Charlie Gard and the weight of parental rights to seek experimental treatment

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.

Combining the best interest standard with shared decision-making in paediatrics-introducing the shared optimum approach based on a qualitative study

Paediatric decision-making is the art of respecting the interests of child and family with due regard for evidence, values and beliefs, reconciled using two important but potentially conflicting concepts: best interest standard (BIS) and shared decision-making (SD-M). We combine qualitative research, our own data and the normative framework of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children (UNCRC) to revisit current theoretical debate on the interrelationship of BIS and SD-M. Three cohorts of child, parent and health care professional interviewees (N_total = 47) from Switzerland and the United States considered SD-M an essential part of the BIS. Their responses combined with the UNCRC text to generate a coherent framework which we term the shared optimum approach (SOA) combining BIS and SD-M. The SOA separates different tasks (limiting harm, showing respect, defining choices and implementing plans) into distinct dimensions and steps, based on the principles of participation, provision and protection. The results of our empirical study call into question reductive approaches to the BIS, as well as other stand-alone decision-making concepts such as the harm principle or zone of parental discretion.Conclusion: Our empirical study shows that the BIS includes a well-founded harm threshold combined with contextual information based on SD-M. We propose reconciling BIS and SD-M within the SOA as we believe this will improve paediatric decision-making. What is Known: • Parents have wide discretion in deciding for their child in everyday life, while far-reaching treatment decisions should align with the child's best interest. • Shared decision-making harbours potential conflict between parental authority and a child's best interest. What is New: • The best interest standard should not be used narrowly as a way of saying "Yes" or "No" to a specific action, but rather in a coherent framework and process which we term the shared optimum approach. • By supporting this child-centred and family-oriented process, shared decision-making becomes crucial in implementing the best interest standard.

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.

Reasonable Parental and Medical Obligations in Pediatric Extraordinary Therapy

The English cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans involved a conflict between the desires of their parents to preserve their children's lives and judgments of their medical teams in pursuit of clinically appropriate therapy. The treatment the children required was clearly extraordinary, including a wide array of advanced life-sustaining technological support. The cases exemplify a clash of worldviews rooted in different philosophies of life and medical care. The article highlights the differing perspectives on parental authority in medical care in England, Canada, and the United States. Furthermore, it proposes a solution that accommodates for both reasonable parental desires and professional medical opinion. This is achieved by looking at concepts of extraordinary therapy, best interest, reasonable parenthood and medical objections. Summary: In cases where a child's treatment involves extraordinary therapy, there is often a conflict of opinion between the medical team and the parents with regard to the best course of action. The assumption should be that responsible, caring parents make reasonable and acceptable decisions for the good of their children. Rather than focusing on making a hypothetical best interest judgment, courts should in the first instance side with the parents. Only when parents act unreasonably or malevolently should their wishes be overridden. This should not affect the medics' right to conscientiously object towards carrying out procedures that they deem to be medically unnecessary or harmful.