I received this email the other day from Voice for Justice UK - I have posted it in full - it is very concerning:
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 (www.gpwebsolutions-host.co.uk/433/files/2018/05/Consent-for-Children-aged-13-to-16-1.pdf), 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.
Thankfully at present this move seems limited to only a couple of medical practices, both located in the London area – and VfJUK has so far been unable to find any legal basis for what seems to be a bizarre extension of GDPR, resulting in the removal of parents’ rights. The legal justification seems to be that under the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), coming into force in the UK on May 25 (eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32016R0679), children are able to give lawful consent to the processing of personal data from the age of 16. But – and it’s a big but – EU member states are allowed, if they wish, to lower that age to 13. Under the Data Protection Bill currently going through Parliament, the UK has apparently chosen to do this in relation to the processing of personal data, allowing children from the age of 13 to have the right of sole control (See: www.dpnetwork.org.uk/new-uk-data-protection-bill-factsheet/).
However, the inclusion of medical records and removal of parental rights seem an unwarranted extension of the GDPR, and can only cause concern. For example, should this interpretation be implemented, it would surely mean that, contrary to NHS guidelines regarding treatment for gender dysphoria, recommending that invasive treatment not be given under the age of 18 (www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/), teenagers as young as 13 would be able to request and obtain life-changing hormonal and surgical intervention without their parents’ knowledge or consent – indeed, in opposition to their parents’ wishes. Similarly, it would give anonymity to underage girls seeking contraceptive advice or abortion, while both sexes would be able to receive treatment for potentially life-threatening STDs (which of course, should they need it, is good) but without their parents’ knowledge and support.
Far from enshrining a child’s right to privacy and choice, this policy, if rolled out across the country, could have devastating effects. What happens, for instance, when a post-abortion 14 year old haemorrhages and is rushed to hospital, and the parents can’t tell the over-worked doctor in A&E that she’s had an abortion – because they don’t know – so that she receives the wrong treatment? Or what happens to the child who develops clinical depression as result of inappropriate contraceptive advice, but tries to shoulder the burden alone, because she’s too ashamed to tell her parents why? Or the child who suffers a prolapse as result of anal intercourse? Or even the young person who at 13 decides they want sex change surgery – only to decide a couple of years later (as happens) that they made the wrong choice? In effect, such a policy could only act to remove the inhibitions that currently act as safeguards. It would remove protection from children far too young to make life-changing decisions for themselves, in the process playing into the hands of sex abusers by removing the firewall – however inadequate in practice it may be – of parental protection.
However, far from being Government policy, on current information this would appear to be over-enthusiastic misapplication of GDPR – so, VfJUK asks, why? Surely, far from promoting child welfare, this can only further the ideologically driven agenda of sexual libertarianism? After all, the idea that a seriously ill 13 year old might choose not to tell their parents and take sole responsibility for their treatment is ludicrous. Pretty well all of us, when faced by illness, crave the support of our loved ones, so are we seriously to believe that a child, faced, for example, by kidney failure or the need for corrective heart surgery, might not want their parents involved? No, as said, the only possible object of such a policy would seem to be reinforcement and extension of a child’s opportunities in respect of sexual behaviour and gender transition.
Children can only be exposed to risk and left vulnerable by the relentless pressure to take ‘adult’ decisions for which they are simply too young. Parents have not just the right, but the duty, to protect their children – and for this they need to know what’s going on in their children’s lives. Thirteen is too young to bear such responsibility!
So let us reject manipulation of the new regulations to undermine parental rights - that, at the end of the day, serve only as justification for adult proclivities formerly labelled as immoral. If you receive one of these letters, then report the senders for abuse and complain to the data protection regulator. And, please, let VfJUK know.