Queensland general practitioners' applications of the "mature minor" principle: the role of patient age and gender

Most Australian jurisdictions do not have legislation that stipulates an age by which a minor can make their own medical treatment decisions. Instead, they rely on Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority 1986] AC 112, an English common law decision that recommends individual assessments of "maturity". This study explores how medical practitioners in the State of Queensland understand and apply this legal authority when faced with a young person wishing to make a contentious medical treatment decision. Almost 200 doctors made decisions about a hypothetical patient's competence and confidentiality, and detailed their reasoning in an open-ended format. The data indicate that the vagaries of existing legal criteria allow for a range of philosophical perspectives and idiosyncratic heuristics to play a role in assessment practices, and that particular combinations of patient age and gender made these cognitive shortcuts more likely to occur. A notable proportion of such processes are not consistent with legal guidelines, and this has implications for general practitioners' vulnerability to litigation as well as young patients' treatment trajectories.