How should we decide how to treat the child: harm versus best interests in cases of disagreement.

Archard, David; Cave, Emma; Brierley, Joe

Abstract

Where parents seek treatment for their young child that healthcare professionals cannot agree to, the High Court can determine what is in the child's best interests. Some activists and academics seek change to impose threshold criteria that would bolster the decision-making rights of parents and reduce deference to clinicians and the courts. We defend the best interests standard against arguments that a higher threshold of 'significant harm' should apply. We do so from ethical, legal, and clinical perspectives. The matter is of significant moral and practical importance, especially in light of the divergence of academic opinion, the burgeoning number of cases coming before the courts and recent case law and statutory attempts to effect change. We begin by disputing ethical claims that a significant harm threshold is preferable to the best interests standard, and then we set out jurisprudential and practical arguments that demonstrate the imprudence of a significant harm threshold and defend the established yardstick of best interests..]

Citation

Archard, D., Cave, E., & Brierley, J. (2023). How should we decide how to treat the child: harm versus best interests in cases of disagreement. Medical Law Review, 32(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwad040

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Nov 16, 2023
• Online Publication Date: Dec 5, 2023
• Publication Date: Dec 5, 2023
• Deposit Date: Nov 17, 2023
• Publicly Available Date: Dec 12, 2023
• Journal: Medical Law Review
• Print ISSN: 0967-0742
• Electronic ISSN: 1464-3790
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 32
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 158–177
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwad040
• Keywords: Best interests, Treatment, Children’s rights, Parental rights, Child, Harm
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1931511