Sir: We were encouraged to read Parkin's (Psychiatric Bulletin, October 1999, 23, 587-589) review of the difficulties surrounding the admission and treatment of 16- and 17-year-olds under the Mental Health Act 1983. As a newly formed Community Adolescent Mental Health Team we have been grappling with the current legal confusion surrounding the status of adolescents on a daily basis. The concept of Gillick competence developed from a case regarding the rights of those under 16 to seek confidential contraceptive advice and, as such, it made sense - but it is now being extended into areas where it is increasingly nonsensical and legally untested, for example, should the parents of a cannabis-using 16-year-old be told about the drug use?

The confusion over adolescents' legal status appears to hinge on one issue: are rights acquired on reaching a certain age or a certain competence? The answer at the moment is ‘it depends’. It depends on whether the issue in question is consent to sex or treatment, whether the patient is male or female, homosexual or heterosexual and consenting or refusing.

Adolescents' legal rights should surely be either gained at a certain age, or based on their individual competence, but not the current mixture.

Women's groups were rightly heartened by the Labour Government's decision that all future legislation would be scrutinised for its effects on women's issues. A similar approach to adolescents seems overdue. Even the recently published National Service Framework for Mental Health (Department of Health, 1999) refers to ‘working age adults’. Does that include 16- and 17-year-olds?