Hell that tests my youth

My posting yesterday reminded me that the age of consent is a continuing problem here. There is no clear definition of this age here, since a number of different laws provide different ages. I think there seems to be a consensus that in general it's 18 years for a woman and 21 for a man. But this applies to marriage (I think) and not clearly to medical decisions.

Many health care providers assume someone is 'under-age' if they are still dependent upon their parents - and if the parents are paying, this means the patient is still dependent. I recall meeting with a 27 year old woman together with her father and mother. She had been HIV-tested and was starting antiretroviral therapy - and had taken no part at all in making the decisions around this. Because the parents were paying.

I'm always amazed that 'we' continually urge that HIV-testing is dependent upon informed consent, yet we ignore the 'elephant in the corner', the fact that many of those who should be tested are considered unable to consent, because they are under age. "Want to get tested for HIV (or a sexually transmitted infection)? Go get your parents consent first." Duh!

At the last count, almost 500 of the 16,000 people reported as infected with HIV in Indonesia were aged 15-19. How many more would test if they were offered friendly and hassle-free services? Certainly their lack must have an impact.

The Thais have recently woken up to this, as recently reported in the Bangkok Post. But even they acknowledge that they need many new clinics to provide this service.

Why do we continue to turn a blind eye to this problem?

Babé