Журнал «Здоровье ребенка» Том 20, №7, 2025

Автономія в прийнятті медичних рішень передбачає здатність особи самостійно вирішувати, яка медична процедура є прийнятною, або відмовитися від лікування. Батьки вважаються основними особами, які приймають рішення щодо здоров’я своїх дітей. Однак коли дії батьків не відповідають найкращим інтересам дитини, суперечки між ними й медичними працівниками щодо лікування дитини зазвичай потребують вирішення судом. У цьому процесі неповнолітній має розглядатися як активний учасник власного лікування. Тому здатність дитини приймати рішення стає важливою, і залежно від віку вона може погоджуватися на лікування або відмовлятися від нього, навіть якщо це супе­речить рішенню батьків чи тому, що вважається для дитини найкращим. Надання медичної згоди забезпечує захист прав і найкращих інтересів неповнолітніх. Держава повинна гарантувати дотримання найкращих інтересів дитини, навіть коли батьки, які мають на це право, можуть поставити під загрозу її благополуччя. На основі аналізу найважливіших рішень Європейського суду з прав людини ця стаття має на меті дослідити роль різних суб’єктів у процесі прийняття медичних рішень щодо неповнолітніх та розв’язання спорів, які можуть виникнути через розбіжності в позиціях батьків та медичних працівників.

Autonomy in medical decision-making involves an individual’s ability to decide which medical procedure is suitable for them or to refuse treatment. Parents are regarded as the primary decision-makers for their children’s health decisions. When parents do not act in the child’s best interest, disagreements between parents and healthcare providers over the child’s medical treatment typically require resolution by the court. In this process, the minor should be considered an active participant in their care. Therefore, the minor’s decision-making capacity becomes essential, and depending on their age, they can give or withhold consent to treatment, which may conflict with their parents’ decisions or what is deemed to be in their best interest. Medical consent ensures that the rights and the best interests of minors are always protected. The state must guarantee the best interest of the child even when the parents who are entitled to do so may jeopardize the welfare of the child. By reviewing some of the most important case laws of the ECtHR, the paper aims to examine the role of different actors in the medical decision-making of minors and the resolution of disputes that may arise from other considerations of parents and health providers.

неповнолітні; медична згода; автономія; найкращі інтереси дитини; огляд рішень Європейського суду з прав людини

minors; medical consent; autonomy; best interest of the child; review of the ECtHR case law

1. Law J, ed. Oxford Dictionary of Law. 9th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2018. 742 p. doi: 10.1093/acref/9780198802525.001.0001.
2. O’Neill O. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. 213 p. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511606250.
3. Guathier CC. Moral responsibility and respect for autonomy: meeting the communitarian challenge. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2000 Dec;10(4):337-352.
4. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Paris, France: UNESCO; 2005. 12 p.
5. Pugh J. Chapter 1. Four Distinctions Concerning Rationality. In: Autonomy, Rationality, and Contemporary Bioethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2020.
6. McLean SAM. Autonomy, Consent and the Law. London, UK: Routledge-Cavendish; 2010. 256 p.
7. Kim NS. Chapter 1. What does it mean to consent? In: Consentability: Consent and its limits. Part I. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2019. 7-17. doi: 10.1017/9781316691311.002.
8. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Vo v. France (Application no 53924/00); Case of R.R. v. Poland (Application no 27617/04); Case of Evans v. the United Kingdom (Application no 6339/05).
9. Ilias B, Stein MA, Anastasiou D, eds. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2018. 1282 p. doi: 10.1093/law/9780198810667.001.0001.
10. Shah P, Thornton I, Kopitnik NL, et al. Informed Consent. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan.
11. Sandu A. Informed Consent — as a Protective Tool of the Right to Autonomy and Dignity of Human Subjects Participating in Biomedical Research, in the Context of the International Law of Human Rights. Jurnalul de Studii Juridice. 2021;16(3–4):29-57. doi: 10.18662/jls/16.3-4/90.
12. United Nations (UN). International covenant on civil and political rights. In: Treaties and international agreements registered or filed and recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations, United Nations Treaty Series, vol 999. New York: United Nations; 1983. 171 p.
13. The Nuremberg Code (1947). BMJ. 1996;313:1448. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1448.
14. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html. 
15. World Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available from: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/. 
16. Council of Europe. European Convention on Human Rights: Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Rome, Italy: Council of Europe; 1950. 62 p.
17. Buck T. International Child Law. London, UK: Routledge Ca–vendish; 2005. 362 p. doi: 10.4324/9781003076759.
18. United Nations (UN). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child. 
19. McHale J, McCormack J, eds. Children’s Rights in Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. 49 p.
20. Council of Europe. Proceedings of the International Conference on Free and informed consent as a core principle of the protection of human rights in the field of biomedicine. 2017, December 8; Minsk, Belarus. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2017. 59 p.
21. Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS no 164). Oviedo, Spain: Council of Europe; 1997. 10 p.
22. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Glass v. the United Kingdom (Application no 61827/00). Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ukr?i=001-61663.
23. Council of Europe. Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly health care. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe; 2018. 48 p.
24. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). General comment no 12: The right of the child to be heard (CRC/C/GC/12). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations; 2009. 31 p.
25. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). General comment no 15: The right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health (CRC/C/GC/15). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations; 2013. 24 p.
26. Gracia Guillén D. Bioethics and Pediatrics. In: De los Reyes-López M, Sánchez-Jacob M, eds. Bioethics and Pediatrics: Projects for a Full Life. Madrid: Madrid and Castilla-La Mancha Pediatric Society; 2010. 29-38 (in Spanish).
27. Gilbert B, Tripp J. Consent, rights, and choices in health care for children and young people. Consent, Rights and Choices in Health Care for Children. J Med Ethics. 2003 Aug;29(4):e13. doi: 10.1136/jme.29.4.e13.
28. Council of Europe; the European Court of Human Rights; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Handbook on European law relating to the rights of the child, 2022 ed. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe; 2022. 208 p.
29. Dorscheidt HHM, Doek JE. Children’s Rights in Health Care. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill; 2019. 678 p.
30. Council of Europe; European Court of Human Rights. Guide on the case law of the European Convention on Human Rights: Rights of the Child. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe; 2025 Feb 28. 79 p.
31. März JW. What does the best interests principle of the convention on the rights of the child mean for paediatric healthcare? Eur J Pediatr. 2022 Nov;181(11):3805-3816. doi: 10.1007/s00431-022-04609-2.
32. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic (Applications no 47621/13 and 5 others). Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-209039.
33. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Gard and Others v. the United Kingdom. (Applications no 39793/17). Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-175359.
34. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Afiri and Biddarri v. France (Application no 1828/18). Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-5984825-7658817.
35. Council of Europe; Steering Committee for Human Rights in the fields of Biomedicine and Health (CDBIO); Steering Committee for the Rights of the Child (CDENF). Guide to Children’s Participation in Decisions about Their Health. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2024. 108 p.
36. House of Lords. Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (AC 112 HL). Available from: https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/gillick-v-west-norfolk-wisbeck-area-health-authority-1986.
37. European Court of Human Rights. Case of P. and S. v. Poland (Application no 57375/08). Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-114098.
38. Nissen E. The rights of minor EU Member State nationals wishing to enjoy family life with a non-EU parent in their country of nationality: a study in the light of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Oisterwijk, the Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers; 2013. 115 p.
39. Wilkinson D, Savulescu J. Ethics, conflict and medical treatment for children: From disagreement to dissensus. London, UK: Elsevier; 2018 Sep 4.
40. Andrade G. Medical ethics and moral psychology: an integrative approach. London, UK: Routledge-Cavendish; 2025. 192 p. doi: 10.4324/9781003541653.
41. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Hanzelkovi v. the Czech Republic (Application no 43643/10). Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-149016.