Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Victoria D. M. Gillick (née Gudgeon; born 1946, in Hendon) is a British activist and campaigner best known for the eponymous 1985 UK House of Lords ruling [1] that considered whether contraception could be prescribed to under-16s without parental consent or knowledge.
Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (a person under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.
The main legal debate that arose was who has the legal authority to authorise the operation. Three options existed: the parents (as legal guardians of their daughter), Marion or an order of a competent court, such as the Family Court of Australia. The Full Court of the Family Court was asked to decide: 1.
By contrast, people aged 16 or older were presumed to have the ability to consent to medical treatment (Gillick did not apply). The High Court (Administrative Court) ruling, [3] [4] which was overturned on appeal, said that it was unlikely that a child under the age of 16 could be Gillick competent to consent to puberty blocking treatment. The ...
Gillick competence: England 1985 The right of minors to request contraception from their doctor without parental consent. ... Victoria, British Columbia: 1991
In its judgments, the Family Court assessed the child's Gillick competence; in other words, whether the child was in a position to consent to the treatment by fully understanding its nature, effects and risks. [82] If the Court found the child to be Gillick-competent, the child's wishes had to be respected.
Gillick competence ruling in the case Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority, which sought to decide in medical law whether a child is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge. A child is defined as 16 years or younger.
Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida which ruled that individuals do not own their tissue samples when researchers take them for testing.