Charlie Gard and the Limits of Best Interests

Decision-making experiences of health professionals in withdrawing treatment for children and young people: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore factors that influence professionals in deciding whether to withdraw treatment from a child and how decision making is managed amongst professionals as an individual and as a team.

STUDY DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of health professionals working at a UK Children's Hospital, with children with life-limiting illnesses whose treatment has been withdrawn. Data were transcribed verbatim, anonymized and analysed using a thematic framework method.

RESULTS

A total of 15 participants were interviewed. Five interrelated themes with associated subthemes were generated to help understand the experiences of health professionals in decision making on withdrawing a child's treatment: (1) understanding the child's best interests, (2) multidisciplinary approach, (3) external factors, (4) psychological well-being and (5) recommendations to support shared decision making.

CONCLUSION

A shared decision-making approach should be adopted to support professionals, children and their families to make decisions collectively.

Children's palliative care education and training: developing an education standard framework and audit

BACKGROUND

The need to align the range of guidance and competencies concerning children's palliative care and develop an education framework have been recommended by a UK All-Party Parliament Group and others. In response to these recommendations the need for a revised children's palliative care competency framework was recognized. A Children's Palliative Care Education and Training Action Group, comprising champions in the field, was formed across UK and Ireland in 2019 to take this work forward. Their aim was to agree core principles of practice in order to standardize children's palliative care education and training.

METHODS

Over four meetings the Action Group reviewed sources of evidence and guidance including palliative care competency documents and UK and Ireland quality and qualification frameworks. Expected levels of developing knowledge and skills were then agreed and identified competencies mapped to each level. The mapping process led to the development of learning outcomes, local indicative programme content and assessment exemplars.

RESULTS

Four sections depicting developing levels of knowledge and skills were identified: Public Health, Universal, Core, Specialist. Each level has four learning outcomes: Communicating effectively, Working with others in and across various settings, Identifying and managing symptoms, Sustaining self-care and supporting the well-being of others. An audit tool template was developed to facilitate quality assurance of programme delivery. The framework and audit tool repository is on the International Children's Palliative Care Network website for ease of international access.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework has received interest at UK, Ireland and International launches. While there are education programmes in children's palliative care this is the first international attempt to coordinate education, to address lay carer education and to include public health.

The theorisation of 'best interests' in bioethical accounts of decision-making

BACKGROUND

Best interests is a ubiquitous principle in medical policy and practice, informing the treatment of both children and adults. Yet theory underlying the concept of best interests is unclear and rarely articulated. This paper examines bioethical literature for theoretical accounts of best interests to gain a better sense of the meanings and underlying philosophy that structure understandings.

METHODS

A scoping review of was undertaken. Following a literature search, 57 sources were selected and analysed using the thematic method.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged. The first placed best interests within the structure of wider theory, noting relationships with consequentialism, deontology, prudential value theory, rights and political philosophy. The second mapped a typology of processes of decision-making, among which best interests was ambiguously positioned. It further indicated factors that informed best interests decision-making, primarily preferences, dignity and quality of life. The final theme considered best interests from a relational perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Characterisation of best interests as strictly paternalist and consequentialist is questionable: while accounts often suggested a consequentialist basis for best interests, arguments appeared philosophically weak. Deontological accounts, found in law and Kantianism, and theories of political liberalism influenced accounts of best interests, with accounts often associating best interests with negative patient preferences (i.e. individual refusals). There was much more emphasis on negative interests than positive interests. Besides preference, factors like dignity and quality of life were held to inform best interests decisions, but generally were weakly defined. To the extent that preferences were unable to inform decision making, decisions were either made by proxy authority or by an intersubjective process of diffuse authority. Differing approaches reflect bifurcations in liberal philosophy between new liberalism and neo-liberalism. Although neither account of authority appears dominant, bias to negative interests suggests that bioethical debate tends to reflect the widespread ascendancy of neo-liberalism. This attitude was underscored by the way relational accounts converged on private familial authority. The visible connections to theory suggest that best interests is underpinned by socio-political trends that may set up frictions with practice. How practice negotiates these frictions remains a key question.

Ethical and legal considerations related to disorders of consciousness

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to describe ethical and legal issues that arise in the management of patients with disorders of consciousness ranging from the minimally conscious state to the coma state, as well as brain death.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent literature highlights dilemmas created by diagnostic and prognostic uncertainties in patients with disorders of consciousness. The discussion also reveals the challenges experienced by the disability community, which includes individuals with severe brain injury who are classified as having a disorder of consciousness. We review current guidelines for management of patients with disorders of consciousness including discussions around diagnosis, prognosis, consideration of neuropalliation, and decisions around life sustaining medical treatment.

SUMMARY

In the setting of uncertainty, this review describes the utility of applying a disability rights perspective and shared decision-making process to approach medical decision-making for patients with disorders of consciousness. We outline approaches to identifying surrogate decision makers, standards for decision-making and decision-making processes, specifically addressing the concept of futility as a less useful framework for making decisions. We also highlight special considerations for research, innovative and controversial care, brain death, organ donation, and child abuse and neglect.

The Charlie Gard Case, and the Ethics of Obstructing International Transfer of Seriously Ill Children

In 2017, the court case over medical treatment of UK infant, Charlie Gard, reached global attention. In this article, I will analyze one of the more distinctive elements of the case. The UK courts concluded that treatment of Charlie Gard was not in his best interests and that it would be permissible to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. However, in addition, the court ruled that Charlie should not be transferred overseas for the treatment that his parents sought, even though specialists in Italy and the US were willing to provide that treatment. Is it ethical to prevent parents from pursuing life-prolonging treatment overseas for their children? If so, when is it ethical to do this? I will outline arguments in defense of obstructing transfer in some situations. I will argue, however, that this is only justified if there is good reason to think that the proposed treatment would cause harm.

Is 'best interests' the right standard in cases like that of Charlie Gard?

Savulescu and colleagues have provided interesting insights into how the UK public view the 'best interests' of children like Charlie Gard. But is best interests the right standard for evaluating these types of cases? In the USA, both clinical decisions and legal judgments tend to follow the 'harm principle', which holds that parental choices for their children should prevail unless their decisions subject the child to avoidable harm. The case of Charlie Gard, and others like it, show how the USA and the UK have strikingly different approaches for making decisions about the treatment of severely disabled children.

Whose harm? Which metaphysic?

Douglas Diekema has argued that it is not the best interest standard, but the harm principle that serves as the moral basis for ethicists, clinicians, and the courts to trigger state intervention to limit parental authority in the clinic. Diekema claims the harm principle is especially effective in justifying state intervention in cases of religiously motivated medical neglect in pediatrics involving Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists. I argue that Diekema has not articulated a harm principle that is capable of justifying state intervention in these cases. Where disagreements over appropriate care are tethered to metaphysical disagreements (as they are for Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists), it is moral-metaphysical standards, rather than merely moral standards, that are needed to provide substantive guidance. I provide a discussion of Diekema's harm principle to the broader end of highlighting an inconsistency between the theory and practice of secular bioethics when overriding religiously based medical decisions. In a secular state, ethicists, clinicians, and the courts are purportedly neutral with respect to moral-metaphysical positions, especially regarding those claims considered to be religious. However, the practice of overriding religiously based parental requests requires doffing the mantle of neutrality. In the search for a meaningful standard by which to override religiously based parental requests in pediatrics, bioethicists cannot avoid some minimal metaphysical commitments. To resolve this inconsistency, bioethicists must either begin permitting religiously based requests, even at the cost of children's lives, or admit that at least some moral-metaphysical disputes can be rationally adjudicated.

Ethical, Cultural, Social, and Individual Considerations Prior to Transition to Limitation or Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapies

As part of the invited supplement on Death and Dying in the PICU, we reviewed ethical, cultural, and social considerations for the bedside healthcare practitioner prior to engaging with children and families in decisions about limiting therapies, withholding, or withdrawing therapies in a PICU. Clarifying beliefs and values is a necessary prerequisite to approaching these conversations. Striving for medical consensus is important. Discussion, reflection, and ethical analysis may determine a range of views that may reasonably be respected if professional disagreements persist. Parental decisional support is recommended and should incorporate their information needs, perceptions of medical uncertainty, child's condition, and their role as a parent. Child's involvement in decision making should be considered, but may not be possible. Culturally attuned care requires early examination of cultural perspectives before misunderstandings or disagreements occur. Societal influences may affect expectations and exploration of such may help frame discussions. Hospital readiness for support of social media campaigns is recommended. Consensus with family on goals of care is ideal as it addresses all parties' moral stance and diminishes the risk for superseding one group's value judgments over another. Engaging additional supportive services early can aid with understanding or resolving disagreement. There is wide variation globally in ethical permissibility, cultural, and societal influences that impact the clinician, child, and parents. Thoughtful consideration to these issues when approaching decisions about limitation or withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies will help to reduce emotional, spiritual, and ethical burdens, minimize misunderstanding for all involved, and maximize high-quality care delivery.

Charlie Gard: in defence of the law

Much of the commentary in the wake of the Charlie Gard litigation was aimed at apparent shortcomings of the law. These include concerns about the perceived inability of the law to consider resourcing issues, the vagueness of the best interests test and the delays and costs of having disputes about potentially life-sustaining medical treatment resolved by the courts. These concerns are perennial ones that arise in response to difficult cases. Despite their persistence, we argue that many of these criticisms are unfounded. The first part of this paper sets out the basic legal framework that operates when parents seek potentially life-sustaining treatment that doctors believe is against a child's best interests, and describes the criticisms of that framework. The second part of the paper suggests an alternative approach that would give decision-making power to parents, and remove doctors' ability to unilaterally withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment that they regard is futile. This proposal is grounded in several values that we argue should guide these regulatory choices. We also contend that the best interests test is justifiable and since the courts show no sign of departing from it, the focus should be on how to better elucidate the underlying values driving decisions. We discuss the advantages of our proposed approach and how it would address some of the criticisms aimed at the law. Finally, we defend the current role that the judiciary plays, as an independent state-sanctioned process with a precedent-setting function.