

Chembe · 18/05/2018 18:44

I was under the impression this was already the case? Or this just in Scotland?