Chapter 5 In defense of a conditional harm threshold test for paediatric decision-making

The case of Charlie Gard raises a number of serious ethical questions, including how a child's best interests should be assessed, the role of parents in decision-making for a child, the appropriateness of trying untested experimental treatment in a serious ill child, and the allocation of limit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Wilkinson, Dominic (auth)
Format: Electronic Book Chapter
Language:English
Published: Oxford Hart Publishers 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:DOAB: download the publication
DOAB: description of the publication
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000naaaa2200000uu 4500
001 doab_20_500_12854_68156
005 20210427
003 oapen
006 m o d
007 cr|mn|---annan
008 20210427s2019 xx |||||o ||| 0|eng d
040 |a oapen  |c oapen 
041 0 |a eng 
042 |a dc 
072 7 |a MB  |2 bicssc 
100 1 |a Wilkinson, Dominic  |4 auth 
245 1 0 |a Chapter 5 In defense of a conditional harm threshold test for paediatric decision-making 
260 |a Oxford  |b Hart Publishers  |c 2019 
300 |a 1 electronic resource (17 p.) 
336 |a text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a computer  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a online resource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
506 0 |a Open Access  |2 star  |f Unrestricted online access 
520 |a The case of Charlie Gard raises a number of serious ethical questions, including how a child's best interests should be assessed, the role of parents in decision-making for a child, the appropriateness of trying untested experimental treatment in a serious ill child, and the allocation of limited healthcare resources. Elsewhere, I have reviewed these questions in some detail and explored the implications for future disputes over medical treatment for children.1 In this chapter, I will focus on one of the questions that arose in the Gard case and was also raised in the subsequent case of Alfie Evans. If there is disagreement between parents and health professionals about treatment for a child, should courts overrule parents on the basis of an assessment of what would be best for the child, or only if what the parents propose would be harmful for the child? I will largely focus on the ethical question (and leave the more specific legal questions to other commentators in this volume).2 I outline the ethical case for using a harm threshold test rather than a best interests test, identifying a set of cases where these tests may yield different decisions. I respond to a series of counterarguments against the use of harm thresholds. In the last part of the chapter, I propose a compromise, a conditional harm threshold test that would apply only if there is a question of preventing parents from pursuing treatment that other health professionals are offering to provide. I explore the implications of this test for a set of challenging cases similar to the Gard/Evans cases, setting out two different alternatives for evaluating the harm of prolonging life in children with absent consciousness. 
536 |a Wellcome Trust 
540 |a Creative Commons  |f https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  |2 cc  |4 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 
546 |a English 
650 7 |a Medicine: general issues  |2 bicssc 
653 |a ethical decisions; child; parents; Gard case; Alfie Evans 
773 1 0 |t Parental Rights, Best Interests and Significant Harms  |7 nnaa  |o OAPEN Library UUID: 4f52a5c3-cc3f-454a-be8f-ef549c67958e 
856 4 0 |a www.oapen.org  |u https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500.12657/48383/1/Bookshelf_NBK556970.pdf  |7 0  |z DOAB: download the publication 
856 4 0 |a www.oapen.org  |u https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/68156  |7 0  |z DOAB: description of the publication