HC Deb 09 July 1969 vol 786 cc1407-23

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 8, line 20, at beginning insert: Except in the case of a minor in statu pupillari and resident during term time for not less than half the year at an educational establishment. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this Amendment, because the subject was hardly ventilated during previous stages of the Bill. On Second Reading, the Attorney-General disposed of it in four and a half lines of HANSARD, and in Committee in another place and in the Commons the Clause was moved formally.

Before deploying my case, may I give the House a short background to it? In December, last year, the medical officer of one of our great schools wrote to me in a state of some anxiety about the implications for school doctors of the Latey Committee's recommendation that the age of consent to medical treatment should be reduced to 16. He raised a number of questions both on his own behalf and more generally as a member of the Association of Medical Officers of Schools.

His main anxieties arise from the probability that the right of a 16-year-old to consent, or withhold consent, to diagnosis and treatment, for all practical purposes will carry with it the right to professional and ethical secrecy, in other words, to his physician's silence about any disease or treatment from which the 16-years-old may be suffering

This distinguished doctor was worried, as well he might be, about the position of school physicians if a 16-year-old student were able to forbid the disclosure, for example, to parents or housemasters, that he was suffering from what might be a serious disease. When I received this communication, I discussed the problem with a number of schoolmasters and parents of children at boarding schools, not all of them public schools—on the contrary, they included people with interests in State-run boarding schools, industrial training establishments, charitable institutions and religious foundations, and some of them with interests in military training. They all agreed that the doctor had raised a valid question requiring careful investigation.

I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary expressing my concern and asking for reconsideration. That was on 2nd December, 1968. The Under-Secretary at the Home Office, who was unable to answer my questions himself, passed my letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services. His Ministry at that time—I was tempted to say "as usual"—was in such a muddle that it lost it. When he did reply, the Minister of State said: I am afraid that these papers were overlooked. To cut a long story short, it was not until four months after I had written to inquire that in April of this year I finally received a reply. By then, the Latey Committee's recommendations had been included in the Bill which had completed its passage through another place and received its Second Reading here. At that time, I regret, I was in the United States and so unable to raise the issue on Second Reading.

The reply which I eventually received from the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, was not worth the paper on which it was written. I had made a serious inquiry and I received a reply four months late, without a date on it and containing at least one glaring spelling error. It was pompous, didactic and patronising of the school doctors and, characteristically, it missed the point which I am now glad to be able to explain.

When I passed the letter with the Government's explanation to the doctors concerned, his reaction was instructive. I quote from a letter written by the medical officer of one of our largest schools. He said: It was of course a complete surprise to me to know that this recommendation was already in the legislative sausage machine and indeed had received a Second Reading. Perhaps the medical profession should have been more vigilant, but, as far as I can discover, the school doctors and their association were not consulted about this change in the law which will intimately affect their professional duty in the school. I do not know whether they have been consulted since; perhaps the Attorney-General will enlighten us. There followed a full meeting of the council of the school medical officers and it is because of their continuing concern that I have moved this Amendment at this very last moment.

The heart of the matter is the construction which is normally placed by the medical profession on the right to consent to treatment. Counsel for the Medical Defence Union, whose opinions have been sought on this point, say: It is widely accepted that the right to professional secrecy goes with the right to consent to treatment. I am advised that in effect this means that any boy or girl deemed to be old enough to consent to medical treatment likewise has the right to forbid a doctor to divulge information to any third party about that treatment, or about the condition which makes such treatment necessary.

It is also true, as the Medical Defence Union's lawyers go on to say, that in any event it would be a breach of a doctor's ethical obligation to his patient to divulge such information even about 16-year-olds. But in practice, as hon. Members will know, school doctors, whether at boarding schools, military or industrial training establishments, or religious instituttions, almost invariably reserve the right to tell the parents, or the headmaster, any confidential information about a boy's medical condition, or his need for treatment, provided that one of two circumstances is met. The first is that in the doctor's opinion it is in the interests of the boy so to do, and the second is that it is necessary for the protection of the school, or of the other children at the school.

I cannot believe that any hon. Member would think that was wrong. Yet under Clause 8 it is, to say the least, an open question whether a student over the age 16 could not, by extension of the right to consent, forbid his school doctor to divulge that information about him. That is the opinion of those who have advised me on this matter and, from the documents which I have seen, it appears to be the view of the Medical Defence Union.

I want to cite a number of examples of what this could mean in practice. I stress that all are hypothetical, because I do not wish to start any hares in the public prints. All three are, however, cases which could easily exist.

The first is the possible case of a 16year-old boy at one of the G.L.C.'s state-run boarding schools. Supposing he contracts syphillis. Under present arrangements, the school doctor would consider what best to do. He might or he might not feel it right to tell the parents—they might be serving abroad. But almost certainly he would feel it his duty to inform the school headmaster. As the law now stands, the boy could not forbid this, not at least unless he was of age. But if the Bill is passed as it stands, it is possible—I put it no higher, although I am advised that it is probable—that a court could take the view that the boy would be within his rights to forbid such disclosure of his condition and the doctor could be in the wrong if he transgressed against the boy's prohibition.

The second example concerns a schoolgirl of 16 who becomes pregnant and who in a state of emotional distress is discovered by the school doctor to be seeking to procure an abortion. That girl's principal need is surely for her parents' affection and understanding and yet I can imagine circumstances where, out of shame or pride or embarrassment, she would not wish her parents to be told. She might hope, for example, that by seeking an abortion, legal or illegal, she could hide her predicament from her parents entirely. She might deem it best to tell them when it was all over.

At present the doctor discovering this fact would undoubtedly inform the girl's headmistress and her parents. In most cases at least no question of medical ethics would be allowed to stand in the way of his divulging that information.

But if Clause 8 stands as it is, the girl might in law be able to prohibit her doctor from making the disclosure which I believe the whole House, at least in most circumstances, would feel it was his duty to make. At the very least, the doctor's discretion so to do ought not to be compromised by Clause 8 as it stands.

The third of these hypothetical examples concerns a group of 16-year-olds who might have been hooked on drugs. The Attorney-General will not deny that this is a growing problem, particularly in London, and it would be unreasonable to suppose that addiction to cannabis can be or is excluded from our boarding schools. Supposing the school doctor finds out. If it were heroin, be would be under an obligation to inform the police. In the case of soft drugs such as cannabis, and as Clause 8 stands, I am advised that there is at least a possibility that the students concerned, if they were over the age of 16, could forbid the doctor to divulge the facts of their addiction either to their parents or to the school.

It is open to the Attorney-General to argue, as no doubt he will, that this in practice will not be the case. But there is to say the least, an important area of doubt and it concerns school doctors, their Association and the Medical Defence Union. There should not be any doubt when Parliament lays down this law, but here is an area of doubt which weighs heavily with the doctors. I want to quote from what one of them wrote to me the other day about the reply I had received on this point from Lady Serota. He said: I do not think that this lady appreciates the position of schools like mine or of school officers like myself… I hope that the Attorney-General will note this well: Schools and school doctors will be put in an impossible position if a doctor cannot inform any member of the staff, including the headmaster, or the parents of the pupil concerned about any illness or injury to a child a boy of 16 years and over". I ask the Attorney-General to note that, in many of our boarding schools, those of 16 years and over constitute more than two-fifths of the pupils. This doctor stresses that the school doctors will be in an impossible position if they cannot inform parents without the express consent of the boys.

Because of these anxieties, I am advised that school doctors will be forced, if the Amendment is not accepted, to take steps to protect themselves. I am informed that the Medical Defence Union has told them as follows: In the case of boys and girls at school over the age of 16 it is the view of the Medical Defence Union that the school medical officer is entitled to reserve the right to inform the parents and/or headmaster or headmistress of confidential information about a boy or girl if he considers that it is within their own interest or necessary for the protection of other pupils that he should do so. Strictly this would be a breach of the doctor's ethical obligation to his patient and if this causes concern to a school medical officer his position could be protected by the school governing body making it known both to the boys and their parents that it is a condition of their acceptance by the school that the school medical officer should have this unlimited right. The prospect, as I understand it, is that if Clause 8 is allowed to stand without Amendment, the schools will have to put a clause into their prospectuses in future making this condition quite clear. They will have to stipulate that it is a condition of his acceptance that the school medical officer should have unlimited right to discuss the medical affairs of a pupil with the headmaster and parents.

It may be, since we are close to the end of the Bill, that they will have no other alternative. It may be the only way out. But in my view, it is wrong that the schools should have to do this because Parliament or the Government have not adequately thought out all the implications of the Clause. It is even more wrong if schools have to require this express reservation to be made by pupils and by parents for the purpose of evading the potential force of the law laid down by Parliament.

I cannot think that the Government really have given this matter adequate thought and on these grounds alone I urge the Amendment. But they are not the only grounds, and in conclusion I draw the Attorney-General's attention to a personal case of a school boy who happens to be my own son. I refer to him because he is typical, in no way special.

Not very long ago, my son broke his shoulder when playing rugby. When the shoulder was set, the knitting together of the bones was not at first sight successful. It became necessary to break that set and to do it again. Once again it seemed that even with the re-setting he would have a disability in his shoulder for the rest of his life.

A choice then had to be made whether to break the set a third time, with all the pain and worry which goes with it for a youngster keen on athletics. It was a difficult decision. My son, as it happened, was just below the age that this Bill would cover. He was under the age of 16 but he might well have been just over 16.

That was for me one of the most agonising decisions. I knew that it would give immense pain. I knew that if the set were broken a third time there was still no guarantee that it would be right. But I had to decide. If the Bill is passed as it stands, it would be open to a boy of 16 to make that decision for himself, and I submit on the evidence that it would have been wholly wrong to lay that decision upon my son. It was necessary for his parents to take the responsibility and to make the decision on his behalf. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that this is what parents are for.

The Attorney-General will no doubt put a number of reasons why the Clause may stand as it is and why my anxieties are unfounded. I invite him to do so. I hope that he will be able to satisfy the school doctors and their association and many parents who are very much concerned about this. But I say to the Attorney-General that there is here at the very least an area of legal confusion. My Amendment is designed to limit and if possible to eliminate the doctors' confusion.

In her letter to me in which she summarised the Government's view about these points, Baroness Serota concluded with this sentence: There is no reason why this new Clause should change the present position which it seems that those who approached you have misunderstood". That was an imperceptive, not say an arrogant, statement. Those who have approached me have by no means misunderstood the Clause. They have considered it very carefully—more carefully, I suspect, than the Department of Health and Social Security. They have taken the best available legal advice from the Medical Defence Union. They have even taken steps, although I believe them to be unsatisfactory, to protect themselves if the Government insist on keeping the Clause as it stands.

However, I have perhaps a little more confidence in the Attorney-General than they have. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with some confidence. It is true that the Government did not consult the school doctors. It is true that when I made my original submissions they lost my letter. It is true that neither in the other place nor in this House has there been any discussion of this point during the Committee stage. But there is still time. So I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will apply his quick and benevolent mind to the problem. Let him change my inadequate Amendment in any way he wishes, but let him not rush into law with a Clause, whose intentions I do not oppose but whose detailed application could cause confusion and even distress unless the Amendment or something like it is accepted, even at this final hour.

Mr. John Lee (Reading)

I apologise to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) that I did not hear his opening remarks. He has raised a matter of some importance, although I am bound to say that I disagree with him almost entirely. Although he has put his case forward with a good deal of force and fear, I think that he has misunderstood what the Clause is about.

The hon. Gentleman points out—and it is an understandable apprehension—that there might be a certain amount of difficulty about the relationship of doctors to those who are in charge, in a disciplinary way, of an educational establishment in the medical care of the pupils in that establishment. The fallacy of that is simply this. Either the House takes the view that a person of 16 is mature enough to consent to medical treatment or it does not. Either we accept that 16 is a reasonable age for people to exercise this power themselves or we do not. It does not matter whether they are in an educational institution.

It may well be that many of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, who will be, in the nature of things, engaged in higher education and, therefore, may be better educated, are in a better position to weigh the pros and cons and understand the consequences of their actions in exercising the powers which the Bill grants them rather than people who are not in educational institutions. In other words, it might be argued a little more plausibly that there is a case for having the Amendment the other way around.

6.15 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to concern almost entirely the disclosure of the nature of illnesses. The Clause is concerned with the giving of consent to treatment, and so on. It is an entirely different matter. The hon. Gentleman went on to give some singularly inappropriate examples in support of his argument. To say that it is right to disclose to a third party facts about someone suffering from venereal disease or an unmarried person who is pregnant is a most extraordinary argument to use in support of an Amendment of this kind. Of all the conditions in which one would have thought confidentiality was most important, irrespective of the patient's age, it is just medical conditions of this kind.

It may well be that, with the growing maturity of young people and the growing permissiveness of society, these are embarrassing disciplinary problems in educational institutions. But it is most extraordinary to use this as an argument for making the medical officer a spy, although perhaps that puts it rather strongly, on behalf of those in charge of people in an educational institution. It would not give confidence to pupils who went to them in obviously embarrassing circumstances that what they disclosed would go no further than was necessary for medical purposes.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman's point about spies, which is nonsense, but would he address his mind to the point made by the Medical Defence Union which I quoted: It is widely accepted that the right to professional secrecy goes with the right to consent to treatment"? That is the legal point.

Mr. Lee

That may be so. Once we accept the concept that a person of a given age is likely to be mature enough to weigh up these matters, if we destroy confidentiality, not only shall we put them in a difficult position in a discipline- ary way, which may be justified, but we may inhibit them from seeking treatment, which the most important aspect.

I am not entirely enamoured of the Clause. The age of 18 would possibly have been a better age. More people seem to become more mature year by year. These are weighty matters. The example of his son which the hon. Gentleman used is invalid for another reason. I imagine that any normal person would seek the assistance and advice of people older than themselves, perhaps their parents if they enjoyed a normal parental relationship. Therefore, when there is no delicacy in the situation, it is only reasonable to suppose that the pupil will be only too glad to lean on the shoulders of people older than themselves.

The hon. Gentleman has done a service by raising this matter because there are problems which need to be solved, but my main objection to this Amendment is that it is totally illogical to draw a vertical distinction between some people of 16 and other people of the same age. One could perhaps divide it in other ways, but not that way

. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us what he thinks of certain letters issued on behalf of educational institutions purporting to grant to their medical officers the right to disclose information. This would seem to be to disregard the provisions of the Bill. I suspect that those disclaimers of all cautionary provisos would not have very much effect. I should have thought that they should not be encouraged, in any event, and I certainly have doubts whether, in the face of the provisions of the Bill—if unamended—they would have any validity.

Those are all the points that I wished to make. The hon. Member has raised an interesting point, but I do not think that the argument that he has adduced merits a change in the Bill.

Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)

I would not venture to offer any opinion on the legal conundrum raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) but I hope that the learned Attorney-General will deal with it. With great respect to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) he did not meet my hon. Friend's difficulty. The hon. Member expressed his opinion on moral and other matters but I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned with the difficulty which genuinely arises for organisations such as the Medical Defence Union which are uncertain of the legal situation. It may be that, as is so often the case, in a few moments the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give us, with the utmost clarity and certainty so that we can accept it without question, the answer to the point, but at the moment I am impressed by the case put forward by my hon. Friend, which until now does not seem to have been treated with the seriousness that it merits.

People are in difficulties over these legal problems. We have often come across such cases. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it is most important that people should know where they stand. There may be a simpler explanation than that which my hon. Friend has given of the matter, but he is entitled to an answer.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

I shall be brief. This is an important point, and as an ex-teacher I see a greater significance in it than does the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). He picked three important but nevertheless unique and exhaustive examples, but he touched on a set of consequences with which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will deal.

First, I require to be convinced that the right to medical secrecy is in fact a corollary to the right of consent. Presuming that that is the position, will my right hon. and learned Friend dwell upon the consequences to which I have referred? In many cases of medical treatment it is important for the head teacher to know the facts, if only for the sake of the student concerned. This is true in some cases of medical treatment of the ears and eyes, and of other medical treatment which affects the emotional stability of students.

If the submission that the right to medical secrecy is a corollary of the right to consent is supported by evidence a grave situation might arise if the Clause omitted to take that fact into account. My right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt agree that a wider field has been opened up, and I hope that he will make clear whether the right to medical secrecy is as firmly established as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has suggested.

Mr. John Lee

Accepting my hon. Friend's point that in certain circumstances it may be valuable, desirable or even necessary for certain information to be disclosed to a head teacher, is it not equally true that such information should be disclosed to officials of other institutions, and not merely educational institutions?

Mr. Leadbitter

I do not place any great importance upon the levels of treatment of certain diseases, or their natures. As an ex-teacher, however, I am much troubled about the doubts that may exist in people's minds when they have to deal with these situations. Any misuse of information by members of institutions would be very wrong.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has raised some important and interesting questions. I say at once—lest some of his strictures may have caused alarm—that my understanding is that the Clause has been enthusiastically supported by all the relevant professional medical organisations—The British Medical Association, the Medical Defence Union, the Medical Protection Society, the Institute of Hospital Administrators, the Royal College of Nursing, and the Ministry of Health. To say that this matter has not been carefully looked at is less than just and certainly not accurate.

The fact is that it may be the law already that a person over the age of 16 can give a valid consent to any surgical, medical or dental treatment. The main purpose of the Clause is not so much to change the law as to make it certain. This has been done at the express request of the medical organisations concerned in these matters. As the Latey Committee pointed out, the problem is not that the law is necessarily wrong but that it is confused and unclear, and therefore leads to inconsistencies of practice. The Clause is therefore designed to make it quite clear what may already be the law, namely, that any person over the age of 16 can give a valid consent to any surgical, medical or dental treatment.

The House will appreciate that this is a branch of the law which in practice must be applied by doctors, often in difficult and urgent situations. It is therefore essential that, whatever else it may be, the law should be simple and clear. There is no rigid rule of English law which renders any minor—no matter of what age—incapable of giving his consent to an operation, but there seems to be no direct judicial authority establishing that the consent of such a person is valid. Until some years ago it was customary in practice to require the consent of a parent or guardian to an operation or to an anæsthetic being given to anybody under the age of 21, but for a number of reasons it has recently become more customary for doctors to accept the consent of minors over the age of 16.

6.30 p.m.

The B.M.A. and the other professional organisations that I have mentioned consider that the law should clearly provide that such consent is valid, and the Latey Committee agrees with that view—so do the Government. Clause 8 provides accordingly, but, as the House will notice, it does so in declaratory form, and subsection (3) expressly provides: Nothing in this section shall be construed as making ineffective any consent which would have been effective if this section had not been enacted. The reason for this is that the law relating to consents given by persons under 16 is not clear, and whilst it is not necessary or appropriate for this Bill to enact a code to cover those persons as well, we think it would be wrong to validate consents by persons over 16 in such terms as to cast doubts on the invalidity of consents given by persons under 16, if some of them would otherwise have been valid but for the casting of such doubts.

The Latey Committee said: It is clear that in cases of emergency or unconsciousness all considerations regarding consent will be set aside and doctors will do whatever is necessary to save the life of the patient "— be he infant or be he an adult— to save him from permanent disability or from unnecessary pain and suffering. In this they can only be guided by their professional conscience and will be acting as agents of necessity. I think it would be quite wrong to do anything by a side wind, as I think this Amendment would do, which might make the doctors' task more difficult. The Latey Committee took the view that 16 should be clearly established in law as the age above which consent can always be given to medical treatment, but as a matter of ethics and practice—and it seemed to me that most of the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman were questions of medical ethics and practice—as a matter of ethics and practice. as I say, as opposed to law, the Latey Committee thought that doctors should make contact with the parents or guardian of a minor—or husband in the case of a woman—in every case unless the minor refuses permission. Moreover, as the Medical Protection Society put it, the doctor: should also have some regard to the degree of emancipation of the patient, for example, a 17 year old girl wholly dependant on her parents and receiving her education at a fee paying school is in a different position from the young man of similar age living away from home and supporting himself". It would seem that this is the kind of situation which the hon. Member had in mind. But I should add, perhaps, to complete the picture, that he also said it should be regarded as essential for the nature and extent of the proposed treatment to be explained to the patient by a doctor and that it should be on the consent form, signed by a doctor, that this has been done.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

rose—

The Attorney-General

It may be that I am dealing with the matter that I am about to be asked, but, if not, I shall of course give way. The Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman seems designed to incorporate in the law the single example given by the Latey Committee to demonstrate the need for flexibility in practice. That, I submit, is contrary to the recommendation of the Latey Committee and, I am informed, of all the medical organisations which have been consulted. All of these took the view, with which the Government agree, that the law must be clear and uniform and must clearly apply to all persons over 16, and I think it is very important—and this is where some of the observations of the hon. Gentleman went awry—that the distinction between the requirements of the law and the requirements of medical practice must be kept clear and that it would be quite wrong to try to enact the requirements of medical practice in an Act of Parliament as if we were dealing with the requirements of law. Now I come to what I consider—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say as clearly as he is able whether the 17-yearold girl to whom he referred would be in the position to prohibit her medical adviser from telling her mother that she is pregnant?

The Attorney-General

I think she can do so now and I think she could do so under the Bill. Whether the doctor accepted the prohibition would be a matter for his conscience, of what he thought to be right and what he thought to be appropriate. I should have thought that the advice which the hon. Gentleman read out, being advice given by the Medical Protection Society, in this field was sound, but this is a matter into which, as the Attorney seeking to advise the House on the law, I would certainly not be disposed to enter. It must be a matter for the medical profession itself, by its rules, by its practices, by its standards, to determine.

What I submit to the House is that it is very doubtful indeed whether the Amendment would have the effect which it seems designed to have. Its only effect would be to exclude one class of persons from subsection (1) of the Clause; that would, however, still leave them subject to the existing law as preserved by subsection (3). As I have said, there is nothing in the existing law which says that these persons—the 17-year-olds, if hon. Members please—cannot give their consent now. As I have said, these days, and for quite a time now, customarily they do so and have done so. So, as it stands the Amendment will not be likely to achieve much, but it would certainly perpetuate uncertainty in one small and anomalous set of cases.

Let us, however, consider, for a moment, assuming that the Amendment might have some effect, what result it might have. The House will notice that it is not limited as to time, so that while any person over 16 who was not a student could always give consent, even if he was living at home, a person who fulfilled the conditions of the Amendment would, to some extent at any rate, be unable to give his consent, not only while at school or college, when the tutor or person in loco parentis would have to give it for him, but he would be unable to give it while he was at home or away somewhere else, and that, surely, must be wrong on any view of this matter. I submit that it would add an intolerable burden, if, when a doctor had a difficult and urgent decision to make about an operation, perhaps when a young person is brought in after a motor cycle accident—all too frequent—he had to satisfy himself by law and as a matter of law that the patient, if under 18, was not in statu pupillari and resident during term time at not less than half the year at an educational establishment and that, if he was, the appropriate consent was forthcoming from parent, guardian, headmaster or tutor.

Therefore, this Amendment, in my submission, is wrong in principle, and would add an intolerable burden to the tasks which already face a profession under strain with, alas, the multiplicity of accidents requiring quick decision by the medical profession. As to the doctor's dilemma which the hon. Gentleman put to me, these are matters which the medical profession must itself regulate; but, as I say, my understanding is that this Clause has the approval of the medical profession, and I doubt very much whether the Amendment would have.

Sir Peter Rawlinson (Epsom)

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has undoubtedly stimulated a most interesting and very valuable discussion, and I am sure that the Attorney-General would not want anybody to think by his last powerful words—but said with the greatest agreeableness—that this is not a matter of interest that has been raised by my hon. Friend. We have had from the Attorney-General an interesting reply to the point which my hon. Friend made so many months ago which was not at the time appreciated.

I was more interested as a parent than as a lawyer. I have always believed that my daughter of that age would have to get my consent before any operation was performed. As a parent, I would certainly expect the doctor who treated my child in the circumstances pointed out by my hon. Friend to communicate with me.

With respect to my hon. Friend, it seems to me that the Attorney-General is correct in saying that we are concerned basically with the ethics of the doctor. The doctor should take upon himself such responsibility, and we sincerely hope that he will do so. The arguments of the Attorney-General have force and validity. Nevertheless, our examination of the position and the short discussion which we have had have been of immense value.

Mr. Elden Griffiths

It would clearly be wrong for me to seek to divide the House on the Amendment. In seeking to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I say to the Attorney-General that he has simply not answered the question which I nut to him on the advice that has been given to me by the Medical Defence Union, namely, that the right to professional secrecy goes with the right to consent to treatment, and that children of 16 could forbid their doctors to inform their parents or head teachers of their physical condition. I cannot believe it is right. I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise the question, and it may be that we shall return to it.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to
Forward to