Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986]

1. Facts:

• Gillick involved a challenge to the policy allowing doctors to prescribe contraception to girls under 16 without parental consent.

• Mrs. Gillick, a mother of five daughters under 15, objected to this policy.

• She contended that it undermined parental authority and sought to prevent the health authority from implementing the policy.

2. Outcome:

• The Gillick Competence Test was established, allowing doctors to prescribe contraception to under-16s if the child is deemed competent to understand the nature and implications of the treatment.

• Lord Fraser articulated that parental rights are not for the benefit of the parents but for the child's welfare, marking a shift from paternal authority to the child’s best interests.

• Lord Templeman, dissenting, expressed doubts about whether a girl under 16 could fully understand the implications of sexual intercourse and cautioned against the assumption that medical science could entirely protect her. He feared it would lead to a premature transition from childhood to adulthood.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Gillick Competence: The ruling introduced the Gillick competence test, assessing whether a minor has the maturity and intelligence to consent to medical treatment. This test emphasises that a child’s capacity to make informed decisions should be evaluated individually, rather than relying solely on age.

• Parental Authority and Child Welfare: Lord Fraser’s comments reflect a significant shift from traditional paternal authority to a focus on the child's welfare. It underscores that parental rights are secondary to ensuring the best interests of the child.

• Legal and Social Implications: The case set a precedent for how medical professionals can assess a child's competence to make decisions about their health. It acknowledged that as children mature, their ability to make informed choices grows, and their autonomy increases.

• Dissenting Views: Lord Templeman’s dissent highlights concerns about the risks of early sexual activity and the adequacy of medical safeguards. His viewpoint reflects a more cautious approach, emphasising the potential dangers of adolescents making such significant decisions.

• Impact on Family Law: The case reshaped the approach to consent and autonomy for minors in healthcare settings, influencing how courts and medical professionals handle similar issues. It recognises the evolving capacity of children and balances parental authority with the child’s rights and best interests.