Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

General practitioners must be capable of regularly taking 'ultimate' responsibility for difficult decisions in situations of clinical complexity and uncertainty. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 criminalises all sexual activity with a child under the age of 16. However, those who act with the purpose of protecting a child from a sexually transmitted infection, protecting the physical safety of a child, preventing the child from becoming pregnant or promoting the child's emotional well-being by the giving of advice will not commit an offence. Medicolegal academic writers have compared the legal separation of intention and foreseeability with the special defence of double-effect used in the palliative care context. This paper seeks to draw upon legal principles in constructing an ethical framework for analysis of this issue. It is hoped that this case study will stimulate further discussion, clarify the moral reasoning underpinning the existing guidelines for GPs and how the doctrine or principle of double effect can be used outside the palliative medicine context. © 2009 Royal College of General Practitioners.

Type

Journal article

Journal

London Journal of Primary Care

Publication Date

01/12/2009

Pages

146 - 150