Moral structuring of children during the process of obtaining informed consent in clinical and research settings
Research Article
Anderson Díaz-Pérez, Elkin Navarro Quiroz, Dilia Esther Aparicio Marenco
BMC Medical Ethics, 25 November 2020; 21(122)
Open Access
Abstract
Background
Informed consent is an important factor in a child’s moral structure from which different types of doctor–patient relationships arise. Children’s autonomy is currently under discussion in terms of their decent treatment, beyond what doctors and researchers perceive. To describe the influential practices that exist among clinicians and researchers toward children with chronic diseases during the process of obtaining informed consent.
Methods
This was a cross-sectional, qualitative study via a subjective and interpretivist approach. The study was performed by conducting semi-structured interviews of 21 clinicians and researchers. Data analysis was performed using the SPSS version 21® and Atlas Ti version 7.0® programs.
Results
The deliberative and paternalistic models were influential practices in the physician–patient relationship. In the deliberative model, the child is expected to have a moral awareness of their care. The paternalistic model determined that submission was a way of structuring the child because he or she is considered to be a subject of extreme care.
Conclusions
The differentiated objectification [educational] process recognizes the internal and external elements of the child. Informed consent proved to be an appropriate means for strengthening moral and structuring the child.

Young women’s autonomy and information needs in the schools-based HPV vaccination programme: a qualitative study
Research Article
Harriet Fisher, Karen Evans, Jo Ferrie, Julie Yates, Marion Roderick & Suzanne Audrey
BMC Public Health, 10 November 2020; 20(1680)
Open Access
Abstract
Background
Until 2019, the English schools-based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme was offered to young women (but not young men) aged 12 to 13 years to reduce HPV-related morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to explore the extent to which young women were able to exercise autonomy within the HPV vaccination programme. We consider the perspectives of young women, parents and professionals and how this was influenced by the content and form of information provided.
Methods
Recruitment was facilitated through a healthcare organisation, schools and community organisations in a local authority in the south-west of England. Researcher observations of HPV vaccination sessions were carried out in three schools. Semi-structured interviews took place with 53 participants (young women, parents of adolescent children, school staff and immunisation nurses) during the 2017/18 and 2018/19 programme years. Interviews were recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken, assisted by NVivo software.
Results
Young women’s active participation and independence within the HPV vaccination programme was constrained by the setting of vaccination and the primacy of parental consent procedures. The authoritarian school structure influenced the degree to which young women were able to actively participate in decisions about the HPV vaccination programme. Young women exercised some power, either to avoid or receive the vaccine, by intercepting parental consent forms and procedures. Reliance on leaflets to communicate information led to unmet information needs for young women and their families. Communication may be improved by healthcare professional advocacy, accessible formats of information, and delivery of educational sessions.
Conclusions
Strategies to improve communication about the HPV vaccine may increase young people’s autonomy in consent procedures, clarify young people’s rights and responsibilities in relation to their health care services, and result in higher uptake of the HPV vaccination programme.

Be legally wise: When is parental consent required for adolescents’ access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)?
Ann Strode, Catherine M. Slack, Zaynab Essack, Jacintha D. Toohey, Linda-Gail Bekker
Southern African Journal of HIV Medicine, 10 November 2020
Open Access
Abstract
Background
South African adolescents (12–17 years) need an array of prevention tools to address their risk of acquiring the life-long, stigmatized condition that is HIV. Prevention tools include pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). However, service providers may not be clear on the instances where self-consent is permissible or when parental consent should be secured.
Aim
To consider the legal norms for minor consent to PrEP using the rules of statutory interpretation.
Setting
Legal and policy framework.
Results
We find that PrEP should be interpreted as a form of ‘medical treatment’; understood broadly so that it falls within the ambit of one of consent norms in the Children’s Act. When PrEP is interpreted as ‘medical treatment’, then self-consent to PrEP is permissible for persons over 12 years, if they have the mental capacity and maturity to understand the benefits, risks, social and other implications of the proposed treatment. Currently, PrEP is only licensed for persons over 35 kg. Reaching the age of 12 years is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for self-consent and service-providers must ensure capacity requirements are met before implementing a self-consent approach. Decisional support and adherence support are critical.
Conclusions
We recommend that service-providers should take steps to ensure that those persons who meet an age requirement for self-consent, also meet the capacity requirement, and that best practices in this regard be shared. We also recommend that policy makers should ensure that PrEP guidelines are updated to reflect the adolescent consent approach articulated above. It is envisaged that these efforts will enable at-risk adolescents to access much needed interventions to reduce their HIV risk.

Consent and refusal of treatment by older children in emergency settings
Perspective
Dominique Moritz, Phillip Ebbs
Emergency Medicine Australasia, 9 November 2020
Abstract
The law recognises that children can exert an increasing level of autonomy and decision‐making about their healthcare as they mature, and that intelligence and maturity levels will vary from one child to the next. Therefore, the parameters for when older children can consent to healthcare can be a complex area for clinicians to navigate. Refusal of treatment provides additional challenges for clinicians because the law is less clear about when older children can be involved in refusing treatment which is in their best interests. This article outlines relevant legislation concerning child consent to treatment across Australian jurisdictions and examines refusal of treatment by children using the 2018 case of Mercy Hospitals Victoria v D1 & Anor.