期刊
HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -出版社
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10728-023-00472-w
关键词
Harm threshold; Best interests test; Children; Parental decision-making; Medical treatment; Case law
The case of Charlie Gard has sparked a debate on whether a harm threshold should replace the best interests test in court decisions about medical treatment for children in England & Wales. This article analyzes reported cases and compares different countries' laws to discuss the impact of introducing a harm threshold.
The case of Charlie Gard sparked an ongoing public and academic debate whether in court decisions about medical treatment for children in England & Wales the best interests test should be replaced by a harm threshold. However, the literature has scantly considered (1) what the impact of such a replacement would be on future litigation and (2) how a harm threshold should be introduced: for triage or as standard for decision-making. This article directly addresses these gaps, by first analysing reported cases in England & Wales about medical treatment in the context of a S31 order, thus using a harm threshold for triage and second comparing court decisions about medical treatment for children in England & Wales based on the best interest test with Dutch and German case law using a harm threshold. The investigation found that whilst no substantial increase of parental discretion can be expected an introduction of a harm threshold for triage would change litigation. In particular, cases in which harm is limited, currently only heard when there are concerns about parental decision-making, may be denied a court hearing as might cases in which the child has lost their capacity to suffer. Applying a harm threshold for triage in decisions about withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment might lead to a continuation of medical treatment that could be considered futile.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据