Logo image
Adolescent autonomy to make a 'catastrophically bad' decision informed by religious beliefs: To respect or protect?
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Adolescent autonomy to make a 'catastrophically bad' decision informed by religious beliefs: To respect or protect?

Georgina Dimopoulos, Mandy Shircore and Eliza Hew
Alternative law journal, Vol.49(4), pp.274-281
01/12/2024
pdf
Adolescent autonomy to make a ‘catastrophically bad’ decision informed by religious beliefs: To respect or protect?523.77 kBDownloadView
CC BY-NC V4.0 Open Access
url
Adolescent autonomy to make a ‘catastrophically bad’ decision View
Published (Version of record)CC BY-NC V4.0 Open

Related links

Metrics

3 File views/ downloads
86 Record Views

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

Source: InCites

Abstract

adolescents autonomy best interests Gillick competence parens patriae jurisdiction refusal of medical treatment religious beliefs
This article examines the Australian case law in which medical treatment has been authorised against the wishes of a Gillick competent adolescent, in circumstances where the adolescent’s decision to refuse treatment has been informed by their religious beliefs. We analyse three factors that have shaped the Australian jurisprudence – medical evidence regarding the adolescent’s prognosis and risk of death; the role of religion in adolescents’ medical treatment decision-making; and the adolescent’s own views and wishes – to expose arguably uncomfortable, value-laden judicial attempts to achieve a ‘nice balance’ between the sanctity of human life and individual autonomy. We argue for greater judicial transparency about when, if ever, an adolescent’s Gillick competence will be respected in refusal of medical treatment cases shaped by the adolescent’s faith.

Details

Logo image