Join BookitisSave favorites, build lists, and follow creators.

Parental Rights, Best Interests and Significant Harms

Work detail

Bookitis Pick
Parental Rights, Best Interests and Significant Harms
PR
Jonathan HerringImogen GooldCressida Auckland4 editions

"The question of whether and how decisions are made in respect of a child's medical treatment has become a matter of significant public controversy following the highly publicised cases of Charlie Gard (Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates [2017]) and Alfie Evans (Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust v Evans et al [2018]). In light of this background, this timely collection brings together commentators from law, medical ethics and clinical medicine, actively drawing on the view from the clinic as well as philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should decide about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In particular, the collection looks at whether the current 'best interests' threshold is the appropriate boundary for legal intervention, or whether it is appropriate to adopt the 'risk of significant harm' approach proposed in Yates. Moreover, it explores the respective roles of parents, doctors and the courts and the possible risks of inappropriate state intrusion in parental decision-making, and how we might address them"--

Overview

Shared work-level identity and catalog context.

3 credited authorsSearch language english

Bookitis keeps work pages focused on the shared book identity and the editions that actually belong to it. Unrelated books should not appear here as primary content.

Contributors

People credited with this work in the active catalog.

  • Jonathan Herring

    Author profile in the active Bookitis catalog

    Open Author
  • Imogen Goold

    Author profile in the active Bookitis catalog

    Open Author
  • Cressida Auckland

    Author profile in the active Bookitis catalog

    Open Author

Editions

Publication-specific versions linked to this work only.