Case summary: Gillick v West Norfolk

In this case, the plaintiff, Mrs gillick has five daughters and one of the daughter had sought
advice from a local doctor and the daughter in return received advice from the local
daughter. At that time the daughter has not attained the age where she can lawfully consent
to intercourse. This advice was given in accordance with guidance from the Department of
Health and Social Security. Mrs Gillick requested a ruling from the court that the advice
issued by the Department was unconstitutional because it interfered adversely with parental
rights and responsibilities, among other issues.

Gillick was a landmark decision that brought up a number of complex legal questions. The
House of Lords was called upon to settle, first and foremost, the depth of the parental
authority to govern a minor child and when, and indeed whether, such a minor might
receive contraceptive advice, or approval to medical treatment, against their parents '
wishes or knowledge. Ultimately, it fell to establish if a doctor would be culpable of a
criminal offense in trying to exercise his or her medical duty by giving contraception or
counsel to teenage patients

Held

The request for a declaration was rejected. There was no parental right as such, except
where required to protect a minor's best interests. Under certain circumstances, a minor
would be able to consent on his own, without their parents' knowledge or approval. Lord
Scarman's proposed test states that a minor will be able to consent to the treatment if they
demonstrate “sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is
proposed”. The test is now commonly referred to as 'Gillick competence' which is an
integral part of medical and family legislation.