Under-18 refusal & parental responsibility
What it means
A person with parental responsibility can consent to treatment for a child who cannot/does not consent. For 16-17-year-olds, consent is presumed (like adults) but, as with Gillick-competent under-16s, a REFUSAL of life-saving treatment can be overridden by parental responsibility or the court — the law prioritises the child's welfare/life. Only one PR-holder's consent is needed; serious disputes go to court.
Worked example
A 16-year-old with anorexia refusing life-saving treatment can have that refusal overridden in her best interests — minors' refusals do not carry the same finality as a capacitous adult's.
In the exam
A competent 16-year-old refuses treatment without which she will die; unlike a capacitous adult, her refusal can be overridden by those with parental responsibility or a court.
What settles it
A capacitous ADULT's refusal is absolute; a MINOR's refusal of life-saving treatment is NOT — it can be overridden in the child's best interests.
Classically confused with
Gillick competence
Source: Children Act 1989; GMC 0-18