Professor Sjef Gevers:

Let me say something about the legal situation. Professor Pajkrt may follow up and talk about practice. In our law on patient rights, which is a more general law, we have a majority age for health care decisions of 16 years. When one is 16, one is entitled to decide for one's self without parental consent. Between 12 and 16, we have a dual system. For an intervention, we must have the consent of the minor and his or her parents.

In the context of abortion, that law might say that abortion can only take place if the parents of the pregnant person are also in agreement with it. However, we have an exception, not only for abortion but also for other medical procedures, in cases where a minor continues to insist that he or she wants to have it. For instance, a couple of months ago we had a very controversial case about a young cancer patient who refused further treatment. This exception came into the debate also. The judge of the court that had to decide on the case agreed that in such a case, if a minor between 12 and 16 insists on having or not having a certain procedure, the voice of the minor prevails. That applies also to abortion cases.

The problem, of course, is that even if parents do not have to consent, they usually will have to be informed. I guess in practice the person who is requested to perform an abortion will have a discussion with the minor about why she does not want her parents to be informed and will suggest it might be better if they were informed. If there is a strong argument not to inform them, and if this is strongly in the interests of the minor, the law makes it possible that the procedure remains confidential and the parents are not involved. This will only take place after long discussion and careful decision.