{"id":{"repo_id":"qu-belfast","oai_identifier":"oai:pure.qub.ac.uk/portal:studenttheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/qu-belfast/oai:pure.qub.ac.uk/portal:studenttheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d","repository":{"repo_id":"qu-belfast","name":"Queen's University Belfast","base_url":"https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/oai"},"display":{"title":"Addressing adolescent religious manifestations within medical decision-making","abstract":"Under English law, minors under the age of 16 are presumed to lack the capacity to make their own medical decisions but can give valid consent to medical treatment if they are found to be Gillick competent (i.e., the possession of sufficient maturity, understanding, and intelligence to enable him or her to fully understand the treatment proposed). While it is clear that the right to consent is protected, questions remain as to whether the attainment of Gillick competency confers absolute rights to autonomy on all medical treatment. The extent to which a valid refusal is respected, particularly, a refusal to life-saving treatment, is heavily contested. Subsequent judicial developments in the 1990s diverged from the spirit of Gillick, securing the power of the courts and those with parental authority to override competent refusals if it appears that such refusals are not in the best interests of the minor.
This research project is concerned with the extent of judicial recognition of adolescent decisional autonomy, the adequacy of consideration of a child’s views and wishes, and whether sufficient respect is given to decisions made on religious grounds. This dissertation addresses two main questions: (1) Is there sufficient legal respect and protection towards a minor’s faith-based medical decisions and other personal views? (2) Does the legal imperative to interfere with a minor’s medical decisions also interfere with the protection of their decisional autonomy? By combining doctrinal and ethical analysis research approaches, this dissertation finds that the current law is overly paternalistic and neglects the importance of a child’s religious views as relevant factors towards their decision-making processes. This is attributed to the imposition of unattainable thresholds of capacity on minors, narrow interpretations of best interests, and insufficient consideration of the aftermath of treatment imposition on a child’s bodily integrity and dignity. The purpose of this dissertation is to critique the current law’s failings and ascertain whether future reform can further protect the decisional autonomy of minors.
","abstract_html":"Under English law, minors under the age of 16 are presumed to lack the capacity to make their own medical decisions but can give valid consent to medical treatment if they are found to be Gillick competent (i.e., the possession of sufficient maturity, understanding, and intelligence to enable him or her to fully understand the treatment proposed). While it is clear that the right to consent is protected, questions remain as to whether the attainment of Gillick competency confers absolute rights to autonomy on all medical treatment. The extent to which a valid refusal is respected, particularly, a refusal to life-saving treatment, is heavily contested. Subsequent judicial developments in the 1990s diverged from the spirit of Gillick, securing the power of the courts and those with parental authority to override competent refusals if it appears that such refusals are not in the best interests of the minor. <br/><br/>This research project is concerned with the extent of judicial recognition of adolescent decisional autonomy, the adequacy of consideration of a child’s views and wishes, and whether sufficient respect is given to decisions made on religious grounds. This dissertation addresses two main questions: (1) Is there sufficient legal respect and protection towards a minor’s faith-based medical decisions and other personal views? (2) Does the legal imperative to interfere with a minor’s medical decisions also interfere with the protection of their decisional autonomy? By combining doctrinal and ethical analysis research approaches, this dissertation finds that the current law is overly paternalistic and neglects the importance of a child’s religious views as relevant factors towards their decision-making processes. This is attributed to the imposition of unattainable thresholds of capacity on minors, narrow interpretations of best interests, and insufficient consideration of the aftermath of treatment imposition on a child’s bodily integrity and dignity. The purpose of this dissertation is to critique the current law’s failings and ascertain whether future reform can further protect the decisional autonomy of minors. <br/><br/><br/>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Wong, Adrienne"],"institution":"Queen's University Belfast","degree_name":"JD (Juris Doctor)","degree_level":"Doctoral Thesis","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Kelly, Gerard","O Neill, Clayton"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2021,"date_issued":"2021-12","date_published":"2021-12","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:56:11Z","subjects":["Medical law","medical ethics","Gillick competence","mental capacity","children's rights","children's participation","decisional autonomy","best interests","religion","Jehovah's Witnesses"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["oai:pure.qub.ac.uk/portal:studenttheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d"],"render_values":[{"text":"oai:pure.qub.ac.uk/portal:studenttheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Kelly, Gerard","O Neill, Clayton"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Wong, Adrienne"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2021-12"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2021-12"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["School of Law"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["Queen's University Belfast"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby","values":["https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["JD (Juris Doctor)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Medical law","medical ethics","Gillick competence","mental capacity","children's rights","children's participation","decisional autonomy","best interests","religion","Jehovah's Witnesses"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargodate","label":"Dc Rights Embargodate","values":["2023-12-31"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargoreason","label":"Dc Rights Embargoreason","values":["/dk/atira/pure/core/document/studentthesisembargoreason/publicationissues"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["oai:pure.qub.ac.uk/portal:studenttheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d","https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://pure.qub.ac.uk/files/258654770/Addressing_Adolescent_Religious_Manifestations_Within_Medical_Decision_Making.pdf"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Under English law, minors under the age of 16 are presumed to lack the capacity to make their own medical decisions but can give valid consent to medical treatment if they are found to be Gillick competent (i.e., the possession of sufficient maturity, understanding, and intelligence to enable him or her to fully understand the treatment proposed). While it is clear that the right to consent is protected, questions remain as to whether the attainment of Gillick competency confers absolute rights to autonomy on all medical treatment. The extent to which a valid refusal is respected, particularly, a refusal to life-saving treatment, is heavily contested. Subsequent judicial developments in the 1990s diverged from the spirit of Gillick, securing the power of the courts and those with parental authority to override competent refusals if it appears that such refusals are not in the best interests of the minor.
This research project is concerned with the extent of judicial recognition of adolescent decisional autonomy, the adequacy of consideration of a child’s views and wishes, and whether sufficient respect is given to decisions made on religious grounds. This dissertation addresses two main questions: (1) Is there sufficient legal respect and protection towards a minor’s faith-based medical decisions and other personal views? (2) Does the legal imperative to interfere with a minor’s medical decisions also interfere with the protection of their decisional autonomy? By combining doctrinal and ethical analysis research approaches, this dissertation finds that the current law is overly paternalistic and neglects the importance of a child’s religious views as relevant factors towards their decision-making processes. This is attributed to the imposition of unattainable thresholds of capacity on minors, narrow interpretations of best interests, and insufficient consideration of the aftermath of treatment imposition on a child’s bodily integrity and dignity. The purpose of this dissertation is to critique the current law’s failings and ascertain whether future reform can further protect the decisional autonomy of minors.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Addressing adolescent religious manifestations within medical decision-making"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Kelly, Gerard","O Neill, Clayton"],"dc:creator":["Wong, Adrienne"],"dc:date":["2021-12"],"dc:date.issued":["2021-12"],"dc:description.abstract":["Under English law, minors under the age of 16 are presumed to lack the capacity to make their own medical decisions but can give valid consent to medical treatment if they are found to be Gillick competent (i.e., the possession of sufficient maturity, understanding, and intelligence to enable him or her to fully understand the treatment proposed). While it is clear that the right to consent is protected, questions remain as to whether the attainment of Gillick competency confers absolute rights to autonomy on all medical treatment. The extent to which a valid refusal is respected, particularly, a refusal to life-saving treatment, is heavily contested. Subsequent judicial developments in the 1990s diverged from the spirit of Gillick, securing the power of the courts and those with parental authority to override competent refusals if it appears that such refusals are not in the best interests of the minor.
This research project is concerned with the extent of judicial recognition of adolescent decisional autonomy, the adequacy of consideration of a child’s views and wishes, and whether sufficient respect is given to decisions made on religious grounds. This dissertation addresses two main questions: (1) Is there sufficient legal respect and protection towards a minor’s faith-based medical decisions and other personal views? (2) Does the legal imperative to interfere with a minor’s medical decisions also interfere with the protection of their decisional autonomy? By combining doctrinal and ethical analysis research approaches, this dissertation finds that the current law is overly paternalistic and neglects the importance of a child’s religious views as relevant factors towards their decision-making processes. This is attributed to the imposition of unattainable thresholds of capacity on minors, narrow interpretations of best interests, and insufficient consideration of the aftermath of treatment imposition on a child’s bodily integrity and dignity. The purpose of this dissertation is to critique the current law’s failings and ascertain whether future reform can further protect the decisional autonomy of minors.
"],"dc:identifier":["oai:pure.qub.ac.uk/portal:studenttheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d","https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://pure.qub.ac.uk/files/258654770/Addressing_Adolescent_Religious_Manifestations_Within_Medical_Decision_Making.pdf"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:publisher.department":["School of Law"],"dc:publisher.institution":["Queen's University Belfast"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby":["https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/dada6d58-1f95-475d-b4fb-301be566798d"],"dc:rights.embargodate":["2023-12-31"],"dc:rights.embargoreason":["/dk/atira/pure/core/document/studentthesisembargoreason/publicationissues"],"dc:subject":["Medical law","medical ethics","Gillick competence","mental capacity","children's rights","children's participation","decisional autonomy","best interests","religion","Jehovah's Witnesses"],"dc:title":["Addressing adolescent religious manifestations within medical decision-making"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["JD (Juris Doctor)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:56:11Z"}