Adolescent autonomy to make a ‘catastrophically bad’ decision informed by religious beliefs: To respect or protect?

This article examines the Australian case law in which medical treatment has been authorised against the wishes of a Gillick competent adolescent, in circumstances where the adolescent’s decision to refuse treatment has been informed by their religious beliefs. We analyse three factors that have shaped the Australian jurisprudence – medical evidence regarding the adolescent’s prognosis and risk of death; the role of religion in adolescents’ medical treatment decision-making; and the adolescent’s own views and wishes – to expose arguably uncomfortable, value-laden judicial attempts to achieve a ‘nice balance’ between the sanctity of human life and individual autonomy. We argue for greater judicial transparency about when, if ever, an adolescent’s Gillick competence will be respected in refusal of medical treatment cases shaped by the adolescent’s faith.