The Gillick Competence: Case Study Of Amira

Running head: THE GILLICK COMPETENCE: CASE STUDY OF AMIRA: ABSTRACT
THE GILLICK COMPETENCE: CASE STUDY OF AMIRA: NOTES FOR PRESENTATION
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

THE GILLICK COMPETENCE: CASE STUDY OF AMIRA: ABSTRACT1
Notes for Presentation
Introduction
The Gillick competency implies a medical law and a set of decision-making and ethical
competencies to be considered with respect to both children and healthcare professionals with
regards to the ability of a child to provide consent for personal treatment interventions without
parental consent or permission. Such ethical and medical legal implications allows healthcare
professionals to balance their responsibility of patient care along with ethically respecting the
rights and wishes of child clients (Zimmermann 2019). The following paper and presentation
will briefly discuss on the critical aspects of child and family centered care with respect to the
Gillick competence and the case of Amira – a 13 year old refugee from Syria who has refused
treatment with regards to acute appendicitis.
Aims
 To critically compare and contrast the practice of child centered care in pediatric nursing,
with respect to the Gillick competence and the case study of Amira.
 To critically compare and contrast the practice of family centered care in pediatric
nursing with respect to the Gillick competence and the case study of Amira.
 To provide key recommendations with respect to the child and family centered
approaches to be considered in the case of Amira as well as underlying philosophical and
professional standards underlying associated with the same.

THE GILLICK COMPETENCE: CASE STUDY OF AMIRA: ABSTRACT2
Discussion
Age Appropriate Needs
The Gillick competency is mentioned as a part of legal implications and provisions
associated with treatment interventions and children consent to treatment, only in New South
Wales (NSW) and South Australia (SA), taking reference to the 1986 judgment of Gillick v West
Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (Young 2019). With respect to the same, as per this
medical law of competency, a child who is under the age of 16 years has the legal right to
consent refuse any form of medical treatment or immunization (Griffith 2016). However, in
addition to merely age, a child is considered to be Gillick competent, as per the following criteria
(Griffith 2016).
 The maturity of a child
 The intelligence of a child
 The child’s ability to understand the risks and benefits of treatment as well as his or her
decisions and views concerning long term implications on family and personal life
aspects like education.
 The ability and experiences of the child with respect the role of family, peer pressures
and his or her opinions in the clinical decision making process (Griffith 2016).
Thus, from the above, one of the major strengths of the Gillick competence is its ability
to not just consider the age of the child, but to also consider broader aspects of the child’s
understanding with regards to the consequences of personal decisions and treatment on his or her
own as well the life of the family (Harling 2017). However, in criticism, there is no mention on
the standards and measurements to be considered with respect to understanding the level of
maturity and intelligence in a child. While an extensive range of standards and tests for