The article doesn’t mention the parents’ opinions, but I think the angle here is that the state is considering the interests of the child and assuming some of the responsibility when the parent “fails” to meet the court’s standard of ensuring they survive the operation.
So, basically, you can refuse treatment for yourself from 18 onwards, but under 18 someone else has a duty of care. Typically your parents, but if your parents don’t meet this duty of care the courts might intervene, on behalf of the child’s interests.
Then with teenagers it’s a whole massive grey area, they’re still technically children but they are given limited agency - their opinion is considered, and here the hospital determined she had “capacity” to make the decision. Hence going to court to try and sort the whole mess out beforehand.
So the court here ruled that a 14 year old girl can’t refuse life saving treatment.
The article doesn’t mention the parents’ opinions, but I think the angle here is that the state is considering the interests of the child and assuming some of the responsibility when the parent “fails” to meet the court’s standard of ensuring they survive the operation.
So, basically, you can refuse treatment for yourself from 18 onwards, but under 18 someone else has a duty of care. Typically your parents, but if your parents don’t meet this duty of care the courts might intervene, on behalf of the child’s interests.
Then with teenagers it’s a whole massive grey area, they’re still technically children but they are given limited agency - their opinion is considered, and here the hospital determined she had “capacity” to make the decision. Hence going to court to try and sort the whole mess out beforehand.
So the court here ruled that a 14 year old girl can’t refuse life saving treatment.