Royal Children’s Hospital v HH [2026] VSC 197 (Link to AUSTLII).
With thanks to Rob Davis for drawing attention to this decision.
The third defendant, JJ was aged 15 years and five months. In November 2022, JJ was diagnosed with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, and was treated for this at the Royal Children’s Hospital. Whilst JJ went into remission, in August 2024 she developed a secondary leukaemia, called therapy related myeloid neoplasm.
JJ’s treating clinical team at the RCH recommend that for curative treatment, JJ undergo a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (also referred to by some of the doctors in the affidavit material as a bone marrow transplant or BMT) and medical support measures (the recommended treatment). Dr Seong Lin Khaw, JJ’s paediatric oncologist at the RCH, was of the opinion that without HSCT, JJ’s likelihood of long-term survival was only approximately 5%.
The first defendant, JJ’s mother HH, partly for religious reasons, did not consent to the recommended treatment being provided to JJ (nor did JJ). The RCH, the plaintiff, brought an urgent application for the Court to exercise its power under the parens patriae jurisdiction, and authorise the RCH to lawfully administer the recommended treatment to JJ.
The court was not satisfied that JJ had Gillick capacity. Her anger at hospital staff was impeding her capacity to sensibly evaluate the clear advice being given to her, to undergo lifesaving medical treatment.
The court took a holistic view as to what was in JJ’s best interests and was satisfied that the recommended treatment should be provided to JJ as a matter of urgency.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2525]