Schools have no obligation to inform you that your child has been ill, if your child does not wish them to?

Question

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050211/Parents-sue-school-telling-daughter-taken-ill-weeks-died-heart-attack.html

This girl was taken to seea doctor by teachers , but then asked them not to inform her parents as she did not wish to worry them.

Apparently according to the "Gillick ruling" schools do not have inform the parents if the child doesn´t want it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

What do you think?

Answer 1

I think it's crazy and I'd be furious.

Answer 2

The Daily Mail article makes it absolutely clear that the girl was seventeen years old. Second paragraph. However, the girl could have been six and it would have made no difference to the outcome.

Common sense and natural justice should require that those acting in 'loco parentis' inform parents about their childs illnesses. How could any responsible parent not agree with this.

Once again, we have a perfect demonstration of our left wing Governments determination to drive a wedge between parents and their children. Good old totalitarian tactics. As long as they follow their rules, what's the life of a child?

Answer 3

I find that incredible. A child just is not mature enough to make their own health decisions.

Answer 4

That rule is not implemented in Scotland, thankfully.

Answer 5

i think it should depend on the age of the child...but don't get me started about that Gillick flipping woman!!

Answer 6

hi

im a teacher and have never heard of this!! I think if a child misses school we always try to ring home to check they are ok if an adult doesnt ring in but never heard of taking a child to the doctors before who isnt a 'looked after' child ie in care.  I wouldnt be happy about this if it was my child.

Answer 7

She was 17. Old enough to make informed decisions.

The Gillick ruling applies to children under 16.

Not saying I agree with it, I'm just pointing out what the report failed to mention

Answer 8

my brain cant compute all that information im too tired but yes i would not be happy if my child had been taken to the doctors by teachers but i suppose i would be more annoyed with myself that my daughters couldnt come to me and had to rely on a teacher.x

Answer 9

I would be very unhappy about this if it were my child the ruling is ridiculous.

Answer 10

There's another example of political correctness.

Crazy isn't it?

The way schools can get around it is to notify the parent that the child had an authorised absence. When the parent asks the school refers the parent to the child.

Answer 11

In this case the girl was 17 so in theory she was old enough to make her own decision. I do however think that schools should be obliged to tell parents if their child has been taken ill, as has sadly been shown in this case, it may be a sign of further problems which need to be dealt with.  

Answer 12

Not in the US.  In the US your child cant take an aspirin in school without the parents permission.  My daughter had Bells Palsy and she had to have eye drops because her eye wouldnt blink.  I had to write a note to the nurse and send the eye drops to her...when my daughter needed them she had to go to the nurse and get them.  The nurse emailed me every day to tell me how many times she came in for eye drops.  

Answer 13

If I've read that right it seems to be an extraordinarily complex law as the child has to be deemed "Gillick Competent", so someone has to decide if the child is mature enough to make the decision. I remember the woman Gillick, and thought she complicated things then, it seems she has, unless I'm missing something. I'm ready to be proved wrong here, I read the Wiki entry, couldn't face the Mail this time of night.

Edit: Veritas, nothing to do with the government, left or right, it was a Law Lords decision.