Intractable disputes between parents and clinicians need to be referred to court.

Mrs Gillick sought judicial review of Department of Health guidance on the lawfulness of contraceptive advice and treatment to girls below the age of 16 without parental consent.

Minors have capacity to consent to treatment, provided that they have sufficient maturity and understanding to make the decision.

Mrs Montgomery’s son was born severely disabled due to shoulder dystocia. She had not been warned about the risks of a natural delivery. Had she been warned, she would have opted for a caesarean section and avoided the injury.

The Supreme Court accepted that the appropriate test for information disclosure (for consent) is a patient-focused test. Doctors have a duty to inform patients of material risks and reasonable alternatives. A material risk is one to which a reasonable person would be likely to attach significance.

This case concerned the competence of a man who refused amputation of his foot, even though there was an 85% chance of death by doing so.

This case established the common law test for competence. which has largely been codified in section 3(1) of the MCA 2005, with the additional requirement to be able to communicate the decision made.

A pregnant woman had pre-operatively refused a life-saving blood transfusion due to coercion by her mother, who was a practising Jehovah’s Witness.

Whether undue influence invalidates a person’s consent will depend upon the facts. The will of the individual must be balanced against the will and relationship of the person supposedly exercising the influence.