NMC (2008) code of conduct asserts that a registered healthcare professional must make the care of a patient her priority in every situation. Therefore, every health care professional own to every patient a duty of care. However, the superiority of regulations still exists, that is the healthcare regulations are still subordinate to the rules and regulations of a state. Morgan (2012) indicated that the obligation 'duty of care' of a professional may not be upheld if it is in contradictory with the rule of Law of that state.
According to the section three of 'Children Act' (1989), which is "parental responsibility", indicates that rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority of a child belongs to the parents. This suggests that any contract with a legal binding (example medical consent) involving a child is to be signed by the biological parent or legal guardian (DH, 1989). However, the Fraser Guideline (Wheeler, 2006) suggested that a minor can at some peculiar moment be granted the right to consent to medical treatment. Since Miss Kay is not up to the designated adult age, it is unlawful for her to give consent to treatment. This gives her parents the opportunity to make a choice for her in their own best interest. Furthermore, in relation to other components of the ethical principle Autonomy (Beauchamp and Childress,1989), which suggests that anyone with the right to consent are in control of their own bodies and make the necessary decision concerning what type of medical treatment or care they will (or will not) subscribe to. In the place of children, this principle suggests that the child's parents make these decisions. Therefore, to up hold the rule which outweighs the duty of care, it is the obligation of a registered nurse to respect the wishes and dignity of the parents (NMC, 2008, 2012; DH, 2010; DH, 2012).
Moreover, according to the "Family law reform act" (1969) section (8) it indicates that a minor cannot be granted the autonomy of consent for any medical procedure.