Last week the Law Reform Commission (LRC) published a report, Children and the Law: Medical Treatment, which said that teens as young as 16, and in some cases younger, should be able to access contraception without their parents approving or even knowing.

This is in spite of the fact that age of legal consent for sexual intercourse is still 17.

It is also in spite of the fact that the research on this issue has shown that policies which increase the access of teenagers to contraception do not reduce the incidence of teenage pregnancies and are correlated with higher rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Professor David Paton, who has conducted extensive research on this area, wrote a submission document for the LRC, on behalf of the Iona Institute, in response its 2009 consultation paper on the same subject.

He spelt out the results of UK policies which had steadily widened teenage access to contraception. At the same time, he showed that Ireland had teenage pregnancy rates which were six times lower than those in Britain.

Allowing 16 year-olds legal access to contraception without their parents knowledge, much less consent, would be tantamount to lowering the age of consent, something the current Taoiseach (pictured) strenuously objected to only four and a half short years ago.

In December 2006, Mr Kenny, then Leader of the Opposition, welcomed the Catholic bishops’ opposition to a Government proposal to lower the age of consent to 16.

At the time, he said that he believed that it sent “the wrong signal to our children and society about values and standards in modern Ireland”.

The argument for lowering the age of consent, he added was “based on a flawed argument”.

“Yes, teenagers can physically have sex and they do. Just as they can physically down a bottle of vodka. But the fact that they do, does not make it right. Nor does it make it inevitable. Nor should we make it legal,” Mr Kenny said. Wise words.

So what exactly would the difference be between a law which says it is legal for 16 year-olds to be prescribed contraception and a law which says it is legal for 16 year-olds to have sex.

The report does seem to be something of an improvement in one respect however.

In its consultation paper, the LRC recommended that “a person who is 14 years of age but less than 16 years of age could, subject to certain requirements, be regarded as capable of giving consent to health care and medical treatment.”

The paper made clear that this would include contraception. It also suggested that “certain requirements” would have to be met before a doctor could accept this consent.

These conditions were: that in the opinion of the medical practitioner, the patient understood the nature and consequences of the proposed treatment; The medical practitioner would encourage the patient to inform his or her parents or guardians; the medical practitioner would have consider the best interests of the patient and that the medical practitioner would have due regard to any public health concerns.

This report doesn’t refer to the age of 14.

It does suggest, however, that children under the age of 16 (which may include children of 14 or younger) may be able to “consent to, and refuse, health care treatment where it is established that he or she has the maturity and understanding to appreciate the nature and consequences of the specific health care treatment decision”.

The criteria given by the Commission for establishing whether a child has sufficient maturity are as follows:

• whether he or she has sufficient maturity to understand the information relevant to making the specific decision and to appreciate its potential consequences;
• whether his or her views are stable and a true reflection of his or her core values and beliefs, taking into account his or her physical and mental health and any other factors that affect his or her ability to exercise independent judgement; 
• the nature, purpose and utility of the treatment; 
• the risks and benefits involved in the treatment

and any other specific welfare, protection or public health considerations, in respect of which relevant guidance and protocols such as the 2011 Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children (or any equivalent replacement document) must be applied.”

How these criteria would be interpreted, is, of course, the important question.