Sir, 1984 saw a landmark legal ruling on the issue of child capacity – Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security.

This, in essence, was subsequently upheld by the House of Lords in 1985 with Lord Scarman's test which is generally considered to be that which defines 'Gillick competency'.

It said: 'As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of 16 will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.'

This decision had profound implications for the provision of all healthcare services, including dental care, to children under 16 years old. Its importance is reflected in the clear, concise public statements on Gillick competency (and consent in relation to 16- and 17-year-olds) provided by the Department of Health (NHS Choices)1 and the CQC.2

Evidence of the profession's regard for and concern with child protection in general and children's capacity to make decisions relating to their dental care is to be found in the dental discussion forum, https://www.gdpuk.com/.

Since 2008 and as at the time of writing, there were 367 posts which included the keywords 'child' and 'protection', nearly 200 posts which include 'child' and 'consent', and over 50 which included the term 'Gillick'.

Additionally, a short survey (poll) on the subject was posted on https://www.gdpuk.com/ and ran for seven days and asked what percentages ([<25%], [25% to <50%], [50% to <75%] and [75% to 100%]) of patients they believe are Gillick competent among 12–13-year-olds and 14–15-year-olds.

A third question asked if members believe girls generally achieve Gillick Competency before boys or at the same age as boys.

The results indicated that the belief that 51% (n = 23) of 12–13-year-olds and 69% (n = 27) of 14–15-year-olds have capacity to consent to general dental treatment.

Also, 69% (n = 26) believe girls generally achieve Gillick competency before boys.

Although limited in extent, the poll strongly suggests that GDPs view a large proportion of 12–15-year-olds as being Gillick competent and that they consider gender to be a factor which influences that capacity.

Despite the strong engagement of the profession with this issue and the findings reported above, the apparent paucity of other Gillick-competency-related research does suggest there are deficits in our knowledge in this field of dental ethics. The authors hope that this letter will spur more formal research Gillick competence across the relevant age range.