法院已经确定患有严重疾病的儿童将不能使用Gillick权限换句话说，在紧急情况下，如果法院拒绝考虑紧急情况下的同意，那么在[14]的情况下，同意将不会被考虑。再保险的L[15]这是说一个女孩不会有Gillick这样能力在危及生命的情况下,医生没有责任基础上,它不是一个危及生命的情况,因此女孩的索赔失败的基础上,这是在危及生命的决定。现在我们来看看吉利克能力的现状，在1969年的家庭改革法案第8节中提到了这一点这意味着任何16或17岁的人都可以选择同意他们的治疗或者不同意[16]。这条法律适用于有关医生应根据儿童的最大利益而非同意行事的情况。这个建立的法院限制仍有可能医生对待孩子是否高于16(家庭改革法案)或下(Gillick这样能力),这两个州允许同样的事情就是孩子拒绝同意,如果孩子对问题有充分的理解孩子将被允许拒绝同意。在紧急情况下，如前所述，它的处理方式不同，孩子的同意不具有约束力，因为父母可能会同意一个医疗治疗，但孩子拒绝拒绝将是无效的，医生将不负责治疗孩子。《家庭改革法》规定，任何16岁或17岁的儿童都应该能够作出决定，因为他们将被当作成年人对待。成立什么儿童有权拒绝同意基于Gillick这样的能力,这将是人类拒绝他们的选择基于父母的认为,除非在紧急情况下它是一个不同的主题,因为父母的和法院将寻找孩子的最佳利益。综上所述，如果孩子们了解他们的情况，他们应该被允许拒绝接受治疗。
澳洲law作业代写 儿童法
The courts have established that Children who suffers from a serious illness will not be able to use the Gillick competence in other words consent will not be looked at in a case of an emergency[14] were the court refuses to consider the consent in the case of an emergency. In the case of Re L[15] it was stated that a girl will not have a Gillick competence in a life-threatening situation and the doctor was not liable on the basis that it was not a life-threatening situation, therefore the girl’s claim failed on the basis that it was under life-threatening decision. Now we move on to the statue side of the Gillick competence, where it was stated in the family reform act 1969 section 8 which implicates that any person who is sixteen or seventeen may choose to consent on their medical treatment or not[16]. This law was applied in the case of Re W[17] which stated that the doctor should act in accordance to the best interest of the child rather than the consent. This establishes that with the courts limitation it is still possible that a doctor treats the child whether they are above 16 (family reform act) or under (Gillick competence), both states the same thing which is children are allowed to refuse to consent, if the child has a sufficient understanding on the matter the child will be allowed to refuse a consent. In a case of emergency as stated before it was dealt differently were the children’s consent is not binding as the parents might agree to a medical treatment, but the child refuses the refusal will be ineffective, the doctor will not be liable for treating the child. The statue of the family reform act indicates that any child who is sixteen years old or seventeen should be able to make the decision because they will be treated as an adult. What was established that children’s have the right to refuse to consent based on the Gillick competence, it would be human to reject their choice based on what the parent’s think unless it is in the case of an emergency then it is a different topic because the parent’s and the court will look for the best interest of the child. to conclude children should be allowed to refuse to consent to a medical treatment if they grasped an understanding of their situation.
本段内容来自网络 并不是我们的写手作品 请勿直接剽窃，查重100%，造成后果与本站无关。如需定制论文请记得联系我们。
