The case law that the Minister references, which he describes as a solid foundation—I would say that it's rather less solid than he portrays—does start out of the well-known case in the UK courts of Gillick, and the principle of what's known as Gillick competency. Now Gillick was a case where the procedure went ahead against the wishes of the parents, on the basis that the courts found that the minor was mature enough to make those decisions of their own accord. Our own laws are a bit hazier than that, and the case law is—as it should be—actually situational, and I'm indebted, actually, to the commentary from YouthLaw, who says about this, "Can doctors overrule my guardians' decision to not go ahead with medical treatment for me?" And the answer is: "If your parent, guardian or next-of-kin refuses consent, the medical professional must not go ahead with the medical treatment."