Testing the Health of Adolesecents' Rights

Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 2016

In the Gillick case the lower court decision was challenged by the mother of a child below the age of 16, whose doctor had given advice on the use of contraceptives against the mother’s wish. The decision was overruled by the court of appeal and became a threshold for consent and confidentiality for adolescents, who by definition had reached the age of 16. The paper discusses how the Gillick decision has affected the right to make decisions especially as it relates to adolescents. In a counterfactual it examined the decisions of the courts pre- Gillick and post- Gillick to determine whether autonomy exists and the progress made since Gillick . The paper examines the ex-post cases of Re-R, Re-M and Re-W, which diverged from Gillick direction. For instance, in the case of Re-R, the court ruled that no minor with fluctuating competence could be considered competent, whereas using the Gillick criteria competence could be established. It concludes that, although Gillick opened doors on c...

Medical law review, 2014

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.

2014

1) Where a sponsor"s Tier 4 licence is withdrawn, the UKBA Policy Guidance as at November 2009 (page 52) operates to restrict the remaining leave granted to 60 days where a student has more than six months" of the original leave remaining. It has no effect on periods of less than six months.

Legal Studies, 2014

The landmark decision of Gillick v West Norfolk Area Health Authority was a victory for advocates of adolescent autonomy. It established a test by which the court could measure children's competence with a view to them authorising medical treatment. However, application of the test by clinicians reveals a number of ambiguities which are compounded by subsequent interpretation of Gillick in the law courts. What must be understood by minors in order for them to be deemed competent? At what point in the consent process should competence be assessed? Does competence confer on minors the authority to refuse as well as to accept medical treatment? These are questions which vex clinicians, minors and their families. A growing number of commentators favour application of parts of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to minors. In this paper, the limitations of this approach are exposed and more radical reform is proposed.

Leicester Student Law Review, 2023

The Leicester Student Law Review is an academic journal which has been published in Leicester, United Kingdom for the last eight years to allow students to contribute to the field of legal academic writing. Over the years, the Law Review has allowed students to participate in legal discourse on a variety of topics, challenging the status quo. I am extremely pleased to present this year's journal to the public. The articles contained were carefully selected for the insight that they provide on a variety of topics. This year's journal includes papers on the lack of diversity in the judiciary, gender inequality, ongoing challenges in the European Union, failings of the criminal justice system and medically assisted suicide in Canada. All of the papers are written by current students of law at the University of Leicester. I am extremely grateful to our talented team of editors who worked tirelessly to ensure that the papers presented to you are of the highest quality. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to our Managing Editor, Rachel Hodgett, who helped lead with strength and grace. For every challenge the Law Review faced, Rachel always remained focused on finding solutions and a way forward. I would also like to thank former Editor-in-Chief Alanis Ortiz for helping to provide guidance and mentorship throughout the process. Lastly, I'd like to thank Maryam Ahmad, Hinda Abdi, Adrianna Strzepka and Reda Hussain for all their work behind the scenes. While we have tried our hardest to present a journal of the highest quality, please forgive any errors in grammar or in judgment made along the way. Angel Panag Editor-in-Chief, 2022-2023

2014

Central to the issues raised was the notion that certain patient groups were unfairly denied access to treatment since, by law, clinics were obliged to take into account 'the need for a father' when making welfare assessments. This (and other) criticism of welfare assessments informed a process of legal and regulatory reform, leading to changes in the late 2000s to both statute law and to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (HFEA) Code of Practice (COP). The former reform, highly controversially, entailed the replacement of the demand that clinics take into account 'the need for a father' when making welfare assessments with the obligation that they consider 'the need for supportive parenting'. This study, conducted by staff at the University of Kent and guided by an Advisory Group of experts in the field of assisted conception, sought to provide the first major assessment of welfare of the child (WOC) assessments under the new regulatory framework. The project combined original empirical research with library-based study and received approval from the Kent University Research Ethics Committee, from Oxfordshire REC B NHS Research Ethics Committee and, in line with NHS policy, from relevant Primary Care Trust Research and Development offices. • We considered successive iterations of the HFEA's COP, to trace the evolution of the welfare assessment, and analysed the published documentation surrounding the 2008 reform to the HFE Act. • We reviewed previously published studies, mainly from the 1990s, that investigated the process by which clinicians made welfare of the child assessments. • We conducted face-to-face interviews with (on average) three members of staff with different roles at 20 clinics in the UK (around one quarter of the total number of clinics), generating a set of interviews of a sufficient size to represent reliable, detailed data. The interviews found out about how clinic staff understand and apply the new welfare of the child guidance and, in the light of just under two years' experience of the new system, assessed their views on the advantages and disadvantages of the new procedures. • Our analysis compared what clinic staff told us about the effect of the new law with the stated aims of law and policy-makers.

This contribution draws primarily on findings of an interview study with a group of young women living in Britain who conceived a pregnancy when aged under 18. Through discussion of their narratives, it aims to provide insights about areas of young women's experience that legal scholars have highlighted as potentially problematic under the current legal framework; namely involvement of parents when those aged under 16 seek medical treatment, and the provision of abortion to under 18s. The broader aim here is to provide comment on the gap between abortion law 'on paper', and 'in practice'. The paper finds that abortion law in Britain operates in practice in a way that differs from what might be expected on the basis of its terms on paper, in that most young women are unlikely to encounter major difficulties when accessing abortion. Nevertheless a key criticism made of the law by legal scholars -that it medicalizes abortion -emerges as having continuing validity, and the conclusion is drawn that the rules that regulate abortion in Britain should remain subject to challenge.