When Rights Collide: Parents, Children, and Consent to Treatment

Abstract

Parents have traditionally had the right to consent to health services for their children. In situations where the interests of the parents and their children differ, the rule has had unfortunate consequences and has left treatment professionals in a quandary. This article surveys the legal litera-ture and identifies four major areas where the law permits treatment without parental consent: "mature " minors, "emancipated " minors, emer-gency situations, and court-ordered treatment. It concludes that given the broad and often vague nature of such exceptions, all parties would be better served by legally lowering the age of consent for medical and mental health services. On the assumption that young people lack the maturity and judgment necessary for rational decision making, the law has traditionally given parents the right to make decisions for their minor offspring. The United States Supreme Court has fashioned a constitutional right of parental control and custody premised on the notion that parents making decisions for their children will always act in the best interests of the child (Parham v. J. R., 1979). Consequently, parents may legally name their children, deter-mine where and how they will live, discipline them, and select their religious and educational training. Like all legal doctrines, however, parents ' right to control their children is not without some limits. For example, society may intervene to protect battered or neglected children from their parents. Similarly, the