The fine line between protecting and punishing children
Dear Diane Ber,
I’m sure it hurts a lot, with your daughter having died at the tender age of 17. I’m not in any way surprised that you are considering legal action against your NHS Trust and school because your daughter’s school didn’t inform you that she had been suffering from heart palpitations shortly before she was tragically killed by a heart attack. Even so, I hope in time that you begin to understand that this happened in the name of protecting your daughter, not punishing her.
I can appreciate that as a parent, you would have wanted things to happen differently. Your daughter Kasia complained of palpitations and shortness of breath during a lesson at college in December 2005, so her teachers took her to see a GP. She asked her teachers not to tell you because she did not want to worry you, which is a very natural thing for a child to say. Kasia returned to the doctor four days later for an ECG on her heart and was sent away with no further treatment, only for her to die two weeks later from a heart attack. Tests later revealed she had the heart condition Long QT syndrome.
Of course I can understand that you feel wronged by the system, but you must understand why the system is in place. Yes, you would like to have been informed about her visit to the GP but that doesn’t mean that what Kasia’s teachers did was wrong. Her teachers looked after her, took her to a doctor who found nothing wrong, and she went back to college – how can you argue with this course of action? Aren’t you grateful that her teachers gave a damn? I simply don’t see what you will gain from suing Kasia’s school and your NHS Trust for failing to take steps to diagnose Kasia’s condition sooner. You asked ”how could the teachers know our child was ill and not tell the people who were in the best position to care for her? If we had known we could have done something.” This in itself in a reasonable question, were it not for the fact that they took Kasia to see a doctor because they could see that they were not in a position to diagnose her at school. Isn’t it great to see them show such dedication to their students?
Not only is common sense against you, the school denies any wrongdoing because they had followed the 1985 landmark House of Lords ruling known as the Gillick Principle, which states that parents do not need to be informed of any medical visits or health problems if the child wishes them not to know. Your daughter made a decision, based on her GP’s assessment, not to tell you about what happened and I wish that you would respect that. It wasn’t Kasia’s school that killed her; it was simply a tragic twist of fate. I have no problem with you asking questions about why the doctor failed to diagnose the condition but both Kasia and school remain totally blameless and I think you should accept this once and for all. The Gillick principle is there to protect children and sadly your daughter’s death is no reason to question this.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
Child? She was 17!
I can’t see that the school has any liability here, frankly.
Right there with you. Sad as this story is, some parents refuse to accept the logic of trying to protect children – especially when they are 17 years old and perfectly capable of making their own decisions.
I have still yet to hear a single argument or case study to make me think that the Gillick principle should be readdressed.
take them on girl, and good luck to you.
You have got to be joking me, Alastair. Even though her daughter died, I genuinely hope that she loses any legal cases that she brings.
The Gillick Principle is designed to help children make their own choices without fear of parental punishment – and that empowers them to make decisions, albeit difficult ones, on the basis of medical advice and often some counselling from teachers or other yout workers. What’s wrong with that, especially at the age of 17? What right does the mother have to know about her daughter seeing as GP?
She was 17, over the age of legal responsibility, old enough to leave school, old enough to have sex, get married and leave home. If she was considered to be old enough in to know the consequences of her actions viz breaking the law then she was old enough to know the consequences of not telling her parents about her trip to the doctors.
My wife and I have both been to the doctors together in the past and they are reluctant to talk about medical history even when you’re both there. Telling the parents of a 17 year old that their daughter had been to the doctors would have been wrong.
At what point, I wonder, would this woman have accepted that her daughter could go to the doctors without telling her? Would she be doing the same thing if her daughter was 18, legally an adult and no longer the responsibility of her parents?
As I understand it, the Gillick Principle operates for younger children as well so long as those providing the care (e.g. doctor) are convinced that the child understands what they are doing – hence the case a few years ago of a girl (14 years old, I think) who had an abortion without her parents’ knowledge and the parents cried foul. I still side with the children, even at that age.
I live in a country where matters of the law are dealt with by Courts. Where do you live?
Any parent who loves their child will want to know so that they can advice and take care of them. That is their right and responsibility as a parent. It is nobody else’s. Once the child is an adult, as recognised by the law, they can choose not to tell their parents and that’s their business.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/05/marks_sparks_data/
Provides an interesting interpretation of the gillick principle, and how government agencies are hiding behind it.
I disagree alastar. Gillick is a well established principal of law that has been tested in the courts a few times. If the child was sub 14 I would say the article would have some merit. If I recall correctly, a child as young as 11 has been found gillick competant. I am not saying that I agree with a child at that age been able to make decisions, but the courts look at each case on it’s merits. To be totally frank, because of her age, gillick hardly even applies!!