When Sue Axon's teenage daughter accidentally cut herself at school recently, the nurse would not give her a sticking plaster until telephoning her mother for consent.
In an era of litigation-happy parents, such caution is increasingly common. In very rare cases, plasters can cause an allergic reaction. But had her 13-year-old gone to nurses seeking to arrange an abortion, the legal duty of confidentiality would have ensured that her mother would never have been told.
The contrast - which Sue Axon describes as 'crazy' - is at the heart of a legal challenge she will take to the High Court on Tuesday.
In a case that has serious implications for every parent and every teenager in Britain, the Manchester housewife is seeking to overturn the convention that abortion advice is provided in confidence to under-16s. If successful, it would mean that all doctors would have to notify a teenager's parents before carrying out a termination.
Axon argues that the law as it stands prevents some parents from supporting their children through a difficult experience.
'If your child puts a brick through someone's window, you are in big trouble as the parent,' Axon told The Observer. 'The government is always saying, "We're all for the family", but as far as I'm concerned they're driving a wedge between parents and children and encouraging children to be deceitful.'
Doctors, however, argue that scrapping confidentiality would drive teenage girls away from sexual health clinics and trigger a rise in late abortions among those girls who delay seeking help with unwanted pregnancies because they are afraid of their parents' reaction.
They argue that daughters of violent parents, or victims of family sexual abuse, could be at serious risk if they were unable to keep their secrets.
The case also comes at an awkward time for the government, which is currently considering recommendations from an inquiry into the Soham murders that professionals should share more information about teenagers at risk of coercive sexual relationships - thus undermining confidentiality.
Axon says that she decided to bring the case after reading about Melissa Smith, a 14-year-old from Wakefield whose school arranged an abortion without her mother's knowledge. A furious Maureen Smith made her daughter's story front page news, demanding answers from everyone from her local authority up to the government and insisting that Melissa had since 'changed her mind'. However, her own parenting skills were questioned when it emerged that Melissa had told the school that her mother would not be able to handle the news.
There is, however, another reason for Sue Axon's crusade. Two decades ago, she herself had a bitterly regretted termination. 'I did it, but I didn't agree with it - I did have a choice, but at the time I didn't think I had.
'The burden of guilt is horrendous. I was 30, I had two little boys, I was living with my mum and dad and I didn't want to bring shame on them. It was the worst thing I ever did, but I can understand how these girls think, "My mum and dad will kill me". Everything gets blown out of all proportion.'
Sue Axon stresses that her own teenage daughters have not sought abortions and that she is bringing the case on grounds of principle. They are not, she hints, entirely behind her campaign: 'They change their minds all the time - first of all it was dead good, then it wasn't, now it depends what side of bed they get out. They are teenage girls; they do think they should be able to do what they like.'
Sexual health experts, however, argue that both Sue Axon and the government - which is consulting on 'when and how to share information to protect sexually active young people from harm and abuse' - are on thin ice.
'The worst fear is that, if there was a drastic change in the law, young people would not come to us. They might be in denial and fear, would put it off, and the consequences of that is late abortions or coming to us too late for help at all,' said a spokeswoman for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.
Staff were trained to try to persuade girls who appeared to be victims of abuse to seek help from the child protection system, she said.
Sue Axon's case, which is funded by legal aid, is one of several supported by anti-abortion campaigners in a concerted effort to reverse the current abortion laws.
Her lawyers will argue that, while the courts ruled in the case brought by a Catholic mother, Victoria Gillick, over the prescription of the Pill to under-16s that contraceptive advice should remain confidential, they did not rule on abortion - which was only added to the confidential list later by the government.
Maureen Smith is backing the case: as for Melissa, her situation appears more complex. Six months after the furore, she got pregnant again and has since given birth to a boy.
