Medical decision-making on behalf of young children: Is it time to move to a significant harm threshold? [ONLINE]

This talk will be led by Dr Cressida Auckland

In recent years, a series of high-profile disputes between the parents of very ill children and their child's medical practitioners have made their way through the courts. In such cases – which include among them that of Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans, Tafida Raqeeb and  Alta Fixsler -- all parties believe that the course of action they favour is what is best for the child, yet those parties cannot reach agreement. The question thus arises, of who should have the ultimate say over a child's medical treatment?

The courts have made it clear that they have the authority to make medical decisions on behalf of children and affirmed the orthodox position that the threshold for judicial intervention is the welfare of the child, often referred to as the “best interests” approach. In this talk, I will evaluate that position, exploring whether the current threshold for judicial intervention is too low. This question – which is the subject of a current Bill before Parliament -- raises deeper questions about the relationship between the state and its citizens, and the legitimate boundaries for state interference in family and private life.
It will be argued that many decisions in which such disputes arise are not solely medical decisions, but value decisions. Where the decision about a child rests on these value-judgements, and where there is space for reasonable disagreement, there are good reasons to think that parents, due to their particular relationship to the child, should have the final say over a child's care, unless there is a sufficient reason for them to be overridden. After all, taking respect for difference seriously means being committed to promoting a plurality of values, even (perhaps especially) where you find them disagreeable. Given this, it will be suggested that the authority of parents to take medical decisions should yield only where the parents’ decision carries a “serious risk of significant harm” to the child, at which point the court then has the authority to intervene.

Dr Cressida Auckland is an Assistant Professor in Medical Law at the London School of Economics, and an Academic Fellow of Middle Temple. Her research focuses in particular on issues relating to capacity, consent and end-of-life decision-making. 

This event is for members only.

Click here to see details of the QS Requirements and how to be credited with the QS for this session

Learning Outcomes:

After this session, students should be able to:

• Understand what the legal position is in respect of medical decision-making for young children, including an overview of the recent case law on this issue. 
• Identify and evaluate some core arguments for and against raising the threshold for judicial intervention in parental decisions.
• Recognise some of the wider constitutional questions that this issue raises.
• Appraise whether the current law is in need of reform, or not. 

Links to the Professional Statement, wider workings of the Bar, administration of justice or a public interest matter

The QS will align with these elements of the professional statement:

• 1.2 / 1.3

Click here to view the BSB's Professional Statement

QS Feedback

If you have any feedback on a QS you have attended or have any suggestions for future sessions, please contact the education department on education@middletemple.org.uk

If you have questions about accessibility at the Inn or if you would like to request support, please email Laura Hacon.

The Inn is committed to improving access to all its services and encourages members to get in touch with suggestions and feedback on how we can improve. If you feel your experience using the website or attending one of our events could be improved, please email Laura. Your suggestions will be treated in the strictest confidence.