British mother demands the right to know about teenage abortion

A British mother is presently fighting government guidelines issued last year to reduce teenage pregnancy, abortions and sexually transmitted diseases.

Mrs Axon, 51, from Wythenshawe, Manchester, a mother of five, is asking the High Court in London to rule the Department of Health guidelines as unlawful and order a judicial review.

She maintains that she should be told if her 13-year-old daughter, goes to a doctor for sex-related treatment or advice, and believes parents should have the right to override medical confidentiality rules and be told when their children seek abortions, contraceptives or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.

She wants to overturn government guidelines that instruct doctors to maintain patient confidentiality for children.

Mrs Axon argues, that as a parent she has a duty of care for her children until they are 16 and cannot fulfil it properly if she is not kept informed about their medical health and well-being.

In a statement to the court she said it is incongruous that parental consent is required for a belly button to be pierced while an abortion can be carried out without parents knowing.

Mrs Axon herself deeply regrets an abortion she had 20 years ago, which has caused her "guilt, shame and depression for many years".

Mrs Axon's counsel Philip Havers, has told the court that the guidelines contradicted the 1986 Law Lords’ ruling on Victoria Gillick, a mother who was refused the right to veto any decision by a doctor to give her daughters contraception.

Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, has accused Mrs Axon of having her own political agenda on the issue of contraceptive advice and treatment for young people.

Philip Sales, for the Department of Health, has denied that the guidelines contravene the Gillick ruling, where it was established that five criteria must be met if parents are to be kept uninformed about treatment.

According to Mrs Axon's legal team the Department of Health has misinterpreted the ruling that the five criteria should be interpreted as allowing a child to maintain full patient confidentiality only in exceptional circumstances.

The Department of Health has played down the significance of the five criteria and argues that the Gillick ruling rejected the notion that parents have the right to be informed.

The hearing continues.