No abstract

Competence is an essential legal requirement for valid consent to medical treatment. Children under 16 may be considered 'Gillick competent' to make treatment decisions, but may need to demonstrate this. Applied tests for competence are wide-ranging and context dependent. Competence is related to cognitive ability and experience and may be enhanced by education, encouragement etc.; there is a general duty for professionals to enhance the competence of children in their care. The need to assess a child's competence may occur when s/he wishes to make a controversial decision whose wisdom others dispute. Potential assessors should have the necessary practical skills and an understanding of the child in their social and medical context. Assessments should be developmentally appropriate, explore systemic influences, and consider the child's emotional state, cognitive development and ability to balance risks and benefits. The involvement of a psychologist or other independent third party should be considered in cases that raise serious concerns about competency, or that involve complex decisions or conflict between the various parties. In rare cases courts may be involved.

Informed consent means approval of the legal representative of the child and/or of the competent child for medical interventions following appropriate information. National legal regulations differ in regard to the question when a child has the full right to give his or her autonomous consent. Informed assent means a child's agreement to medical procedures in circumstances where he or she is not legally authorised or lacks sufficient understanding for giving consent competently. Doctors should carefully listen to the opinion and wishes of children who are not able to give full consent and should strive to obtain their assent. Doctors have the responsibility to determine the ability and competence of the child for giving his or her consent or assent. All children, even those not judged as competent, have a right to receive information given in a way that they can understand and give their assent or dissent. This consent/assent process must promote and protect the dignity, privacy and confidentiality of the child and his or her family. Consent or assent is required for all aspects of medical care, for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic measures and research. Children may effectively refuse treatment or procedures which are not necessary to save their lives or prevent serious harm. Where treatment is necessary to save a life or prevent serious harm, the doctor has the duty to act in the best interest of the child. However, parents may also refuse to consent and in this case national laws and legal mechanisms for resolving disputes may be used.

The paucity of research data to guide current paediatric practice has led to children being termed therapeutic orphans. This difficulty is especially pertinent to research in emergency situations, such as acute resuscitation or critical care, where accepted ethical standards for overall research, have historically created practical difficulties for researchers. The welcome establishment of organisations to support UK paediatric research is helping to ensure safer and more effective medications for children, however as the balance between protection and access at the heart of the paediatric research ethical debate shifts to ever increasing access for researchers to children, it remains crucial to ensure the protection for these vulnerable participants. The fundamental protection for research subjects, namely their full informed consent before any recruitment, is not tenable in true emergency situations and so other approaches are warranted if standards are to be improved by human subjects research in such areas. Proxy, deferred and retrospective consent have all been advocated as solutions to this difficulty and this paper explores the ethical justification for these approaches and their utility in safeguarding children and families in emergency situations when traditional informed consent, as currently defined, cannot be obtained in the necessary time frame to enable research.

ObjectiveThere has been little formal exploration of how young people see their role in the COVID-19 pandemic.Design/settingFocus-group discussion with 15 Children’s Hospital Young People’s Forum members (23/5) to explore their perspective on the impact of COVID-19 on both their lives and those of their community, on school closures, and the role they wished to play in society’s recovery from the pandemic. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim using NVivo Software and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.OutcomeFour major themes identified: (1) Awareness of pandemic’s impact on others: participants showed mature awareness of the effects on broader society, especially the elderly, socially disadvantaged and parents. (2) Perceived impact on their own lives: principal concerns were the educational and practical repercussions of school closures and social isolation, including effects on educational prospects. (3) Views about school reopening: young people understood the broader rationale for school reopening and were generally positive about it, but expressed concerned about their safety and that of others. (4) Communication issues: a need for clear, concise, understandable information readily accessible for young people was expressed. Up to now, they felt passive recipients rather than participants.ConclusionYoung people were concerned about their future, their family and broader society, consistent with a high level of moral development. They want to be active participants in social recovery, including concepts around return to school but require appropriate information and a means by which their voices can be heard. The alternative suggested roles as pawns or pathfinders were discounted.