Gillick competence
The standard is based on the 1985 judicial decision of the House of Lords with respect to a case of the contraception advice given by an NHS doctor in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority.
It lays down that the authority of parents to make decisions for their minor children is not absolute, but diminishes with the child's evolving maturity.
[13] In a 2006 judicial review, R (on the application of Axon) v Secretary of State for Health,[14] the High Court affirmed Gillick in allowing for medical confidentiality for teenagers seeking an abortion.
In late 2020, Bell v Tavistock considered whether under-16s with gender dysphoria could be Gillick competent to consent to receiving puberty blockers.
[16] During the COVID-19 pandemic, government guidance was circulated stating that some older children in secondary school would be considered Gillick competent to decide to be vaccinated against COVID-19 when a parent/guardian has not consented.
[18] In 1992, the High Court of Australia gave specific and strong approval for the application of Gillick competence in Secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services v JWB (1992) 175 CLR 189, also known as Marrion's Case.
This decision introduced Gillick competence as Australian common law, and has been applied in similar cases such as Department of Community Services v Y (1999) NSWSC 644.
This lack of authority reflects that the reported cases have all involved minors who have been found to be incompetent, and that Australian courts will make decisions in the parens patriae jurisdiction regardless of Gillick competence.
arose between Gillick competence, which identifies under-16s with the capacity to consent to their own treatment, and the Fraser guidelines, which are concerned only with contraception and focus on the desirability of parental involvement and the risks of unprotected sex in that area.
[21] Although the judgment in the House of Lords referred specifically to doctors, it is considered by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) to apply to other health professionals, "including general practitioners, gynaecologists, nurses, and practitioners in community contraceptive clinics, sexual health clinics and hospital services".
The psychological effect of having the decision overruled would have to be taken into account and would normally be an option only when the young person was thought likely to suffer "grave and irreversible mental or physical harm".
