Gillick or Fraser? A plea for consistency over competence in children

British Medical Journal

Volumn 332, Issue 7545, 2006, Pages 807-

  Wheeler, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SOUTHAMPTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD CARE; CHILD WELFARE; COMPETENCE; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PATIENT RIGHT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; CHILD; LEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL CAPACITY; UNITED KINGDOM;

CHILD; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MENTAL COMPETENCY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES;

EID: 33645818348     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7545.807     Document Type: Editorial

References (10)

1. Children Act 1989 s105 (1).
2. Family Law Reform Act 1969 s8.
3. Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech AHA & DHSS [1983] 3 WLR (QBD).
4. Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech AHA & DHSS [1985] 3 WLR (HL).
5. British Medical Association. Medical ethics today. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2004:230-1.
6. Lexis Nexus Professional; Lawtel; Westlaw UK.
7. Grubb A. Principles of medical law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
8. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees, www.corec.org.uk
9. Medical Protection Society. 2005. www.medicalprotection.org/medical/ united_kingdom/publications/gp_registrar/(accessed 3 Apr 2006).
10. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118; per McNair J, instructing the jury.