No Minimum Age for Medical Consent?

Donald Wilson is a family lawyer practicing in New Westminster, and the managing partner of Atticus Legal. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws at UBC in 2010. Donald is the past Party Leader of the BC Libertarian Party and has run as a candidate in Provincial and Federal elections on platforms of personal and political liberty. You can find him tweeting for liberty under @DNSWilson.

Last week, I wrote a bird’s-eye view of the law on childhood vaccination after parents separate. You can read it here. This week, in comments to True North, Nova Scotia’s Department of Health and Wellness stated that there was no minimum age at which a child could consent to Covid vaccination, regardless of the parents’ views. My first thought was: then there is no minimum age for a child to refuse the vaccine, either. The ability to consent is meaningless without the ability to withdraw consent. But that thought is more germane to the situation of separated parents: the context of the Health Department’s comments is public vaccination.

I have no basis to disagree with the plain statement of the law in the statement by the Health Department. In British Columbia, the Infants Act doesn’t state a minimum age for a mature minor. The FLA and the Divorce Act don’t address the issue directly. I found no cases in which a minimum age was discussed. Considering the contextual nature of judgements, commentary about a minimum age would likely be obiter, which is to say not necessary for the judgment and therefore not binding law. My view is that any attempt to bind future adjudicators by setting a minimum age would be ultra vires – outside the jurisdiction – of a presiding judge.

On the other hand, I am concerned that the Health Department’s statement could be over-read, that it could be used as a pretext to pressure children to assume a responsibility for which they are not yet ready, or to inappropriately exclude parents from the decision. 

The lack of an explicit minimum wage in the Act does not mean there are no outside limits to the emergence of maturity in a child. Under s. 17 of the Act, a mature minor’s consent is not valid until a health care provider: 

  • has explained to the infant and has been satisfied that the infant understands the nature and consequences and the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of the health care, and
  • has made reasonable efforts to determine and has concluded that the health care is in the infant’s best interests.

These steps are not frivolous and shouldn’t be treated as mere formalities. The whole process  is also reviewable by the court. Further, these statutory requirements are separate to common law principles on mature minors as well as the court’s own duty to protect children. I will add, parenthetically, that the use of the word “infant” in the Act is a technical definition meaning a person under 19 – not the ordinary meaning of a new-born child. 

I am uneasy about the government drafting such a policy on child consent and parental involvement in the context of school vaccination clinics. The recent broad push by our governments for mass vaccination has often veered into the decidedly unethical. I would rather see responsibility for crafting such policies fall to the health care providers or their professional bodies.

In any event, parents facing school vaccine clinics should know that their children can get vaccinated without their permission or, in some cases, even without their knowledge. I have my own views about this, but such personal views have little effect on the actual state of the law. 

The best remedy to concerns related to the above would seem to be: a strong relationship with your children, careful selection of their school, vetting of their peer group, and direct supervision over the child’s consumption of media – but I claim no professional expertise in this regard. 

As for separated parents, my opinion remains that the thrust of the law is: the authority to consent to vaccination generally lies between the parents, children and the child’s health care provider. Under the Infants Act, a “health care provider” determines if a child is sufficiently mature to consent to medical treatments. The term is defined broadly in the Act:

“Health care provider” includes a person licensed, certified or registered in British Columbia to provide health care. 

“Health care” means anything that is done for a therapeutic, preventive, palliative, diagnostic, cosmetic or other health related purpose, and includes a course of health care.

Open and direct communication with your ex is best, whenever possible. Making generous assumptions about their motives in such communication – even sometimes despite good evidence – tends to be most effective. The children’s views should be canvassed and considered, and neither parent should use undue pressure – such as abuse or threats – in trying to change a mature minor’s mind. 

As for the court’s role, the court can allocate parental responsibilities between the parents. A parent failing to consider a child’s views or responding inappropriately to a child’s decision are valid factors for the court to consider when allocating parental responsibilities. Separately, the court can be called on to review the “mature minor” determination made by a health care provider under the Infants Act. Apart from these roles, the court should avoid interfering with the decision to vaccinate.


Join our list!
Subscribe To Newsletter

Receive notifications about newly posted content.

Invalid email address

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *