Medical Laws for a Minor

The case being discussed is Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service v Q [2016] QSC 89. The applicant for this case is the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service. The first respondent is Q, a 12-year-old girl who is nine weeks pregnant. Q was referred to the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service after visiting a general practitioner to terminate her pregnancy. The Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service, the applicant for this case, then applied to the court in the parens patriae jurisdiction for authorisation to terminate Q’s pregnancy. The parens patriae jurisidiction refers to the power of the court to impose a decision about a child on the basis it is for the child’s best interest. The second respondent is Q’s Father and the third respondent is Q’s Mother. The amicus curiae Ms

That case was made insufficient because the father never had full custody of the child so therefore he could not begin to influence her own

As Albert Einstein once said, “The only source of knowledge is experience.” Seeing that I agree with Einstein, I stand in firm negation of today's resolution which states Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. For simplicity in the debate today, I would like to give the following definition from the Black’s Law Dictionary: Adolescence is the age which follows puberty and precedes the age of majority. It commences for males at 14, and for females at 12 year completed. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s dictionary says that the word ought is used to indicate a desirable or expected state. Autonomous, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, is having the freedom to act independently. The negative will support the value of paternalism, which as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. The value of paternalism will be defended with the criterion of knowledge and experience.

The case of Jonah v White (2012) 48 FAM LR 562 wishes to appeal the original decision of Murphy J, in which his Honour asserted that the appellant, (“Ms Jonah”) and the respondent (“Mr White”) had not been in a de-facto relationship in correspondence with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The appeal is bought before May, Strickland and Ainslie-Wallace JJ in the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Brisbane. The case seeks to question and determine what constitutes a law-binding de-facto relationship.

Cases of this kind emphasise the tension between two significant policy goals: the child’s best interests, which must dominate the court’s determination as to whether to grant parenting orders, and the prohibition of commercial surrogacy. The former, naturally, prevails. In every published case, the Family Court relied on the evidence tendered by the intended parents indicating the foreign birth mother’s consent to the applications, even where some of that evidence was quite concerning; the birth mother’s lack of interest in parenting the child;and the satisfactory nature of the parenting arrangements achieved under the agreement, in concluding that the best interests of the child were served by making the parenting orders.The earliest published international surrogacy case is Re Mark (an application relating to parental responsibilities). The facts are fairly typical. A couple from Victoria entered into a surrogacy contract under which a woman in California agreed to bear a child for them; the ovum was supplied by an anonymous woman, and one of the applicants provided the

* To decide if the child is in need ( Section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 states that it shall be the

Many define adolescence as the transition period from puberty to legal adulthood where one is in the process of maturing. “This transitional period can bring up issues of independence and self-identity,” according to Psychology Today (“Adolescence”). Adolescents are usually classified to be between the ages of 14 and 18 and traditionally regarded as “minors” by law. “Minors, as a group, are legally disabled, meaning they are presumed to lack the skills necessary for capable decision-making” (Rhonda). Adolescents are unable to make rational decisions due to the Prefrontal Cortex not fully being developed, emotional responses and other factors which may cause potential societal harms as well as risks to the minors. Adolescents should not have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

This appeal evolved out of a 2006 rape case that occurred in Harford county Maryland. More than two years after the incident the victim identified Glenn Joseph Raynor, hereby known as petitioner, as a possible suspect. After departing a voluntary police interview in which petitioner ultimately declined a request for his DNA to be collected for comparison. Investigators collected DNA on swabs from the armrest of his chair. DNA analysis revealed a match from samples collected at the crime scene. After further investigation petitioner was charged and convicted of first-degree rape and related offenses.

The Court apprehended that conducting a DNA buccal test as a part of the arrest process and it does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the test serves from a state that does not require a warrant for a search. The Court apprehended that determining an arrestee's character and criminal background is an essential part of the arrest process and that a DNA test is just as lawful as fingerprinting. Determining a suspect’s criminal background serves the legitimate state interest of determining what level of risk the person positions in the community and what circumstances should be established on his or her discharge from

DNA is considered an individuals genetic fingerprint, thus it is exclusive to each and every individual. Since this exclusivity exists, DNA is a tool used for identification purposes. It has been utilized for investigations of serious crimes, identification of individuals killed in mass disasters, wars and paternity uncertainties1. Since the inception of the use of DNA in the 1980’s thousands of criminals have been caught and prosecuted with the help of DNA evidence2. Additionally, countless victims of mass disasters have been identified through DNA and returned to their loved ones. Although, there are various benefits to employing DNA it does not come without a sundry of ethical and legal concerns. The ethical concerns that have presented themselves are questions involving scientific reliability, DNA evidence in court, human rights, and finally the other uses of the DNA database.

This report acts as guidelines for handling post-conviction DNA testing. These guidelines explore the legal and biological issues. Also, a set of guidelines are recommended for prosecutors, defense counsel, judiciary, victim assistance and laboratory assistance. This report also examines the impact on DNA testing on exonerations.

As we grow up, we hear it time and time again... “When you’re an adult you can do whatever you want.” We heard it when were driving our parents crazy about wanting to grow up just a little too fast. We are taught that in the eye of the law, we must wait until we hit our eighteenth birthday to do things like play the lottery, to move out, to vote, or to go to a club. We must be nineteen to buy cigarettes, 21 to drink alcohol, 25 to rent a car, but when we thing aout it more deeply and zoom in closer on the criminal justice system we see minors differently. In fact, According to legal experts the youngest person in modern U.S. history to be charged as an adult with first-degree murder was only 11 yeas old at the time he was sentenced (http://www.loyno.edu/~wagues/article19.html). That same eleven year old that will not get out of prison until he is a grown man, if at all, would not be able to consent to non-emergency medical care. A general practitioner in a non-emergency situation could not treat him without a parent or guardian giving the go-ahead. .

Josh meets this criteria and therefore can claim to be Jasmine’s father. However, section 5(4) of the 1986 act states that any presumption under section 5 may be rebutted by proof on a balance of probabilities. What this means is that if Adam can prove on the balance of probabilities that he is the father of Jasmine, he can gain parental rights and responsibilities in relation to Jessica. The way this is most easily established is through DNA sampling evidence. However, Jessica has indicated that she will not allow the baby to undergo a DNA test. Section 6(3) of the 1986 act says that where a sample is sought from a child under 16, consent may be given by anyone with parental rights and responsibilities within the meaning for s.1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or someone having care and control of the child. As the mother of the child, Jessica has the capacity to give or withhold consent. Since she has made it clear that she will not give consent, it is not possible for a DNA sample to be taken. Section 5(3) of the 1986 Act says that the court may consent to the taking of a sample but only where there is no person who is entitled to give consent; or there is such a person but it is not reasonably practicable to obtain their consent; or they are unwilling to accept the responsibility of giving or withholding consent. However, in this situation these circumstances do not apply as Jessica is entitled to give or withhold her

Nurses are subject to a plethora of legal, ethical, and professional duties which can be very challenging on a day to day basis. Some of these duties include respecting a patient 's confidentiality and autonomy, and to recognize the duty of care that is owed to all patients. As nurses our duties are always professional; however there are legal implications if these duties are breached. We also must consider when it is okay as nurses to breach these duties and therefore ethical issues arise. As nurses one of our main priorities is to advocate for our patients, without our own personal feelings on the matter taking over.

acceptable for only one parent to give consent for medical care, (FAESN, 2015); this is an important consideration since Joanne’s father does not agree with her decision to transition.