<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2d1 20170631//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
      <JournalTitle>The Journal of School and University Medicine</JournalTitle>
      <Volume-Issue>Volume 7 Issue 3</Volume-Issue>
      <Season>July - September 2020</Season>
          <FirstName>Irina Georgiana</FirstName>
      <Abstract>INTRODUCTION: The ethical dilemmas and legal challenges that physicians are facing in their daily practice have multiplied in recent years, and when the physician has to treat minor patients these challenges are complex: conflicts between minors and parents; conflicts between minors and representatives of the educational institution; how the superior good of the minor is defined and what are the criteria on the basis of which it is established; what are the legal regulations that must be taken into account as a matter of priority.&#13;
PURPOSE: In this article we aimed to illustrate the opinion and attitude of doctors and nurses, members of the Society of Physicians from Children and Young People’s Communities (SMCCT), to the problems of adolescents in school medicine offices, and their management.&#13;
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A question naire was distributed online, completely anonymous (distributed on the Facebook group of SMCCT mem bers, with the support of group administrators). The design of the study is descriptive, transversal. From 1.06.2020 to 20.06.2020.&#13;
RESULTS: We analyzed the responses of 95 participants, aged between 20 and 65 years: 20 con sultant physicians, 22 physicians and 53 general&#13;
nurses from across the country. The participants had to analyze a case, having to choose between three an swer options.&#13;
DISCUSSIONS: In this case, 42% of the par ticipants opted for the correct option. Of these, 45% are over 50 years old, 62% are general nurses, 8% are specialists and 30% are consultant physicians.&#13;
CONCLUSIONS: This article illustrates, start ing from a clinical case, specifi c features in the ap proach of minor patients in school medical offices. The emphasis is on the confi dentiality of minors, as well as on the identifi cation of ethical conflicts that may arise from the context in which the medical act takes place in school medical offi ces and on the complexity of identifying the correct line to follow in such situations.</Abstract>
      <Keywords>Minors, Confidentiality  rights, Drugs abuse</Keywords>
        <Abstract>https://www.revista-medicina-scolara.ro/ubijournal-v1copy/journals/abstract.php?article_id=9078&amp;title=MINORS RIGHT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AND LEGAL DEROGATIONS</Abstract>
        <References>1. Cipi B. Ethical, juridical and historical aspects of med ical confi dentiality. JAHR. 2012, 3(1): 139-146&#13;
2. Alua? M, Ana D. The relationship between maintain ing medical secrecy and malpractice in: Health Legislation. Bu cure?ti: Pro Universitaria; 2018.&#13;
3. Hippocratic Oath [Internet]. Available at https://www. nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html accesed on 25.01.2020. 4. Curc?, GC. Medical ethic elements. Ethical guidelines in medical practice. Bioethics principles. Cluj-Napoca: Casa C?r?ii de ?tiin??; 2012.&#13;
5. WMA International Code of Medical Ethics [Internet]; Text available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20100428131219/ http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c8/index.html, accesed on 20.01.2020.&#13;
6. Code of Medical Deontology of the Romanian College of Physicians fron November 4th, published in the Offi cial Ga zette, Part I no. 981 of December 7, 2016, entered into force on January 6, 2017.&#13;
7. Law no. 119 of October 16, 1996 regarding the civil status documents, art. 16 republished in the Offi cial Gazette, Part I, no. 339 of May 18, 2012.&#13;
8. Law no. 119 of October 16, 1996 on civil status docu ments, art. 35 republished in the Offi cial Gazette, Part I, no. 339 of May 18, 2012.&#13;
9. Government Ordinance no. 53 on the obligation to re port diseases and carry out vaccinations. Published in the Offi cial Gazette Part I no. 42 of January 31, 2000, in force since March 31, 2000.&#13;
10. Law no. 319 of July 14, 2006 on safety and health at work, art. 27. Published in the Offi cial Gazette Part I no. 646 of July 26, 2006, in force since October 1, 2006.&#13;
11. Government Decision no. 589 of June 13, 2007 on establishing the methodology for reporting and collecting data for&#13;
Science Articles&#13;
the surveillance of communicable diseases. Published in the Offi - cial Gazette no. 413 of June 20, 2007.&#13;
12. Order of the Minister of Health no. 653 of 2001 on the medical assistance of preschoolers, pupils and students. Published in the Offi cial Gazette Part I no. 777 of 5 December 2001, in force since 5 December 2001.&#13;
13. Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195 of 2002 on traffi c on public roads, art. 22, paragraph (6). Published in the Offi cial Gazette no. 670 of August 3, 2006. Article 22 modifi ed by Law 345 from December 27, 2018, published in the Offi cial Gazette no. 4 of January 3, 2019.&#13;
14. Ghelase M?. Bioethics. Craiova: Editura Universitar? Craiova; 2016.&#13;
15. Government Decision no. 461 of May 11, 2011 on the organization and functioning of the National Anti-Drug Agency, updated on July 21, 2015.&#13;
16. Law no. 143 of July 26, 2000 on preventing and com bating illicit drug traffi cking and consumption, art. 1, 4, 22. Pub lished in the Offi cial Gazette no. 362 of August 3, 2000. Updated and republished in the Offi cial Gazette no. 163 of March 6, 2014.&#13;
17. National Institute of Public Health, “Drugs” [In ternet], 2016. Text available at: http://insp.gov.ro/sites/cnepss/ wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Analiza-de-situatie-droguri -2016. pdf, accessed on 24.07.2020</References>