Infants, Lunatics and Married Women: Equitable Protection in Garcia v National Australia Bank
still problematic in its interpretation,48 and judicial paternalism was probably justifiable in this case, especially if C's life was subsequently saved. Indeed, if the inherent jurisdiction could never be used in this way, doctors would have no power, outside the Mental Health Act, to treat or detain psychiatric or psychotic patients who were seriously ill and whose behaviour posed a danger to their health and to others.49 Re C's safeguards now provide a framework for protection but, since every case is different, both the medical profession and the courts have continually to reappraise a teenager's best interests on a case-to-case basis. Those safeguards might not always ensure that future decisions on these difficult cases will necessarily eliminate unnecessary detention or force-feeding. Although it clarifies many aspects of the law, Re C reinforces the message that an anorexic adolescent's autonomy ends where her refusal of medical treatment begins to endanger her life that, in some cases, respecting adolescent autonomy may be simply too high a price to pay.