Reader TTS

We appreciate the comments provided by Kranendonk _et al._1 on our published article describing the existing legal approaches regarding the rights of minors to consent to health-care

interventions,2 including how laws in the 28 member states of the European Union and in Canada consider competent minors. We are in agreement with the nuances provided by Kranendonk _et al._

concerning minors aged 12–16 years in the Netherlands. As a matter of fact, this nuance was clearly included in the Supplementary Information that accompanies our manuscript, and available

online since the publication of the manuscript. (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg201661s1.html). These nuances are also found in a 2015 article to be published

in the November/December 2016 issue of _IRB: Ethics & Human Research_.3 In our _EJHG_ article, the objective was to present the general approaches that state the question of whether, and

from what age, minors can generally provide lawful consent to health-care interventions. We have taken the Dutch law as an example to demonstrate that the fixed age of capacity to consent

to medical care is sometimes set at a different age than the age of legal majority. In no case did we intend to over-simplify the Dutch law. However, presenting an in-depth analysis of all

legal complexities surrounding the concept of mature minors in each of the countries under study was not possible. Well aware of the importance of these nuances and exceptions, we did

include them in our publication by attaching them to our analysis tables that contain such legal nuances and exceptions. We invite the readers to refer to the Supplementary Information and

to note that our article aims to present the general legal approach, but not an exhaustive legal analysis for each country included in this research. The other point raised by Kranendonk _et

al._ concerning parental refusal which would have serious negative consequences for the child, describes a situation foreseen in most child protection legislation around the world and would

constitute reportable ‘medical neglect’. The _EJHG_ article neither included a systematic review of this subject nor of such legislation. REFERENCES * Kranendonk EJ, Hennekam RC, Ploem MC :

The Dutch Legal Approach Regarding Health Care Decisions Involving Minors in the NGS days. _Eur J Hum Genet_ 2016. * Sénécal K, Thys K, Vears DF, Van Assche K, Knoppers BM, Borry P : Legal

approaches regarding health-care decisions involving minors: implications for next-generation sequencing. _Eur J Hum Genet_ 2016; 24: 1559–1564. Article  Google Scholar  * Knoppers BM,

Sénécal K, Boisjoli J _et al_on behalf of the P3G International Paediatric Research Program: Recontacting pediatric research participants for consent when they reach the age of majority.

_IRB Ethics Hum Res_ 2016; 1–9. Download references AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Human Genetics, Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal,

Quebec, Canada K Sénécal & B M Knoppers * Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium K Thys, D F Vears & P Borry *

Research Group on Personality Rights and Property Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium K Van Assche Authors * K Sénécal View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * K Thys View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * D F Vears View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * K Van Assche View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * B M Knoppers View author publications

You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * P Borry View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence

to K Sénécal. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no conflict of interest. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE

Sénécal, K., Thys, K., Vears, D. _et al._ Reply to Kranendonk _et al_. _Eur J Hum Genet_ 25, 166–167 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.160 Download citation * Published: 23 November

2016 * Issue Date: February 2017 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.160 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable

link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative