What is it about?
The difference between refusing a treatment and refusing all treatment and the effect this has on the justifications for the 'treatment refusals cases' Re R and Re W.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
The understanding required in order to be competent to consent to treatment will not always be the same as the understanding required to be considered competent to refuse it. Gillick requires the minor to fully understand the implications of her decision, which might involve more than one treatment. Equally, there might be more than one decision about the same treatment. This leads us to conclude that the distinction between consenting to or declining a particular treatment and refusing all treatment is unhelpful. Whilst it might explain aspects of Re R and Re W and enable them to be sidelined, we argue that adoption of Gilmore and Herring’s interpretation of Gillick would make for an unworkable test for competence from the perspective of clinicians.
Perspectives
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: MINORS' CAPACITY TO REFUSE TREATMENT: A REPLY TO GILMORE AND HERRING, Medical Law Review, April 2012, Oxford University Press (OUP),
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fws003.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page