You seriously have no idea what you’re talking about, Ash. It’s very obvious that you don’t understand what Gillick said.

Gillick was applied in Bell. Gillick is a higher authority than Bell so the court in Bell wouldn’t even be able to overrule it if it wanted to. 1/ https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1354059181670719491

Gillick is context specific because different treatment requires different levels of competency. There are a string of cases from the 90s that concern children refusing medical treatment, inc one case that was the inspiration for Ian McEwan’s The Children Act 2/

In those cases, a high standard of competence was applied, as in Bell, and the children were found incapable of being able to refuse blood transfusions and heart transplants. This is because the consequences are much more severe than other treatment. Same in Bell. 3/

Abortion is not affected by the court applying Gillick in a different context. Gillick itself was about contraception. A case called Axon in 2009 was about abortion and contraception. Both are clear that U16s can consent if they understand treatment 4/

By making claims that you don’t understand about the law, you’re scaremongering. You don’t have any legal education so I will let you off. Jolyon Maugham and a bunch of legal academics who have done the same don’t have that excuse though so I can only conclude 5/

that they are doing it to whip up public opinion against a sensible and measured ruling that took into account all the evidence. Let’s hope the Court of Appeal takes a similarly sensible approach rather than a political one. I guess at least in the 1990s, people weren’t 6/

being fired from their jobs for saying that 14 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to refuse blood transfusions so the court’s task probably seemed more straightforward. 7/7