{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0273972602739726, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014419610670511895, 'mean_word_length': 4.807531380753138, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Re K, W and H (Minors) (Medical Treatment).


 The Family Division of the High Court of Justice of England's Supreme Court of Judicature refused to rule on a mental hospital's application for clarification of the law regarding consent of minors to receive emergency medication under the Mental Health Act and the Children Act. Three girls, all about 15 years of age, had been admitted for psychiatric care at St. Andrew's Hospital and, prior to their admission, consent for use of medication in emergency situations had been obtained from their parents. After complaints had been received from the girls that they had not consented to receive medication and about other matters, a committee investigation and report followed. The committee recommended that a court ruling be obtained on the issue. The court found the hospital's application "misconceived and unnecessary." Following the Court of Appeal in Re R (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment), the court held that "a child with Gillick competence can consent to treatment, but if he or she declines to do so, consent can be given by someone else who has parental rights or responsibilities." In this case, none of the patients were Gillick competent, and even if that was not the case, any refusal of treatment would not put the hospital or doctors at risk for liability because the requisite parental consent had been obtained.
