Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

When was gilick competence started ?

73 replies

questionsaboutConsent · 22/06/2021 15:30

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?

OP posts:
ObviousNameChage · 22/06/2021 23:03

@questionsaboutConsent

I think what I want is just to know and to understand what should have been in place to protect/safeguard me ?

I always believed at 18 you’re an adult - and make decisions about yourself. Have autonomy.
But I’ve been confronted by something that very clearly shows me I didn’t have that right and I’m quite shocked. I came across a thread mentioning GC and just wondered had that been relevant (but clearly now I’ve realised it’s not)

I’m just at the moment a little lost, trying to work things out and quite confused how my set of circumstances came to be and I hadn’t heard of GC before

What should have been in place to protect you..

First of all, as an adult a discussion about what os wrong, what the procedure is,why it is needed,risk and benefits , etc. should have been had. Then you should've consented or not to it, without any other involvement. Unless you were unconscious, had severe learning disabilities or were completely out of it.

Furthermore, if you had capacity , your parents shouldn't even have been involved in discussions about your health/treatment unless you specifically wanted them there.

Some areas of medicine (especially 20 years ago) were more likely to have blurred lines over who was in charge(not legally so, but due to the mentality back then) and what was "necessary " like gynae issues, sexual health/activity related or mental health related.

Things should've been in place. Some things probably were in place. Doctors are not infallible though , and whether on purpose or not , things (bad things) happened. It doesn't excuse whatever to you or make it right though. Nothing will, because it was wrong. Nothing will, because it can't be made right. It can't be taken back. It can't be fixed.You'll just have to learn to accept it and live with it somehow, either on your own or with the help of friends or professional help. Thanks

LemonRoses · 22/06/2021 23:03

No Gillick would be irrelevant. If it was after 1970 then full consent for any investigation or treatment should have been sought from you.
The exception being if you were detained under the MHA and it was essential treatment that you were too unwell to consent to.

Friendofcheese · 22/06/2021 23:07

Anyone over the age of 16 is able to make decisions about their medical care for themselves. The only person who can consent to treatment is the patient themselves unless there are factors preventing this (unconscious, lacking capacity etc.) in these cases the doctors responsible for your care would act in your best interests with discussion with family members. The family, regardless of who is down as NOK (mum, dad, husband) cannot make the decision of what route to take in your care. The drs can consult with them (for example, if you were on life support and you had previously discussed your wishes with your family that should you end up in that position you would want them to withdraw care they would take that into account but ultimately the decision would be made by the medical team)
Hope that makes sense.
If your mum becoming involved in your care without your knowledge happened when you were over 16 then this was wrong as you have full autonomy over your medical needs

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

questionsaboutConsent · 22/06/2021 23:08

Thankyou @ObviousNameChage

OP posts:
hatgirl · 23/06/2021 02:45

Some areas of medicine (especially 20 years ago) were more likely to have blurred lines over who was in charge(not legally so, but due to the mentality back then) and what was "necessary " like gynae issues, sexual health/activity related or mental health related

20 years ago was 2001 not the 70s!

I was an adult in 2001 and pretty sure the 'mentality back then' was largely the same as it is now Confused

lakesummer · 23/06/2021 03:07

I was working with people with learning disabilities then and older doctors in particular weren't taking consent with that group seriously.

questionsaboutConsent · 23/06/2021 04:48

@lakesummer

I was working with people with learning disabilities then and older doctors in particular weren't taking consent with that group seriously.
I don’t have any LD but absolutely the drs involved were very much ‘old school’ probably pretty much about to retire
OP posts:
Comeinoutoftherain · 23/06/2021 05:28

In short, if you were 18 then doctors required your consent for any treatment.

Your parents technically don't get any say in your medical care unless you are incapacitated and even then that's usually reserved for those who need life saving treatment.

If you declined treatment but your parents insisted, and the doctors knew that, then it might even be considered assault depending on the nature of the treatment.

traumatisednoodle · 23/06/2021 05:38

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

Absolutely not and not 20 years ago either. The threshold for lacking capacity is very high (unless as other's have said unconscious etc). In "it's a Sin" Ritchie's parents are terribly unhappy they haven't been called when he is dying, but as the nurse says "it's his choice".

Blistory · 23/06/2021 06:13

In my experience, implied consent was still in place 20 years ago and quite a few HCPs saw attendance itself as providing implied consent. So if a parent/family member made an appointment and you appeared to attend voluntarily, then it was taken that you had effectively consented.

My cousin suffered badly with anorexia and my aunt made all appointments on her behalf. My cousin didn't actively consent but nor did she refuse to attend and I don't know how the HCPs established capacity. As it transpires, she found it supportive but it could very easily have been considered coercive given her mental health at the time.

OverByYer · 23/06/2021 06:40

If you were over 18 and something was done to you that you didn’t consent to, maybe you should look at taking some legal advice

sashh · 23/06/2021 07:08

I'm sure there's some truth there, but "it's not unlikely that they would have done so to a very young woman" implies the majority of young females get assaulted / mistreated during most medical contacts is a bit strong don't you think?

It used to be common practice for medical students to do an internal exam on women anesthetised for surgery. So you might be having your wisdom teeth out but first half a dozen students do an internal exam.

This was still in place in the 1980s and was something alluded to in the consent form that most people don't read.

legoagogogo · 23/06/2021 07:12

@LemonRoses

There’s some real confusion about guidance and law relating to consent.

Gillick competence is concerned with determining a child’s capacity to consent. Fraser guidelines, on the other hand, are used specifically to decide if a child can consent to contraceptive or sexual health advice and treatment.

n law, a person's 18th birthday draws the line between childhood and adulthood (Children Act 1989 s105) - so in health care matters, an 18 year old enjoys as much autonomy as any other adult. To a more limited extent, 16 and 17 year-olds can also take medical decisions independently of their parents. The right of younger children to provide independent consent is proportionate to their competence - a child's age alone is clearly an unreliable predictor of his or her competence to make decisions.

In 1983 the judgement from the Gillick case laid out criteria for establishing whether a child under has the capacity to provide consent to treatment; the so-called ‘Gillick test’. It was determined that children under 16 can consent if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is involved in a proposed treatment, including its purpose, nature, likely effects and risks, chances of success and the availability of other options.

A child may have the capacity to consent to some treatments but not others. The understanding required for different interventions will vary, and capacity can also fluctuate such as in certain mental health conditions. Therefore each individual decision requires assessment of Gillick competence. Rarely agreements cannot be reached and decisions are referred to the Court of Protection.

The ‘Fraser guidelines’ specifically relate only to contraception and sexual health. They are named after one of the Lords responsible for the Gillick judgement but who went on to address the specific issue of giving contraceptive advice and treatment to those under 16 without parental consent.

Each professional carrying out assessment of ability of a child to consent must also ensure the consent is free of coercion and there are no safeguarding concerns.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards only apply to over sixteens and relates to the Mental Capacity Act (2005). They are about restricting the freedoms of someone who has lost capacity to make decisions for themselves. Things like stopping people leaving care homes, the use of bed rails in hospitals, strapping someone in an armchair, the use of padded boxing gloves or taking away someone’s car keys might all need a DoLS application to the local authority.

Consent by children is not subject to the MCA. Parts of the Mental Health Act do apply to children. Children can be detained under the MHA with the same protection as adults.

Sometimes parents are able to consent for children up to eighteen years of age - if they were unconscious, for example. If they have long term conditions that affect capacity then parents can continue to consent for much longer. Otherwise at eighteen the rules about consent come into full force and nobody can consent for another person unless they have deputyship. In some complex situations children’s withholding of consent is overruled, but usually by a court.

Brilliant summary! The only thing I'd add is that the brain impairment under MCA can be permanent eg significant head injury or transient eg intoxication and decisions can be delayed if there is no risk to the person while their usual capacity making state returns. Otherwise it's best interests decisions with clear documentation of the rationale for and against. People incorrectly use the terms Gillick and Fraser interchangeably. And it's also a myth that Mrs Gillick objects to her name being used in this way. I believe a BMJ journalist went and asked her and did a short article on it
traumatisednoodle · 23/06/2021 07:14

It used to be common practice for medical students to do an internal exam on women anesthetised for surgery. So you might be having your wisdom teeth out but first half a dozen students do an internal exam

We did this in the 90's but we did at least get verbal consent first.

OverByYer · 23/06/2021 17:06

@traumatisednoodle

It used to be common practice for medical students to do an internal exam on women anesthetised for surgery. So you might be having your wisdom teeth out but first half a dozen students do an internal exam

We did this in the 90's but we did at least get verbal consent first.

You have to be kidding me? That’s outrageous
NiceGerbil · 23/06/2021 17:18

@traumatisednoodle

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

Absolutely not and not 20 years ago either. The threshold for lacking capacity is very high (unless as other's have said unconscious etc). In "it's a Sin" Ritchie's parents are terribly unhappy they haven't been called when he is dying, but as the nurse says "it's his choice".

Never ever ever ever happened in any situation in the last 20 years?

That's a very confident claim. Very confident indeed.

The idea that doctors behave with total adherance to all the guidelines ethnic ethics and protocols is something that leads to some of the big ongoing scandals seen. Patients who think things aren't right feel they just be mistaken, or won't be believed. In some cases the people they work with are put off raising an alarm.

Saying they are infallible is a dangerous comment to throw out so casually.

Also I think essentially accusing the OP of making things up or imagining things or not understanding something, which is what it boils down to. Because it's so important to press that doctors never make bad decisions, is pretty awful.

NiceGerbil · 23/06/2021 17:19

Over- yes.

It still happens in other countries I'm pretty sure- seen stuff in the news about it from time to time.

traumatisednoodle · 23/06/2021 19:46

That is a massive strech, of doctors aren't infailible. What I was trying to say is that it wasn't acceptable or common pratice now or 20 years ago. I stand by that. I am not accusing the OP of lying, not at all it sounds as if she was abused.

traumatisednoodle · 23/06/2021 19:49

That was word soup. Of course doctors aren't infailible.

sashh · 24/06/2021 07:26

OverByYer

I found out about it in my teens and I think that was when my feminism locked in completely, it had gone from, "that's not fair" to "that's disgusting" and made me decide if I had surgery I would be writing on the consent form that I did not consent to it.

It was stopped because, obviously, examining a fully anesthetised woman is totally different to a wide awake human.

I think women in Canada only found out in the last 2 years that is was still common practice there.

I'm not anti medical students, the last time I had surgery there was a student shadowing the anesthetist and I asked the student if she wanted to intubate me, I think it's probably best to do your first intubation in theatre with an anesthetist rather than at your first cardiac arrest.

DeathStare · 24/06/2021 08:13

If you were 18 Gillick Competence wouldn't apply. As an adult it would be mental capacity that would be the issue. However the Mental Capacity Act didnt come into effect until 2005 and before that issues around capacity were much more vague.

If it was a mental health issue your mother could have had certain rights as your "nearest relative" including requesting a mental health act assessment.

EmmaGrundyForPM · 24/06/2021 08:32

@DeathStare

If you were 18 Gillick Competence wouldn't apply. As an adult it would be mental capacity that would be the issue. However the Mental Capacity Act didnt come into effect until 2005 and before that issues around capacity were much more vague.

If it was a mental health issue your mother could have had certain rights as your "nearest relative" including requesting a mental health act assessment.

No relative of an adult has rights concerning medical consent. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as "next of kin" in a legal sense when making medical decisions.

Unless a relative (or anyone else) has PoA AND the person has been assessed as lacking capacity, the adult retains the right to make medical decisions for themselves even if they seem unwise (eg refusing life saving treatment). If the person lacks capacity and there is no PoA in place, then doctors will consult with family but the doctor retains the final decision.

However there are still some doctors around who ignore this. I work with older people and I have seen a number of DNACPR (Do not resuscitate) forms where the GP hasn't consulted the person but has spoken to daughter etc and then signed it, even though there is no indication that the Older Person lacks capacity. Which is dreadful.

I'm sorry that whatever happened to you happened.

LemonRoses · 24/06/2021 09:17

Next of kin (aka nearest relative) does have a consideration in the Mental Health Act when requesting an assessment.

The Mental Capacity Act is different legislation.

Nobody can ever give consent for any medical procedure on an adult, excepting a young person with ongoing complex needs where parents have always consented.

DNACPRs are not about consenting. They are a clinical decision to withhold resuscitation. You can’t consent to something that isn’t happening. An analogy would be that you don’t consent to not having antibiotics.

It is true that the discussions around end of life decisions for people with learning disabilities are often very poorly made, with learning disability recorded as the sole reason not to resuscitate someone and harsh, inappropriate judgement being made about the quality of someone’s life.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page