These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: State adolescent consent laws and implications for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
    Author: Culp L, Caucci L.
    Journal: Am J Prev Med; 2013 Jan; 44(1 Suppl 2):S119-24. PubMed ID: 23253751.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Recent large clinical trials have found that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) reduced HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM), but efforts to provide clinical care to minors, including young MSM, may be complicated by a lack of clarity regarding parental consent requirements with respect to medical services. PURPOSE: The goal of this paper was to analyze law related to a minor's ability to consent to medical care, including HIV diagnostic testing and treatment, and its implications for PrEP. METHODS: Analysis was performed in 2012 on laws current as of December 31, 2011. Public Health Law Program staff collected all statutes and regulations pertaining to an adolescent's ability to consent to HIV diagnostic testing and treatment and sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnostic testing, treatment, and prevention. RESULTS: No state expressly prohibits minors' access to PrEP or other HIV prevention methods. All jurisdictions expressly allow some minors to consent to medical care for the diagnosis or treatment of STIs, but only eight jurisdictions allow consent to preventive or prophylactic services. Thirty-four states either expressly allow minors to consent to HIV services or allow consent to STI or communicable disease services and classify HIV as an STI or communicable disease. Seventeen jurisdictions allow minors to consent to STI testing and treatment, but they do not have an express HIV provision nor classify HIV as an STI or communicable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Minors' access to PrEP without parental consent is unclear, and further analysis is needed to evaluate how state law may relate to the provision of clinical interventions for the prevention of HIV infection.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]