Addressing adolescent religious manifestations within medical decision-making

Under English law, minors under the age of 16 are presumed to lack the capacity to make their own medical decisions but can give valid consent to medical treatment if they are found to be Gillick competent (i.e., the possession of sufficient maturity, understanding, and intelligence to enable him or her to fully understand the treatment proposed). While it is clear that the right to consent is protected, questions remain as to whether the attainment of Gillick competency confers absolute rights to autonomy on all medical treatment.

The extent to which a valid refusal is respected, particularly, a refusal to life-saving treatment, is heavily contested. Subsequent judicial developments in the 1990s diverged from the spirit of Gillick, securing the power of the courts and those with parental authority to override competent refusals if it appears that such refusals are not in the best interests of the minor. <br><br>This research project is concerned with the extent of judicial recognition of adolescent decisional autonomy, the adequacy of consideration of a child’s views and wishes, and whether sufficient respect is given to decisions made on religious grounds.