H v AC [2024] NSWSC 40 was a challenging legal decision heard by the New South Wales Supreme Court in early 2024.
The case involved a 16-year-old girl, AC, who was diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma, a highly aggressive bone cancer, in July 2023.
AC initially underwent chemotherapy treatment, completing four of the first six treatment cycles. An MRI in September 2023 showed a significant reduction in tumour size. However, AC decided to discontinue treatment, believing she had been cured through a religious miracle.
The hospital sought a court order to continue AC’s treatment, concerned that she might not have the capacity to refuse consent due to insufficient understanding of the medical evidence.
The case raised complex issues regarding:
- AC’s Gillick competence (capacity to make medical decisions);
- The intersection of religious beliefs and medical treatment;
- The court’s parens patriae jurisdiction in protecting minors.
What is Gillick competence?
Gillick competence is a legal concept originating from a 1985 case in England, Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. It determines whether a child under 16 years old has the maturity and understanding to consent to their own medical treatment without requiring parental permission or knowledge.
What is a court’s parens patriae jurisdiction?
A court’s parens patriae jurisdiction is a legal doctrine that empowers the court to act as a protective guardian for those who cannot care for themselves, particularly children and incapacitated individuals. This Latin term, meaning “parent of the nation,” grants the court authority to intervene and make decisions in the best interests of vulnerable individuals.
Outcome of H v AC [2024] NSWSC 40:
Justice Meek, after careful consideration, determined that AC was Gillick competent and had the ability to make decisions regarding her treatment. However, this was not the end of the matter. The court still had to consider whether it was in AC’s best interests to authorise the treatment against her wishes.
Ultimately, Justice Meek authorised and directed that the recommended treatment be administered to AC, despite her competence and religious beliefs. This decision was based on various factors, including the sanctity of life, medical evidence, AC’s religious beliefs, her autonomy, and right to bodily integrity.
The case highlights the complex interplay between a minor’s autonomy, religious beliefs, and the court’s duty to protect the best interests of children, even when they are deemed competent to make their own medical decisions.
Our team are experts in child protection law. Our role is to sit down with you and work out the strategy that will get you the best possible result. If you have any questions about this article or any other topic of law, please call our team of experts on 1300 066 669.
