Marion's Case
Encyclopedia
Marion's Case, the common name for the case Secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB, is one of the primary cases under Australia
Australia
Australia , officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a country in the Southern Hemisphere comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is the world's sixth-largest country by total area...

n law for deciding whether a child has the capacity to make decisions for themselves, and when this is not possible, who may make decisions for them regarding major medical procedures. It largely adopts the views in Gillick v West Norfolk Area Health Authority
Gillick competence
Gillick competence is a term originating in England and is used in medical law to decide whether a child is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge....

, a decision of the English House of Lords
House of Lords
The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....

.

Background to the Case

"Marion", a pseudonym
Pseudonym
A pseudonym is a name that a person assumes for a particular purpose and that differs from his or her original orthonym...

 for the 14-year-old girl at the centre of this case, suffered from intellectual disabilities, severe deafness, epilepsy and other disorders. Her parents, a married couple from the Northern Territory
Northern Territory
The Northern Territory is a federal territory of Australia, occupying much of the centre of the mainland continent, as well as the central northern regions...

 sought an order from the Family Court of Australia
Family Court of Australia
The Family Court of Australia is a superior Australian federal court of record which deals with family law matters. Together with the Federal Magistrates Court, it covers family law matters in all states and territories of Australia except Western Australia...

 authorising them to have Marion undergo a hysterectomy and an oophrectomy (removal of ovaries)- the practical effect would be sterilisation and preventing Marion from being able to have children, and also many of the hormonal effects of adulthood.

Under the Family Law Act
Family Law Act 1975
The Australian Family Law Act 1975, sometimes referred to as the FLA by legal practitioners, is an Act of the Australian Parliament. It is one of four separate Acts that provide the framework for family law in Australia...

 the primary concern for matters involving children is that the court must act in the child's best interests. The majority of the Court made it clear that this was not a consideration in this case, but that it was merely deciding a point of law and that the decision about "best interests" would be left to the Family Court of Australia after the case.

Arguments

The main legal debate that arose was: who has the legal authority to authorise the operation? Three options existed: the parents (as legal guardians of their daughter), Marion, or only by order of a competent court, such as the Family Court of Australia.

The Department, together with the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia, argued that only this latter option was possible - that only a court could authorise such a major operation.

The parents, however, "argued that the decision to sterilise a child is not significantly different from other major decisions that parents and guardians have to make for children and that the involvement of the Family Court is optional and of a "supervisory nature" only. Their argument was that, provided such a procedure is in the best interests of the child, parents as guardians can give lawful consent to a sterilisation on behalf of a mentally incompetent child."

In the case, the High Court ruled that whilst parents may consent to medical treatment for their children, this authority does not extend to treatment which is not in the child’s best interests. Second, the Court held that where medical treatment has sterilisation as its principal objective, parents do not have the authority to consent on behalf of their child.
The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK