The Teacher’s Resource Center was packed to capacity last Tuesday evening, July 10th, as persons from all walks of life gathered to be informed and to express their views on the Child Protection Bill.
The Bill, which has lately met with much controversy from a vast cross-section of the public, was tabled for discussion by the Commissioner of Social Development, Mr. Sanford Richardson. He was accompanied and supported by Permanent Secretary, Mrs. Bonnie Richardson-Lake, and Social Development Planner, Ms. Kiesha Gumbs.
Objection was rife all over the room to the prospect of having the Bill eventually passed in the House of Assembly before the due process of having its implications properly discussed in the public domain. The general consensus was that there should be no rush to have the Bill presented in the House until the community at large was satisfied that enough time had been allotted for adjustments to its ambiguous and controversial clauses.
One of the prime areas of concern with the Bill was Part 2 Section 20 where it is stated: Persons over the age of 13 may receive confidential health care services for concerns related to sexual activity, pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases and substance abuse. A health care facility or provider, a health planner or medical practitioner shall be bound by any regulations made under this Act and any Protocol or Procedures made by the Department or Commissioner with respect to access to a minor’s protected health information.
This section implies that the parent(s) of a child over 13 years of age would have no right to know about the child’s treatment by a doctor, since such information pertinent to the treatment and advice given by the heath professional must be held in confidence.
Mr. Richardson sought to glean from many of the irate respondents their views on this particular section. The general consensus was that the age for treatment under these conditions should be increased, and merged with the age of consent which is 18 years of age.
Other areas of objection include the subject of mandatory reporting of harm to a child found in Part 6, Section 31, Subsection 1 & 4 of the Bill. Here it states: Any person who has knowledge or reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is being harmed or is otherwise in need of care and protection shall, without delay, make a report to the Commissioner. A person who fails to comply with subsection 1 commits an offence and is liable, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for three months.
Most persons at the meeting found these sections to be biased, unfair and unreasonable. The general consensus here was that this portion be revisited and amended according to fair and acceptable provisions.
It is expected that further public consultation will be scheduled in the not too distant future.
