Seriously ill children under 16 may be forced to take life-saving medical treatment against their wishes - but only after their maturity and viewpoint have been carefully considered, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.
A terminally-ill 13-year-old girl has persuaded a hospital to abandon legal action that could have forced her to have a potentially life-saving heart transplant against her will. Hannah Jones, who suffers from a rare form of leukaemia, told doctors that she believed the treatment was too risky and that she would prefer to enjoy her remaining days in the company of family and friends. But in complex right-to-die case, her local hospital began High Court proceedings to temporarily remove her from her parents' custody to allow the transplant to go ahead.
DOCTORS made an urgent plea to the Supreme Court yesterday to help save the life of a Jehovah's Witness girl dying of leukaemia. Justice Richard White ordered the girl, 4, receive treatment, including a blood transfusion to which her parents had objected on religious grounds. Paediatric oncologist Dr Petra Ritchie, right, said without treatment the girl "will die . . . I would say in weeks". Dr Ritchie said that the girl, who was diagnosed with cancer of the blood and bone marrow on Monday, had a 90 per cent chance of survival if she received treatment immediately. Doctors had this week advised she needed a potentially life-saving blood transfusion but her parents objected on religious grounds. The parents' opposition prompted the hospital to petition the court saying that, without treatment, the girl would die in a matter of weeks.
Sally Roberts, 37, is opposed to her son Neon receiving radiotherapy treatment for a brain tumour, and disappeared with him on Sunday. Police launched a nationwide hunt for the pair after they disappeared from Tiverton, Devon. They were found by officers in Sussex. Devon and Cornwall police said: "Emergency protection care has been put in place and Neon's welfare will be considered in the High Court." Mrs Roberts was in the middle of a court battle with the child’s father Ben Roberts, an IT consultant, from Knightsbridge, London, who agrees with doctors that Neon’s chances of survival will be greatly increased with treatment. Mr Justice Hogg, at the High Court, took the unusual step to relax reporting restrictions to allow identification of the child as doctors said that without speedy treatment his chances will be "dramatically reduced".
A judge has postponed a decision on whether a mother should be allowed to prevent her son from receiving radiotherapy for brain cancer. Sally Roberts, 37, has been told seven-year-old Neon could die if he did not receive the treatment. She said she feared the treatment could do long-term harm. At the High Court in London, Mr Justice Bodey said he would rule at a hearing beginning on 18 December - unless agreement could be reached beforehand. During the Saturday morning hearing, he said that although he had intended to rule on the matter, developments had "changed the medical landscape".
The landmark decision of Gillick v West Norfolk Area Health Authority was a victory for advocates of adolescent autonomy. It established a test by which the court could measure children's competence with a view to them authorising medical treatment. However, application of the test by clinicians reveals a number of ambiguities which are compounded by subsequent interpretation of Gillick in the law courts. What must be understood by minors in order for them to be deemed competent? At what point in the consent process should competence be assessed? Does competence confer on minors the authority to refuse as well as to accept medical treatment? These are questions which vex clinicians, minors and their families. A growing number of commentators favour application of parts of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to minors. In this paper, the limitations of this approach are exposed and more radical reform is proposed.