The child's right to self-determination from the perspective of criminal law in terms of medical interventions on the bodily integrity

The question of whether children have the right to self-determination is a controversial issue, particularly due to the fact that being under custody. The principle of the child's best interest and the provisions regarding the use of custody may conflict in such cases, and different views may arise regarding on which should take precedence. The situation should be addressed separately in terms of medical interventions carried out on the bodily integrity of the child. When evaluating whether the consent of the parent is sufficient in medical interventions conducted during periods when the child does not have the capacity of discernment, the best interests of the child should not be overlooked. In particular, childhood vaccinations, heel prick tests, intersexism and circumcision practices are carried out during a time when the child is unable to comprehend the legal meaning and importance of the intervention. In some medical interventions performed from the period when the child begins to gain the ability of discernment it is important to determine whether the child's consent alone will be sufficient and to clarify the boundaries of parental intervention. In cases where the child's consent cannot be obtained, the necessity of discussing criminal liability in medical interventions carried out with the consent of parent, or in cases where medical interventions are carried out against the child's will after they have reached the age of discernment, holds a significant place in the evaluation of the study from a criminal law perspective.