OBD [2016] NSWCATGD 58

OBD [2016] NSWCATGD 58

The Tribunal refused consent because, although the treatment constituted 'special medical treatment' under the Guardianship Act and Miss OBD was incapable of providing consent, the evidence did not establish that endometrial ablation was necessary to save her life or prevent serious damage to her health, as required by law.

Parties
Subject Person: Miss OBD; Applicant: Dr DEJ
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Consent to Special Medical Treatment / Final Determination
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Medical Treatment, Consent, Endometrial Ablation, Intellectual Disability, Sterilisation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss OBD

Subject Person

Dr DEJ

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Consent to Special Medical Treatment / Final Determination

  1. 1 Is the proposed endometrial ablation 'special medical treatment' under the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW)?
  2. 2 Is Miss OBD incapable of giving consent to the proposed treatment?
  3. 3 Is the proposed treatment necessary to save Miss OBD’s life or prevent serious damage to her health?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused consent because, although the treatment constituted 'special medical treatment' under the Guardianship Act and Miss OBD was incapable of providing consent, the evidence did not establish that endometrial ablation was necessary to save her life or prevent serious damage to her health, as required by law.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for consent to special medical treatment made by Dr DEJ in respect of Miss OBD is dismissed.