H v AC

In the case of H v AC, the Family Court of Australia was tasked with deciding on the medical treatment of a 17-year-old diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma. After four cycles of chemotherapy, scans showed a significant reduction in the size of the tumour, though they could not detect any tumour deposits below a certain size threshold. The treating practitioner, along with other medical professionals, discussed the results with the child and their parents. The family, devout Christians, believed the child had been miraculously healed and refused further treatment. Medical evidence, however, suggested that the cancer was still present. The hospital sought a declaration that the child was competent to refuse treatment, a question that hinged on the child's 'Gillick competence'. The court determined that the child was indeed 'Gillick competent', meaning they had the capacity to make their own decisions about medical treatment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the child had the capacity to refuse further medical treatment and whether the court should order treatment against the child's wishes. The court considered the child's religious beliefs and the impact they had on the child's decision-making process. The court also examined the medical evidence and the concept of 'Gillick competence', which refers to a minor's ability to consent to medical treatment. The hospital, the child, and the parents did not seek an order authorising treatment, but they did not contest the court's authority to make such an order if necessary. The court weighed the child's right to make their own decisions against the potential consequences of not receiving further treatment.

The Family Court of Australia concluded that despite the child's 'Gillick competence', compelling treatment was necessary to protect the child's health. The court noted that the child's refusal of treatment could lead to serious harm or even death. The court acknowledged the child's right to hold religious beliefs and make decisions based on those beliefs but determined that the potential medical consequences of not receiving treatment outweighed these rights. The court issued an order authorising the hospital to provide the necessary medical treatment to the child. The court also made orders for suppression and non-publication to protect the child's identity, as is customary in cases involving minors.