title: Gillick reinstated: judging mid-childhood competence in healthcare law: an NHS Trust v ABC & A Local Authority [2014] EWHC 1445 (Fam).
abstract: This case commentary discusses a recent case concerning the competence of a 13-year-old girl to consent to the termination of her pregnancy. It critically analyses four specific elements of the judgment--Gillick competence, the impact of best interests, judicial deference to medical opinion, and individualism and the construction of undue influence. It concludes by commending the approach taken by the court as a reinstatement of the law as originally intended in Gillick but is nonetheless cautious as to its likely overall effect upon child decision-making.
authors.affiliation: Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, West Midlands B15 2TT, UK k.l.moreton@bham.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Kirsty L
authors.initials: KL
authors.lastname: Moreton
mesh_terms: D000028:Abortion, Induced / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D000293:Adolescent; D003657:Decision Making; D004739:England; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D033242:Minors / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011247:Pregnancy
keywords: Abortion; Best interests; Children's decision-making; Gillick competence; Medical opinion; Relational reasoning