A Fifteen-Year-Old, an Absent Guardian, and Three Requests for the Record
Nadia, 15, is brought to the clinic by her aunt with a two-day history of pain and swelling over a lower first molar. She has a temperature of 38.2 degrees Celsius, limited mouth opening and a necrotic pulp. Nadia's mother works in Taiwan and is reachable by phone; her father is remarried and has had no contact with the family for six years. The aunt has no written authority and says the mother told her "by text" to get it fixed. Nadia is quiet but answers questions clearly and says she wants the tooth treated today. The aunt mentions, vaguely, that Nadia "cannot take penicillin" but cannot say what happened. Within the week three requests arrive: an email from the father demanding the complete record and threatening a complaint, a form from the mother's insurer asking for the entire file, and a telephone call from a police officer who says the father has filed a report and asks the dentist to send the records over.
1. Who can consent to Nadia's treatment, and what should the dentist do about the aunt, the mother abroad, and the infection?
Read the worked answer
Nadia is under 18, so she cannot give the operative consent herself; she gives assent, which matters and should be sought and recorded in language she understands. Operative consent comes from a parent or legal guardian.
The aunt has no written authority. A text message relayed second-hand is not a power of attorney. The dentist should not treat definitively on that basis.
The mother is reachable. Obtain consent directly by a documented call or video call: verify identity, read the explanation of diagnosis, options, risks and alternatives, record the time, the questions asked and the answer given, and have a second staff member witness it. Follow up with a written record sent to her. That converts a verbal consent into something defensible.
The infection changes the urgency. Fever, swelling and trismus indicate spreading odontogenic infection. If the guardian cannot be reached and delay risks harm, the emergency exception permits the minimum necessary intervention, such as drainage and antibiotics, without prior consent. Document precisely why the delay was unsafe, what was done, and that definitive treatment waits for consent. The exception covers harm prevention; it is not a licence for the full elective plan.
The father is legally a parent, but six years of no contact plus an active dispute means the dentist must not assume he can decide treatment; the accompanying guardian is the mother's delegate once authorised.
2. Nadia needs analgesia and possibly an antibiotic. Work through the prescribing decision and what the record must contain.
Read the worked answer
First, question the antibiotic. For a necrotic tooth with localized swelling, the definitive treatment is removal of the source: extirpation, drainage or extraction. Antibiotics are an adjunct, not a substitute, and prescribing them to "buy time" without source control is how resistance is made and how a spreading infection is missed. With fever and trismus, an adjunct is reasonable while source control is arranged, but the plan must include the source control.
Second, resolve the allergy. "Cannot take penicillin" is not an allergy history. Ask the mother directly during the consent call: what happened, how soon after the dose, what symptoms, was it treated. Record the answer verbatim. If it was nausea or a family story, a penicillin is likely usable; if it was urticaria, angioedema or bronchospasm, choose a non-beta-lactam alternative and record the reason for the choice.
Third, dose by weight, not by adult habit. Nadia is 15; check her weight and use a paediatric-appropriate regimen with a defined duration and a review point.
Record content. Indication, the allergy interrogation and its source, drug, dose, frequency, duration, the signa written out, the review date, and the advice given about swelling, breathing difficulty and fever. Do not dispense a spare course for the aunt, and do not leave the choice of antibiotic to the pharmacy.
3. Analyse the three requests for Nadia's records: the father, the insurer, and the police officer on the telephone.
Read the worked answer
Treat each request on its own legal footing; do not answer all three with the same document.
Father. He is a legal parent, so he has standing, but standing must be verified where there is a custody dispute. Ask for written request, identity proof, and the guardianship or custody document. If the parents' position is contested, release only after the position is clear; a court order settles it. If release is proper, redact third-party information and anything unrelated to the dental care.
Insurer. A payer is not a treating party. Release requires written authorisation from the guardian, and only the portion clinically relevant to the claim: dates, diagnosis, treatment, fees. If a summary serves, send a summary. Sending the whole file because the form asks for it is a disclosure exceeding consent.
Police. A telephone call is not a lawful compulsion. The confidentiality obligation yields to a request from law enforcement in the context of law enforcement, but the request should be proper and specific. Ask for it in writing, identify the officer and the case, and release only the relevant part. Record the request, the response and the date in the file.
Throughout: never alter the record, and put any correction in a dated addendum. The record is the evidence in all three conversations.