Abstract
This article seeks, first, to disarm some of the principal criticisms of the best interests principle as having an indeterminate content. It then considers how a best interests principle stands in relation to other principles, in particular according to the child a ‘voice’ on matters affecting its interests. It seeks to show that there is an important distinction between a ‘threshold’ and ‘weighting’ view of a child’s capacities, which has significant implications for how we think from a rights perspective both about the child and about the adult. The article contrasts its own approach from that of John Eekelaar’s ‘dynamic self-determinism’, and concludes by suggesting ways in which the case of children can illuminate the broader understanding of adult rights to autonomy and of liberal anti-paternalism.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 55-74 |
Journal | Medical Law International |
Volume | 13 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Mar 2013 |
Keywords
- best interest, indeterminacy,'voice', threshold, weighting, dynamic self-determination, rights, paternalism
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General Medicine
- Law