Автор: Imogen Goold, Jonathan Herring, Cressida Auckland Название: Parental Rights, Best Interests and Significant Harms: Medical Decision-Making on Behalf of Children Post-Great Ormond Street Hospital v Gard ISBN: 1509924892 ISBN-13(EAN): 9781509924899 Издательство: Bloomsbury Academic Рейтинг: Цена: 84480.00 T Наличие на складе: Есть у поставщика Поставка под заказ. Описание: 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.
Автор: Cressida Auckland, Imogen Goold, Jonathan Herring Название: Parental Rights, Best Interests and Significant Harms: Medical Decision-Making on Behalf of Children Post-Great Ormond Street Hospital v Gard ISBN: 1509952187 ISBN-13(EAN): 9781509952182 Издательство: Bloomsbury Academic Рейтинг: Цена: 35890.00 T Наличие на складе: Есть у поставщика Поставка под заказ. Описание: This timely collection brings together philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should make decisions 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 would be more appropriate to adopt the ‘risk of significant harm’ approach proposed in Gard. It explores the roles of parents, doctors and the courts in making decisions on behalf of children, actively drawing on perspectives from the clinic as well as academia and practice. In doing so, it teases out the potential risks of inappropriate state intrusion in parental decision-making, and considers how we might address them.
