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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 158-177 |
Number of pages | 20 |
Journal | Medical Law Review |
Volume | 32 |
Issue number | 2 |
Early online date | 05 Dec 2023 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 28 May 2024 |
Keywords
- Best interests
- Child
- Children’s rights
- Harm
- Parental rights
- Treatment