When was gilick competence started ?

[questionsaboutConsent]

What year?

And how precisely is it ‘tested’ for ?
Is it only something for before 18 years old?

At 18 what happens then if a parent tries to push something medical on their child? So they only get a say if the 18 year old lacks capacity and does that have to be formally established through court?

1985

There are also Fraser guidelines.

The wiki page covers it well

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

Thanks will have a read

Is this about vaccines thanks to good morning Britain rather than every day use for kids who have medical conditions?

In terms of what happens when they’re 18… capacity would be determined by the ‘decision maker’ normally - so for medical procedures the dr.
If someone lacks capacity the ‘decision maker’ would determine best interests, and would have to consult with family as part of that. If there was a dispute - over capacity, or best interests - then it could go to the Court of Protection.

For over 18s, a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application and assessment would be submitted

@DaisyDreaming

Is this about vaccines thanks to good morning Britain rather than every day use for kids who have medical conditions?

No it’s because of something that happened to me as a teenager and I’m wondering what would have been in place at that time

@JustLost101

For over 18s, a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application and assessment would be submitted

So at 18, for a parent to decide on a course of treatment or procedure they’d have to prove the 18 year old did t have capacity for consent and apply to court or Is it just at the drs discretion.

There would have been some situations where it wouldn't have been questioned.

For example if you were unconscious and treatment was necessary and they were next of kin.

They already had paperwork to prove you lacked capacity and they had power of attorney over your medical needs.

You agreed or didn't protest , under pressure /coercion . Which would still be bad practice, as doctors should watch for this.

If none of thse apply, the. No doctor should have carried out treatment simply on your parents' say so, especially so if you said no.

@questionsaboutConsent I’m sorry you had a difficult situation as a teenager, I hope you’ve found some answers. As someone said if it was 18 or over it would be the DOLs assessment

Isn’t DOLS part of the mental capacity act though? Which is relatively new (2005 I think?) Some medical treatments used to be given under “common law” or “best interests” (they still are if say a person is unconscious and thus unable to consent) Nowadays an 18 year old would usually be assumed to be competent to decline treatment broadly speaking and it wouldn’t be a straightforward process to enforce a treatment, but those processes were quite different pre MCA. The main point of the MCA was to formalise the assessment of capacity, the rules for when a person could be deemed unable to make a decision and the process for enforcing decisions in that case.

I should clarify though @questionsaboutConsent that what I’ve said doesn’t mean whatever happened to you was necessarily ok even by the standards of the time, just that the processes could have been different (generally less formal so easier to circumnavigate, use coercion etc)

Even if an 18 year old lacks capacity, unless the parents have a welfare power of attorney they still cannot consent for treatment. They can be consulted but ultimately the doctors would need to act in your best interests.

If an adult lacks capacity it doesn't need to go through the courts, but a formal assessment should be made. The reasons the patient lacks capacity should be documented and every effort should be made to enable the patient to have capacity

Under 16 parents can consent to treatment. A gillick competent child can consent, but they can't necessarily refuse treatment.

However the history of consent, capacity etc is quite complex. Its not necessarily just as simple as whether you could be gillick competent or not, and whilst something may be wrong in todays standards it may have been the practice at the time

DoLS is relatively new yes so possibly won't have been in place

@questionsaboutConsent what kind of time are we talking here? How long ago?

It's worth knowing that even with GC, a child cannot ordinarily refuse treatment if the parent consents to it, they can however consent for their own treatment, even if a parent disagrees

And any assessments to ascertain capacity would have been made known to me or recorded in my notes ?
There was nothing I recall and nothing in my notes about that sort of thing

So essentially - GC allows a child the right to consent FOR treatment, but does not allow the right to refuse (if an adult with parental responsibility consents)

@JustLost101

DoLS is relatively new yes so possibly won't have been in place

@questionsaboutConsent what kind of time are we talking here? How long ago?

20 years approx

@JustLost101

So essentially - GC allows a child the right to consent FOR treatment, but does not allow the right to refuse (if an adult with parental responsibility consents)

Ok, Thankyou. I don’t think it applies then as I was legally an adult so it would have been capacity if anything I think not GC

DoLs is nothing to do with medical treatment unless that treatment somehow has an impact on a persons Liberty e.g covert medication or chemical restraint.

The mental capacity act applies to anyone over the age of 16 (as does DoLs

Choices around medical treatment for anyone under 16 is based on Gillick Competency, for anyone over 16 the mental capacity act applies I.e they are assumed to have capacity unless there is a disturbance of the brain or mind.

If they are over 16 and lack capacity then a decision will be made in their best interests by professionals in consultation with family. If this decision is disputed by anyone or if there a aspects in law that need to be clarified then it will be determined by a judge in the court of protection.

@JustLost101

So essentially - GC allows a child the right to consent FOR treatment, but does not allow the right to refuse (if an adult with parental responsibility consents)

Legally correct, Fraser, who judged the Gillick case only made a judgement on a child's ability to consent, and made no mention of their capacity to refuse treatment.

I think practically If a competent child refused treatment and the parents insisted, it would at a very minimum go through a best interests meeting, and possibly through the courts, especially if that child was particularly mature, or, close to the age of 18.

The mental capacity act has been in place since 2005 though so is probably just outside being relevant to your situation.

Also worth noting that capacity and consent are decision and situation dependant, so without knowing the full details of what the OP is referring to (that's categorically NOT bait, please don't disclose) it's impossible to know the answer to the implied question.

Example, you may not have the capacity to make a decision to accept or refuse chemortherapy for inoperable cancer, but on the same day, you may have capacity to decide to not have your temperature taken.

For medicine in the U.K. the age of consent is 16 not 18. Where there's learning difficulties/severe disabilities from 18 the court of protection needs to appoint you as their guardian to manage their affairs (just sorting it out) medical matters are generally done in partnership with their medical team, if there's conflict the court decides

@hatgirl

DoLs is nothing to do with medical treatment unless that treatment somehow has an impact on a persons Liberty e.g covert medication or chemical restraint.

The mental capacity act applies to anyone over the age of 16 (as does DoLs

Choices around medical treatment for anyone under 16 is based on Gillick Competency, for anyone over 16 the mental capacity act applies I.e they are assumed to have capacity unless there is a disturbance of the brain or mind.

If they are over 16 and lack capacity then a decision will be made in their best interests by professionals in consultation with family. If this decision is disputed by anyone or if there a aspects in law that need to be clarified then it will be determined by a judge in the court of protection.

So does that mean theoretically a mother can go to the family dr about her 18 year and say ‘I think this ‘treatment’ needs to happen because of x,y,z despite the fact she doesn’t want this’ and if that dr agrees and refers then it can be done that way if professionals agree with the mother ?

The thing is , we know that doctors have historically performed treatments,surgeries ,procedures etc without patients' (normally female) consent.

It's not that unlikely that they would have done so to a very young woman too, particularly if they had consent/pressure from the parents.

Regardless of the law , whatever happened to you was wrong and unacceptable at least morally. There is no excuse , unless you were dying, and even then it can be a bit iffy.