Marion's Case
This case faced the issue of parental authority over medical treatment for an intellectually disabled child. Here is a brief summary of the case:
The case involved Marion's parents were worried about her health. Marion, aged thirteen at the time, was severely and multiply disabled. The primary concerns for the parents centred on issues involving fertility control and menstrual management. As a result, Marion's parents applied to the Family Court of Australia for a declaration that they could consent to a hysterectomy and ovariectomy on behalf Marion. The parents argued that Marion could not attend to her own personal hygiene or care for her child if she were to have one. This case progressed to the High Court of Australia. The High Court stated that if a child were not legally competent, the issue becomes one of whether or not the parents can make such a decision for their child. If the decision is not one for the parents to make for their child, such as this case presented, then the Family Court must make the decision in regards to the best interests for the child (L, 1998). The High Court also stated that sterilisation must be 'last resort' or that 'alternative and less invasive procedures have all failed or it is certain that no other procedure will work.' (S B. , 2001)
The outcome of Marion's case was that non-therapeutic sterilisation may only take place if consent had been permitted by the courts (C, 1999).
Marion's case was a landmark case as it recognised the human rights of a child but also of a disabled person (L, 1998). The final decision in this case made by the High court seemed like an appropriate decision as it took into account the interests of the child but also promoted protection for parents if needed and authorised by the Family Court. However, many ethical issues arose around 'who has the authority to allow such an operation?' Of this question, three answers have arisen. Those being the parents, Marion herself, or the court of law.
The case involved Marion's parents were worried about her health. Marion, aged thirteen at the time, was severely and multiply disabled. The primary concerns for the parents centred on issues involving fertility control and menstrual management. As a result, Marion's parents applied to the Family Court of Australia for a declaration that they could consent to a hysterectomy and ovariectomy on behalf Marion. The parents argued that Marion could not attend to her own personal hygiene or care for her child if she were to have one. This case progressed to the High Court of Australia. The High Court stated that if a child were not legally competent, the issue becomes one of whether or not the parents can make such a decision for their child. If the decision is not one for the parents to make for their child, such as this case presented, then the Family Court must make the decision in regards to the best interests for the child (L, 1998). The High Court also stated that sterilisation must be 'last resort' or that 'alternative and less invasive procedures have all failed or it is certain that no other procedure will work.' (S B. , 2001)
The outcome of Marion's case was that non-therapeutic sterilisation may only take place if consent had been permitted by the courts (C, 1999).
Marion's case was a landmark case as it recognised the human rights of a child but also of a disabled person (L, 1998). The final decision in this case made by the High court seemed like an appropriate decision as it took into account the interests of the child but also promoted protection for parents if needed and authorised by the Family Court. However, many ethical issues arose around 'who has the authority to allow such an operation?' Of this question, three answers have arisen. Those being the parents, Marion herself, or the court of law.
Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson is Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia and had a lot to do with Marion's Case (ABC, 2011).