X (A Child), Re

X (A Child), Re

The court authorised the blood transfusion, overriding X's refusal, because medical evidence demonstrated a real and impermissible risk of serious harm or death if treatment was withheld. The court's overriding duty is to act in the child's best interests, even against her Gillick competent wishes and religious beliefs, where urgent medical necessity exists.

Parties
Applicant: NHS Trust; Respondent: X
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Family / Judgment
Outcome
Blood transfusion authorised despite X's refusal; order made as sought by hospital with adjustments to reflect X's lack of consent.
Legal Topics
Consent to Medical Treatment, Gillick Competence, Religious Beliefs and Medical Care, Best Interests of the Child
Family Law Medical Law Human Rights Consent to Medical Treatment Gillick Competence Religious Beliefs and Medical Care Best Interests of the Child

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NHS Trust

Applicant

X

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should a blood transfusion be administered to a Gillick competent minor against her religious beliefs?
  2. 2 Does the court have authority to override the wishes of a Gillick competent child in medical emergencies?
  3. 3 Is the current legal framework for consent by minors in need of reanalysis in light of recent developments and the Human Rights Act 1998?

Ratio Decidendi

The court authorised the blood transfusion, overriding X's refusal, because medical evidence demonstrated a real and impermissible risk of serious harm or death if treatment was withheld. The court's overriding duty is to act in the child's best interests, even against her Gillick competent wishes and religious beliefs, where urgent medical necessity exists.

Court Disposition

Blood transfusion authorised despite X's refusal; order made as sought by hospital with adjustments to reflect X's lack of consent.

Orders

  • Hospital authorised to administer top-up blood transfusion to X despite her refusal based on religious beliefs.
  • Order to omit paragraph (1) and adjust paragraph (2) to clarify consent issue.